Adrian wrote:
Palindrome gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Oh come on - are you so perfect that you've never made a mistake about
what speed limit applies in an unfamiliar area?

How would I know? Unless I have reason to go back there again and find
out that I was wrong the first time, the odds are that I would have done
so in blissful ignorance. But, if there is no other traffic, I have to
be really, really sure what the limit is, to go through a speedcam at
over 30.

Oh, gawd... Are you one of those people who brakes from 45 to 25 at the
merest sign of a camera - even though it's a 60 limit?

It's _straightforward_ to know what the applicable limit is. It's basic
information that all drivers SHOULD know at ALL times. If you don't, then
either you really ought to get your short-term memory problems
investigated, or you may wish to drastically improve your observation.

It's happened to me once or twice in more years of driving than I would
care to mention. Once was a road approaching Bristol on which the speed
was going up and down like a yoyo. Late in the evening, so no traffic -
so no one was inconvenienced by me slowing from just under 40 to 30.

As you say, drivers should be aware of the prevailing speed limit. There
are usually dozens of clues, not least local knowledge as expressed by
other drivers.

In this case the road was continuing without any apparent change in
surroundings or street lighting (that could be seen at night), yet with
different stretches at 40 and 30 and even 50.

As it happens, I *thought* it was a 40 zone. But any sensible motorist,
seeing a camera, asks themselves why it was put *there*. No sign of any
road change, pedestrian crossing, etc - the logical reason was that the
speed limit had recently changed.

I would suggest that good driving doesn't just demand good observation
but also good analysis of what is being observed..

--
Sue

Palindrome gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

In this case the road was continuing without any apparent change in
surroundings or street lighting (that could be seen at night), yet with
different stretches at 40 and 30 and even 50.

As it happens, I *thought* it was a 40 zone. But any sensible motorist,
seeing a camera, asks themselves why it was put *there*. No sign of any
road change, pedestrian crossing, etc - the logical reason was that the
speed limit had recently changed.

I'd assume there were plenty of signs, then, otherwise you wouldn't have
known there were lots of changes...?

I would suggest that good driving doesn't just demand good observation
but also good analysis of what is being observed..

Indeed.

Paul Hyett wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 at 19:17:40, Palindrome wrote in
uk.legal :

Gaz wrote:
snip
A crooked description of justice if ever I heard one. This needs to
be stopped. The OP was being asked to admit to an offence he did
not know, or had no way of knowing he had committed.

I do hope that the OP did know that he had been speeding. What he
didn't know was if they had caught him and had enough evidence to
convict. They had and they did.

Even so, he had the right to see the evidence against him before
changing his plea.

I may be wrong, but AIUI, if you were to change your plea part way
through a crown court trial, you wouldn't suffer a punishment over &
above what the original offence demanded, in fact pleading guilty will
get you a lighter sentence - so why is there additional punishment in
the OP's circumstances?

It's called exercise of discretion. The deal is this, admit your guilt,
don't **** us about, and we'll exercise our discretion to allow you a lesser
penalty. Play games and we won't.

Pretty simple and straightforward really.

"Palindrome" wrote in message
. ..
Adrian wrote:
Palindrome gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were
saying:

Oh come on - are you so perfect that you've never made a mistake about
what speed limit applies in an unfamiliar area?

How would I know? Unless I have reason to go back there again and find
out that I was wrong the first time, the odds are that I would have done
so in blissful ignorance. But, if there is no other traffic, I have to
be really, really sure what the limit is, to go through a speedcam at
over 30.

Oh, gawd... Are you one of those people who brakes from 45 to 25 at the
merest sign of a camera - even though it's a 60 limit?

It's _straightforward_ to know what the applicable limit is. It's basic
information that all drivers SHOULD know at ALL times. If you don't, then
either you really ought to get your short-term memory problems
investigated, or you may wish to drastically improve your observation.

It's happened to me once or twice in more years of driving than I would
care to mention. Once was a road approaching Bristol on which the speed
was going up and down like a yoyo. Late in the evening, so no traffic - so
no one was inconvenienced by me slowing from just under 40 to 30.

As you say, drivers should be aware of the prevailing speed limit. There
are usually dozens of clues, not least local knowledge as expressed by
other drivers.

In this case the road was continuing without any apparent change in
surroundings or street lighting (that could be seen at night), yet with
different stretches at 40 and 30 and even 50.

As it happens, I *thought* it was a 40 zone. But any sensible motorist,
seeing a camera, asks themselves why it was put *there*. No sign of any
road change, pedestrian crossing, etc - the logical reason was that the
speed limit had recently changed.

But you're opposing your own arguments. You admit to driving in places where
you slowed to 30 "just to be on the safe side", and how "sensible motorists"
should ask why cameras are placed where they are. Yet you're also claiming
that people aren't fit to drive if they don't know what the speed limit is
at all times. You're admitting that "yo-yoing" speed limits meant that you
weren't quite sure what the limit was.

You say "But, if there is no other traffic, I have to be really, really sure
what the limit is, to go through a speedcam at over 30". Does that mean you
will go through at 40 if there *is* other traffic also doing 40? You're
lecturing people on their lack of awareness and memory, yet you're freely
admitting that you yourself are unaware of what the limits are on some
roads. It's no defence that you slow down or speed up with the other
"locally aware" traffic because you're not sure what the speed is.

Adrian wrote:
Palindrome gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

In this case the road was continuing without any apparent change in
surroundings or street lighting (that could be seen at night), yet with
different stretches at 40 and 30 and even 50.

As it happens, I *thought* it was a 40 zone. But any sensible motorist,
seeing a camera, asks themselves why it was put *there*. No sign of any
road change, pedestrian crossing, etc - the logical reason was that the
speed limit had recently changed.

I'd assume there were plenty of signs, then, otherwise you wouldn't have
known there were lots of changes...?

Anyone can miss a set of signs on a strange road, at night, with no
other traffic around. It could take a km or more to notice that the
roundels aren't there any more.

However, the question is, what do you do when you see a speedcam ahead,
when you are driving on a strange road, at night, with no other traffic
around? Where the speed limit on the road has been going up and down for
no apparent reason?

Me, I'd be passing it at 30.

Your mileage, and points, may differ.

--
Sue

Adrian wrote:
Paul Hyett gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Even so, he had the right to see the evidence against him before
changing his plea.

Indeed. And he exercised that right.

He ought to be thankful it's not one of the many forces who treat a
request for the photo as a refusal of a fixed penalty.

It seems to me that the judicial process begins as soon as the nip is
recieved, and evidentiary disclosure by the Crown should be automatic.

Gaz

Norman Wells wrote:
Paul Hyett wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 at 19:17:40, Palindrome wrote
in uk.legal :

Gaz wrote:
snip
A crooked description of justice if ever I heard one. This needs to
be stopped. The OP was being asked to admit to an offence he did
not know, or had no way of knowing he had committed.

I do hope that the OP did know that he had been speeding. What he
didn't know was if they had caught him and had enough evidence to
convict. They had and they did.

Even so, he had the right to see the evidence against him before
changing his plea.

I may be wrong, but AIUI, if you were to change your plea part way
through a crown court trial, you wouldn't suffer a punishment over &
above what the original offence demanded, in fact pleading guilty
will get you a lighter sentence - so why is there additional
punishment in the OP's circumstances?

It's called exercise of discretion. The deal is this, admit your
guilt, don't **** us about, and we'll exercise our discretion to
allow you a lesser penalty. Play games and we won't.

Pretty simple and straightforward really.

Its called a 'corrupt practise', or it will be when the rules are eventually
changed.

Gaz

Aidy wrote:
Excuse me, he admitted guilt immediately *on being provided with the
evidence
requested* - a perfectly reasonable request.

Let's say you kill someone....is it perfectly reasonable to only
admit the offence when presented with evidence? The law always
"rewards" people who fess up as it avoids the cost and time of
official proceedings. That's life I'm afraid and unlikely to change.

The first thing your solicitor will ask the police, is "what evidence do you
have on my client?"
Are you trying to tell me that at this preliminary stage, the refusal to
admit guilt would be held against the accused?

Gaz

"Palindrome" wrote in message
m...
Adrian wrote:
Palindrome gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were
saying:

In this case the road was continuing without any apparent change in
surroundings or street lighting (that could be seen at night), yet with
different stretches at 40 and 30 and even 50.

As it happens, I *thought* it was a 40 zone. But any sensible motorist,
seeing a camera, asks themselves why it was put *there*. No sign of any
road change, pedestrian crossing, etc - the logical reason was that the
speed limit had recently changed.

I'd assume there were plenty of signs, then, otherwise you wouldn't have
known there were lots of changes...?

Anyone can miss a set of signs on a strange road, at night, with no other
traffic around. It could take a km or more to notice that the roundels
aren't there any more.

However, the question is, what do you do when you see a speedcam ahead,
when you are driving on a strange road, at night, with no other traffic
around? Where the speed limit on the road has been going up and down for
no apparent reason?

Me, I'd be passing it at 30.

Quote: "You knew what speed you were doing at all times and what the
prevailing speed limit was at those times. If not, you have no business
being behind the wheel." Unquote.

Are you trying to tell me that at this preliminary stage, the refusal to
admit guilt would be held against the accused?

Refusal to admit guilt is always held against anyone convicted.

What you obviously don't understand is that a NIP is an *intent* to
prosecute. It's quite a simple process yet you are not alone is
misunderstanding it. You are not being prosecuted, just told that they
intend to prosecute. It is only when you *are* being prosecuted that you
have the right to see evidence against you.