Intent Of Prosecution ...

Like shooting pregnant women in the gut, sometimes it's ok, sometimes it's naughty. How am I supposed to know whats right and wrong in that situation?

 

There is no danger, but it's against the law. End of discussion.

 

I usually agree with your viewpoints JamDrop but on this occasion it's an oversimplification.

I don't follow any line of reasoning that essentially says that in this day and age it is utterly impossible to exercise reason, judgement and sense. Of course it's possible, just not economically viable and someone would have to look at it rather than an algorithm.

 

Again, I agree - but what is the intent of the law? Is it there to ensure road safety and protect people from the risk of harm ... or to swell coffers with a nice little cottage industry?

Then go back to the question - why do people always try and avoid speeding penalties ...

 

Not sure what you intend to get out of this discussion? There are laws, if people break laws then they are punished. You cannot have a "kind of law" or a "nearly law" or a "yeah but I only just broke the law". They're not open for interpretation or negotiation.

 

Absolutely nothing fella. You asked why people always try and get out and I gave you my view on why. Nothing more was intended than responding to your query.

I'm acutely aware of where it ends up.

I could have decided "No way, I'm going to Court to argue this out" - but we both now how that would have panned out. I would end up convicted and potentially fined a percentage of my income for my most heinous act of recklessness...

I wouldn't agree that laws aren't open for interpretation - I'd be out of a job if that was the case!

"Speeding" isn't though. I do think however that the strict liability and lack of thought nature of speeding is what makes it such a controversial topic.

 

Do you really think that? Or didn't you think before you posted.
I'd say the vast majority of people accept that they have been caught by an inflexible system that in many cases penalises drivers who are driving perfectly safely.

 

I apologise for using the word "always".

You say it's an inflexible system, but laws are meant to be inflexible, they have to be in order to determine right from wrong.

 

They are inflexible because to distinguish between a dangerous and a safe speed for the road conditions would take too many resources. A fixed speed limit is the easiest way out. There are many situations when the speed limit is too high for the conditions.
Most people feel aggrieved to be fined for driving safely, accept the limitations of the system, but would take any opportunity to avoid paying a fine..

 

It's three, trust me

 

Ok.

 

Hardly an 'algorithm' when it's just checking if the car is going faster than a number. It's exactly what it needs to be. The law is 'speeding' not 'speeding dangerously'. I feel for you, what I'm sure was an honest mistake, but still a mistake made by you, i'm afraid.

Out of interest, what was the reason for the section of Motorway being lowered to 50MPH?

 

No idea mate. There were no roadworks, no cones, it wasn't even temporary. Just a motorway with a 50mph section. I don't know the area so I've no idea of the history of the road - but there was no obvious reason for it.

 

Yes it's three years. A friend told me that........

 

My mistake it is 3 years as a quick Google confirmed.

 

Just take it - if you did break the speed limit.

If it's your first offence you'll get the option of a slap on the wrist and attend a speed awareness course anyway.

Oh and don't do it again.