Speeding Camera Question

cubix

Was done for doing 41mph in a 40mph zone :eek: (happened before kph coversion) by one of the mobile vans,chap must of been having a slow day.Anyways just wondering if by law they must be able to provide a pic of the driver and not just the number plate?.The reason being that the fine I got out in the post for two points/€80 only had the small pic of the number plate. So when the other half wrote enquiring for the bigger pic and on what strech of the road it was taken(as there is three different speed limits) and after a lot of passing the buck(from the Co.Council/Superintendent/fines office) we finally got a letter today

Dear Sir
Please not that due to technical problems,this matter has been marked statute barred and will not be proceed with any futher

rolion

If is a Company car /van,the Company management must keep records of the Company fleet usage by car and driver,date and time !

Seth Brundle

41 in a 40?? FFS, nobody can ensure that level of accuracy unless they drive at 75% of the speed limit!

nxbyveromdwjpg

cubix wrote:

Was done for doing 41mph in a 40mph zone

thats crazy... don't they account for the speed guns margin of error at all?!

Bogger77

nm wrote:

thats crazy... don't they account for the speed guns margin of error at all?!

they do, that's why it was dropped, read end of cubix's message. It prob just slipped into system by mistake.

Turner

It must have happened six months ago or close to 6 months ago by which i mean by the time they come to prosecute you the offence would have happened more than six months ago...

Or else they think that 1 mph over the limit is as stupid as you do and hopefully gave out to the person who initially fined you.

Peace

Hoefully flogged him infront of all the other swine who do that sort of thing... 1mph... what the hell was he thinking. Its obvious that the driver was making an effort to stay within the limits.

lomb

i would say 99.9% of all motorists go over the limit, even if only by 5 mph in all journeys at leat once. the crazy thing is if u are caught, 6 times for this, u are off the road, wtf!
that means not one of us is safe to drive on the roads, our legal system at its finest, the whole points/fines/anti-speed brigade are full of sh!t.

declanoneill

lomb wrote:

i would say 99.9% of all motorists go over the limit, even if only by 5 mph in all journeys at leat once. the crazy thing is if u are caught, 6 times for this, u are off the road, wtf!
that means not one of us is safe to drive on the roads, our legal system at its finest, the whole points/fines/anti-speed brigade are full of sh!t.

Just how unluckily would you have to be to be caught, 6 times, doing that couple of mph over the limit, what are the odds?
Being stung for one mile over the limit is just silly, but it is just as silly to think that initiatives to prevent doing ridiculous speeds are bad. I don't fully agree with the way it's run, but really that's always the way. Don't do your extra 5 mph, get to your destination 20 seconds later, keep your money in your pocket

lomb

declanoneill wrote:

Just how unluckily would you have to be to be caught, 6 times, doing that couple of mph over the limit, what are the odds?

when everyone does it, is it against whos law, the law of god or the law of man?
one only has to be caught once to make it grossly unfair. also u are not thinking laterally. one day there will be so much technology that car speeds may be monitored 100% of the time. big brother if u will.

gross speeders should be caught by unmarked garda cars on their rounds, and have the book thrown against them. everyone else should be left alone.

on many roads it is unsafe to travel at the speed limit or under, once u are obstructing ordinary traffic flow u become a danger to everyone. i asked the guy after i passed my driving test the story with speed limits. he said on a fast moving 30 road, he would fail someone if they did 29mph, as they were a danger to everyone. he said it was better to go at 35ish, and keep up with everyone.

Seth Brundle

Bogger77 wrote:

they do, that's why it was dropped, read end of cubix's message. It prob just slipped into system by mistake.

It wasn't dropped because of difficulties with the excess speed. It was dropped because it was statute barred (i.e. over legally allowed time limit)

lomb wrote:

I would say 99.9% of all motorists go over the limit, even if only by 5 mph in all journeys at leat once.

that 0.1% would be BrianD then!

declanoneill

lomb wrote:

on many roads it is unsafe to travel at the speed limit or under, once u are obstructing ordinary traffic flow u become a danger to everyone. i asked the guy after i passed my driving test the story with speed limits. he said on a fast moving 30 road, he would fail someone if they did 29mph, as they were a danger to everyone. he said it was better to go at 35ish, and keep up with everyone.

*roflol* If I got failed for doing 30 rather then 35 in a 30 zone I wouldn't be long about reporting that. Just because "everybody else" does something is no excuse for breaking the law. I'm not saying I don't occasionaly go over the limit, but if you get caught, except it. Complain about the limits on roads, don't complain about getting caught

MercMad

I think you'll find that as Cubix originally stated there are three different speed limits on a short stretch that they cant actually find out which stretch they are talking about, or couldn't be bothered !

I'll try that if I get done again !

Thing is you dont get 6 months to wait, you only get 28 fdays to pay or submit details if another person was driving. Past that date and the fine goes up etc etc...

My wife was driving my car and we got one of those reg plate only pictures. We knew she was driving .........I filled in the form and told her she'd have to accept the points in her name. For some reason she thought she'd get another form sent in the post in her name so she never posted the original ! !

Bingo !

Yours truely gets a larger fine AND 2 points !!

She got the slaps that night !!

All that and I wasn't even driving the car ! Surely that cant be right ??

declanoneill

MercMad wrote:

I think you'll find that as Cubix originally stated there are three different speed limits on a short stretch that they cant actually find out which stretch they are talking about, or couldn't be bothered !

I'll try that if I get done again !

Thing is you dont get 6 months to wait, you only get 28 fdays to pay or submit details if another person was driving. Past that date and the fine goes up etc etc...

My wife was driving my car and we got one of those reg plate only pictures. We knew she was driving .........I filled in the form and told her she'd have to accept the points in her name. For some reason she thought she'd get another form sent in the post in her name so she never posted the original ! !

Bingo !

Yours truely gets a larger fine AND 2 points !!

She got the slaps that night !!

All that and I wasn't even driving the car ! Surely that cant be right ??

Not too sure if this one is directed at me

I said don't complaint about getting caught, nothing about bugs in the system. I'd imagine you could sort it out there was just some mix up. Don't think you should have given her the slaps though, just told her she wasn't entitled to say "no" again until the points expired

lomb

MercMad wrote:

I think you'll find that as Cubix originally stated there are three different speed limits on a short stretch that they cant actually find out which stretch they are talking about, or couldn't be bothered !

I'll try that if I get done again !

Thing is you dont get 6 months to wait, you only get 28 fdays to pay or submit details if another person was driving. Past that date and the fine goes up etc etc...

My wife was driving my car and we got one of those reg plate only pictures. We knew she was driving .........I filled in the form and told her she'd have to accept the points in her name. For some reason she thought she'd get another form sent in the post in her name so she never posted the original ! !

Bingo !

Yours truely gets a larger fine AND 2 points !!

She got the slaps that night !!

All that and I wasn't even driving the car ! Surely that cant be right ??

i would have told the judge i wasnt driving, and got no notice of fixed penalty (technically a garda should hand deliver it to u). he would have asked who was driving, you would then have said your wife. the case would have been discharged against you. they could then choose to persue your wife but because the staute time would have run out she would have got away scott free.
ps only try this if the picture they have of the driver is non existant or blurred(request in advance), otherwise u wil be done for perverting the course of justice and could be locked up for 2 years etc.

lomb

declanoneill wrote:

*roflol* If I got failed for doing 30 rather then 35 in a 30 zone I wouldn't be long about reporting that. Just because "everybody else" does something is no excuse for breaking the law. I'm not saying I don't occasionaly go over the limit, but if you get caught, except it. Complain about the limits on roads, don't complain about getting caught

they will never raise the limits to realistic levels NEVER. so they need to remove the enforcement of unenforcable limits and persue the real speeders (who stick out a mile incidentally)

all this talk of yeah but u have to catch the ordinary punter is bullsh!T and seeks to throw the book against being normal. there are many examples in history where it starts out doing one thing and it escalates (as clint eastwood said in dirty harry, "where does it end, u shoot ur neighbour because his dog p!ssed on ur lawn" another very extreme example is hitlers 'final solution' where he started by locking up 'abnormal people' then he killed them, no one missed them, so he moved onto the jews and killed over a million of them b4 he was stopped.

these things need to be nipped in the bud, the limits are too low, but wont be raised, so ridiculous enforcement has to stop NOW.

declanoneill

lomb wrote:

they will never raise the limits to realistic levels NEVER. so they need to remove the enforcement of unenforcable limits and persue the real speeders (who stick out a mile incidentally)

all this talk of yeah but u have to catch the ordinary punter is bullsh!T and seeks to throw the book against being normal. there are many examples in history where it starts out doing one thing and it escalates (as clint eastwood said in dirty harry, "where does it end, u shoot ur neighbour because his dog p!ssed on ur lawn" another very extreme example is hitlers 'final solution' where he started by locking up 'abnormal people' then he killed them, no one missed them, so he moved onto the jews and killed over a million of them b4 he was stopped.

these things need to be nipped in the bud, the limits are too low, but wont be raised, so ridiculous enforcement has to stop NOW.

Good god, you're comparing policing of speed limits to Hitlers final solution? You don't like the speed limits, take it up with your local TD, and only vote for someone who agrees with about the limits. I think having a person monitoring speed limits would be much better (they'd use common sence), but this just isn't logistically possible, so automated cameras are used instead. Everyone is well aware of the limits on roads. Everyone is well aware the penalties if the speed is broken, speed at your own peril.

You can lust after anarchism all you want, it's not going to happen

lomb

declanoneill wrote:

You can lust after anarchism all you want, it's not going to happen

Anarchy my friend is what the human race is underneth its tissue paper thin fancy 'veil' of civilisation. they say to control a man, make laws up so that everything he does is against the law and then u will control him. but one day he will fight back and there will be a revolution.

indeed i am not comparing traffic enforcement to the final solution it is merely an example of what can happen.

soon traffic will be rigidly controlled at these ridiculously low limits as technology allows the law to do that, unless something gives. according to the law only .1% of people should be on the road, as all the others are reckless speeders :rolleyes: including the enforcers, the judges and politicians.

MercMad

Well no I wasn't really directing my reply at anyone, merely pointing out that the timescale in these type of instances is very small ,i.e You get done, 3 weeks later you get the ticket, you now have 28 days to pay or decide to contest it.

I didn't contest it simply because you need a solicitor to do that, they will not entertain it otherwise, that would negate any saving and in fact cost a lot more, plus the 2 points doesn't change my insurance at all.

I find it all a bit sick really. These penalties and points were introduced to free up the legal system, yet if you are totally innocent ( not even IN the car) you have to
A. get time off work
B. employ a solicitor
C. travel to god knows where
D. take it in the a55 if the judge has an off day !!

I feel you should be able to contest or appeal without all that sh1t !

lomb

MercMad wrote:

D. take it in the a55 if the judge has an off day !!

I feel you should be able to contest or appeal without all that sh1t !

the reality is the judges always have off days, my father went into court and told him he had to speed up to move into the right lane of a dual carraigeway to turn right a short distance ahead (which u really do have to as the n7 is a very busy road. anyway judge wouldnt have any of it. the only thing they will listen to is A u tell them u were not driving
B there is some kind of technicality in which case it will be thrown out that morning b4 u see the judge (eg garda not present etc or some legal challange under way)
C u tell him u never got any speeding fine in the post (in this case he may ask u did u contact the garda when u got the court letter) if u say yes u wrote a letter to them and they never replyed then he most probably will ask u to pay 80euro and 2 points.

if u choose A he will ask u who was driving and tell u if u are found to be lieing u will b charged with perverting the course of justice. there are no other options unfortunately

MercMad

Yes I know this but my point is this, through no fault of my own (it was my wifes and i'm not responsible for her actions) we missed the initial date for paying the fine and submitting her details. I dont believe it is fair that due to there being such a short time to organise the whole affair, and through her incompetance I have to accept points for poor driving.....when I wasn't even there !!

Fair enough Fine me for being stupid enough to leave it to her to post, and Fine her for doing the crime, but why give me points which indicate to my insurer that I am a bad risk, despite the fact I was sitting at my desk working when all this took place !

I know its just "the system" but its blatently incorrect !

declanoneill

lomb wrote:

indeed i am not comparing traffic enforcement to the final solution it is merely an example of what can happen.

Right, so you believe that something like the final solution could happen, in Ireland, because traffic enforcement?

lomb wrote:

soon traffic will be rigidly controlled at these ridiculously low limits as technology allows the law to do that, unless something gives. according to the law only .1% of people should be on the road, as all the others are reckless speeders :rolleyes: including the enforcers, the judges and politicians.

Firstly, what exactly to you find to be ridiculously low in, for example, 50kph in a residential area? I don't think 120kph is low on a motorway either. Sure there are some roads were there is arguement for higher speed limits but don't pretend all roads are too low

No one, no one, claims that someone doing a few mph over the limit is reckless speeding, but a limit has to be chosen, if you break that limit you've no one to blame but yourself, whether it's by 1kph or warp factor 6

Looks like we'll most deffinitly have to agree to disagree

lomb

MercMad wrote:

Yes I know this but my point is this, through no fault of my own (it was my wifes and i'm not responsible for her actions) we missed the initial date for paying the fine and submitting her details. I dont believe it is fair that due to there being such a short time to organise the whole affair, and through her incompetance I have to accept points for poor driving.....when I wasn't even there !!

Fair enough Fine me for being stupid enough to leave it to her to post, and Fine her for doing the crime, but why give me points which indicate to my insurer that I am a bad risk, despite the fact I was sitting at my desk working when all this took place !

I know its just "the system" but its blatently incorrect !

ah i c, u should have chosen to attend court then, and lied saying u received no speeding fine (dodgy an post again!), and said ur wife was driving , and to back it up u wrote to the garda after the court letter was received saying u werent driving anyway and u received no fine letter, copied this and had the recipt for registering the letter to them.

the judge would have 100% discharged u (after warning if u are lieing about not driving the car u will be locked up (usual bullsh!t). he would then have advised the dpp to persue your wife, but the time limation would b up by then so she would be guilty but scott free (like all woman)

lomb

MercMad wrote:

I didn't contest it simply because you need a solicitor to do that, they will not entertain it otherwise

to correct this point, indeed the only person that will entertain u is the judge. if u tell him u are not driving in court, he will ask to see the picture. if the picture does not show ur face, or is not u, then he will ask who was driving and discharge it.

the reason i know this is because my dad went to court waiting for his 'trial' criminal that he is and this other woman told the judge she wasnt driving it, he asked to see the picture, picture was a blob(woman must have seen it b4) then the woman told judge it was her friend in london driving it. gave a name in hushed voice. judge spent 5minutes lecturing her that the london woman would be contacted and if she was found not to be in dublin etc then this woman would be persued and prosecuted for perverting course of justice with a 5year max jail term. the woman then changed her mind and agreed to pay the 160 euro and 4 points...........
the judge really would have discharged the woman if she insisted the london woman was driving but she was lieing and got shocked when he mentioned 5 years behind bars and gave in.
however if u are not lieing then u have nothing to lose dont let the judge bully u!

mackerski

declanoneill wrote:

I don't think 120kph is low on a motorway either.

I do. It's a mere 8km/h higher than the limit first applied on UK motorways in the 60s. Cars, tyres and road surfaces have all got a lot better since then. People routinely drive safely at twice our Motorway limit. It's the ones unable to be safe regardless how low the speed that are the real problem.

Dermot

Turner

lomb could you please refer to the law that backs up your claims as some of them are quite wild..


There is a legal requirment that can require the owner of a car to provide details of who was driving their car at any point in time..

Section 107(4) Road Traffic Act 1961.

4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that there has been an offence under this Act involving the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle—

( a ) the owner of the vehicle shall, if required by the member state whether he was or was not actually using the vehicle at the material time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence,
( b ) if the owner of the vehicle states that he was not actually using it at the material time, he shall give such information as he may be required by the member to give as to the identity of the person who was actually using it at that time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who that person was,
( c ) any person other than the owner of the vehicle shall, if required by the member, give any information which it is in his power to give and which may lead to the identification of the person who was actually using the vehicle at the material time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

lomb

when you say my claims are wild, which ones are u refering too? lol

you are correct that if the garda ask ylu u tell them who is driving. i am not saying not to tell them. what i am saying is to claim An Post screwed up and never delivered you the initial ticket, hence you ignore that. 28 days passes, and you duly receive a court appointment after say 3 months from the initial offence (id say the chance of this is 30%). then you write to the garda, copying the letter and registering it that u were not driving the car and who was driving it. u do not enclose payment or do anything at this point other than tell them u were not driving it.

chances are the garda wont bother replying to the letter or alternatively will say some crap about needing a solicitor. this is all mumbo jumbo, ignore it and then attend court on the day.

then tell the judge u were not driving it, (which u genuinly were not), he will ask to see the picture, and will either showing u not driving it or a blob. to confirm ur argument you show him the registered letter you sent the garda

he will then throw the case out, taking the real criminals name lol

by the way posting a initial speeding fine is no proff that u have received it. to be valid in a court a garda or solicitor must have hand delivered it, which of course they wont have done. therefore at no time have you mislead the garda.

edit/ i understand you are asking re being physically stopped and a garda taking your name, in this case of course u must be honest. i was referring to a postal speeding notice.