Unfair Notice Of Intended Prosecution

[Ellipsis]

Asking for a friend, who was driving up the motorway at 1:48 AM in the early hours of Saturday morning, at 70mph. As you might imagine, the motorway was empty and she was in the inside lane.  A Gatso speed camera appeared showing 40 mph across all four lanes, and an electronic picture showing queues ahead.  Seeing far ahead, she saw no queue as yet.  She took off her accelerator and did not slam her brakes, as there were cars behind her, also on the inside lane.  

A flash appeared and she thought "What the ...???" She checked her speedo and it was just over 50mph (because she had taken off the accelerator).  Literally half a mile later, another electronic sign showed end of restriction (the "0" symbol).  She had not seen any cars ahead in that time - there was no queue. 

(As I said, "Seeing far ahead, she saw no queue as yet."  In fact there was nobody ahead at all, because if there had been, my friend would have seen their flash, and braked herself"! As no doubt the drivers behind did, thanks to her misfortune.)

Today she received a "Notice of Intended Prosecution" showing that she was caught doing 52mph in a 40mph zone at 1:48 AM on Saturday.  This seems ridiculous. What should she do?

[New Judge]

"A motorway speed limit showing 40 mph (from 70mph), another speed limit showing 70mph only 0.6 miles later, with nothing happening between the two, at 2AM on Saturday morning,..."

We're back to the same issue: your friend, when she encountered the reduced limit, had no idea what lay ahead. But she drove beyond the posted limit nonetheless. It could have been a herd of cattle that had escaped onto the carriageway. Or anything else. It doesn't really matter because she ignored the limit with no knowledge of why it had been imposed. It was only after she had passed the section that (she believed) the limit was unjustified.

"and no means to appeal or even mitigate;"

I have explained there is a means to appeal. She can decline any out of court disposals the police might make and instead have the matter heard in the Magistrates' Court. If she thinks she has a defence she can plead not guilty; if she thinks she is guilty but there are mitigating circumstances she can make that argument in court.

Speeding allegations are not like parking tickets; they are allegations of criminal offences. The police do not operate an appeals system. They are perfectly entitled to prosecute, through the courts, each and every driver they detect speeding. But they don't. They offer out of court disposals for all but the most serious of transgressions (e.g. over 95mph in a 70 limit; over 65mph in a 40 limit).

Your friend is undoubtedly guilty of speeding. Her "mitigation" seems to be that since she decided (after passing through the section) there was no justification for the reduced limit and it wasn't outside a school at chucking out time, so she should be allowed some slack.

She is allowed some slack: enforcement begins at (Limit+10%+2mph), so at 46mph in a 40 limit.  As well as that she will be offered a disposal that will considerably undercut the likely sentence handed down by a court. Quite how that provides evidence of a "police state" is a bit difficult to fathom.

[Hymie]

As per your post at 14:58 – the last time I experienced this, the speed restriction continued for at least 12 miles on the motorway with no sign of any obstruction or anything else that would warrant slowing the traffic from 70mph; please explain.

[Hymie]

^^^^

to NJ.

[Ellipsis]

The answer is that it is a police state (in as far as automatic speed cameras are concerned, at least): 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

A police state describes a state whose government institutions exercise an extreme level of control over civil society and liberties. There is typically little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive, and the deployment of internal security and police forces play a heightened role in governance. A police state is a characteristic of authoritarian, totalitarian or illiberal regimes (contrary to a liberal democratic regime). 

[barry1010]

Ellipsis, "A police state describes a state whose government institutions exercise an extreme level of control over civil society and liberties"  So you think motorists should be at liberty to drive however fast they want to?  Is that what you are saying?

[Ellipsis]

No, it's what you think I'm think I'm saying.

[barry1010]

So what do you mean by saying that Britain is a police state in the way that automatic speed cameras work? 

[naomi24]

I honestly can't see what the problem is.  Yes, it's annoying, and I do think motorists are easy targets, but the bottom line is your friend exceeded the speed limit.  She was wrong.  That's it really.

[Ellipsis]

> So what do you mean by saying that Britain is a police state in the way that automatic speed cameras work? 

Exactly as I said at 14:57: A motorway speed limit showing 40 mph (from 70mph), another speed limit showing 70mph only 0.6 miles later, with nothing happening between the two, at 2AM on Saturday morning, and no means to appeal or even mitigate; i.e. treated as if it was 3:30PM on a busy weekday on a regular 40mph dual carriageway in a city with pelican crossings near a school.

I agree with TTT: an actual plod would never nick you in this situation.  But the robot plod did, and there is the rub: it exercises an extreme level of control.  I am sure that, no matter how "legal" and "correct" that speed limit was, it was not required or necessary - it was, at best, neglected by the control centre or, at worst, a pure money-grabbing revenue. generating exercise.

[perseverer]

Were there any dead horses about because this thread does rather seem to be flogging one?

[bhg481]

// those monitoring the smart motorway are unable to determine whether there is an obstruction or not //

But there are Highway Agency cars driving on them who can report in and other motorists might report an obstruction (we did once when we saw a rear bumper in lane 3).

[barry1010]

If you can't see why the traffic was slowed down then things have worked as they should; the spilt diesel has been cleared, the workmen have got safely off the motorway, the escaped horse has been rounded up.

 

[Ellipsis]

Yes, that would be (as I said) at best, neglected by the control centre ...

[New Judge]

"...the last time I experienced this, the speed restriction continued for at least 12 miles on the motorway with no sign of any obstruction or anything else that would warrant slowing the traffic from 70mph; please explain."

Of course I cannot explain it. But the important thing is neither can you. The imposition of a lower limit on a motorway is not the starting point for some sort of debate around its justification. It must be complied with.

"A police state describes a state whose government institutions exercise an extreme level of control over civil society and liberties."

Are you seriously suggesting that imposing a lower speed limit on a stretch of motorway is indicative of exercising an "extreme level of control over civil society and liberties"? You are having a laugh aren’t you?

"I agree with TTT: an actual plod would never nick you in this situation."

I don't agree. A traffic patrol catching you doing 52mph in a 40 limit would be sure to give the driver a tug.

“I am sure that, no matter how "legal" and "correct" that speed limit was, it was not required or necessary.”

There are many, many places across the country where low permanent speed limits seem completely unjustified. There is a stretch of four lane dual carriageway near me, about two miles long. There are no houses, no schools, no shops, nothing. But it is subject to a 30mph limit. I travel down it often in the late evening and it is deserted. As far as I am concerned the limit is neither required or necessary. Do I consider gunning it because it's empty? Of course not. So why is there this controversy over variable speed limit motorways? Is it that somebody is exercising discretion which restricts your behaviour?

“…and no means to appeal or even mitigate;”

I’ve explained twice that a driver has a route to both via the Magistrates’ Court

“ i.e. treated as if it was 3:30PM on a busy weekday on a regular 40mph dual carriageway in a city with pelican crossings near a school.”

Little or nothing mitigates a speeding offence. The factors you mention would aggravate an offence but lack of them does not mitigate one. It’s rather like those who argue “the road was clear and the weather was fine.” That is not mitigation. It would aggravate the offence if the traffic was heavy or the weather bad. To grasp this, take a look at the sentencing guidelines:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/speeding-revised-2017/

Look halfway down under “Factors increasing seriousness” and “Factors reducing seriousness or introducing personal mitigation.” You will discover that your argument concerning the conditions is not supported by the Sentencing Council.

[Ellipsis]

New Judge, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that somebody could brake in time for the gantry, but could not brake in time for a herd of cows on the motorway. And as it turned out, there was no herd of cows, which is the real point - there was nothing there in fact. I will reiterate - the 70 zone went to 40 and back to 70 in 0.62 miles, at 2am, on a clear motorway. No cars, no cows, no oil, no workmen, no queues (the sign, remember), nothing.

[jackthehat]

Ellipsis - Would your friend still be arguing the toss had she been snapped at the same spot but a 'proper reason' for the speed reduction had presented itself a little further down the road?

[douglas9401]

I'm trying to imagine what it must be like to earn a living by talking. Politicians, lawyers, news reporters etc etc.

I guess they're paid by the word and how long they can keep a subject alive despite all monitors confirming demise.

[Ellipsis]

It would be more understanding, jack, but it would be impossible in this case, and that's the point. As New Judge said, it's possible to brake very quickly at 70mph. If you have enough visibility to brake for a gantry then you have enough visibility to brake for a queue. On a clear, lit motorway, you can see there are  queues in plenty of time and brake accordingly, especially having decelerated to 52mph already.

That's gantry did not have to set a speed limit; given that it did, it did not have to have a speed camera on it; given that it did, a notice of intended prosecution did not have to be sent in the circumstances; given that it did, my conclusion is what I've said above: a police state, a money-grabbing exercise.

[New Judge]

“New Judge, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that somebody could brake in time for the gantry, but could not brake in time for a herd of cows on the motorway.”

You can see an illuminated gantry sign in the dark up to a quarter of a mile away. You’d be lucky to see a cow in the dark at fifty yards. And gantry signs don’t move. But that isn’t the point.

“And as it turned out, there was no herd of cows, which is the real point –“

And neither is that. As I keep saying (and as jackthehat has recognised) your friend seems peeved because there was (seemingly) no hazard. In fact (and this is the real point) she should be peeved because she did not slow down in time.

“On a clear, lit motorway, you can see there are  queues in plenty of time and brake accordingly, especially having decelerated to 52mph already.”

But your friend would not have decelerated to 52mph had the “40” sign not been illuminated. By that argument, you are suggesting that when the control room sees a queue they should not impose a lower limit, but simply leave drivers to discover the hazard for themselves. To do otherwise is evidence of a “police state”.

I hope your friend opts for the awareness course. I’ve sat in on one as an observer and they are interesting and beneficial to those who are receptive. I’ve enjoyed our exchanges but we’re poles apart and I fear we’re boring some of our other readers.

[THECORBYLOON]

Are there many instances of 40mph limits in the areas near to schools at times when pupils are going to and from them?

How common are pelican crossings on a dual carriageway?