Speeding.......

[MoonRocker]

Another question has thown up a curiosity, well for me anyway. Where does one speeding offence end and the next one begin? If I do 90mph constantly down the M4 for 30 mins for example is that one offence? Does the proximity of detection methods signify different offences, for example if doing the above I go past 3 speed cameras is that now 3 offences merely because it was detected 3 times? See what I mean? Anyone actually know this? It must be defined somewhere. thanks

[factor-fiction]

Yes, I think it would be seen as three offences as there were three separate cameras several miles apart in your example. However I can see an argument against it if the cameras were only 20 metres apart for example, so I don't know where the line is drawn

[Old_Geezer]

It is as many offences as the authorities think they can get away with charging you with. I suspect cameras are placed far enough apart for make them financially viable, but no closer.

[mccfluff]

I don;t know, i would guess as factor and OG have said they are spaced far enought apart to count as seprate offences.

I've had someone get three in one day but on different roads

[jake-the-peg]

I agree I've had a hobby horse abouth this with regard to speed cameras for some years.

I can see why you'd not want to totally invalidate any speeding camera offenses after the first because if you did once you'd realised you'd been flashed you'd have "carte-blanche" to continue speeding.

I do however think the totting up rules should be ammended.

The purpose of giving people points is to give them a chance to ammend their behaviour and the fact that you can leave home with a clean license and end a jouney of a few hours about to be disqualified without so much as a warning flies in the face of this principle.

IMO multiple offenses should be fineable however I think the clock should be reset on points such that you can't get additional points until the notice for the last offense has been sent out.

I guess in theory any magistrate would be lenient on the 4 consecutive offenses in one trip scenario above, but it would be better not to have to rely on the common sense of magistrates

[MoonRocker]

So let's take the detection method out of this. If I get pulled by a police officer doing 90 on the M4 and I am honest and say that I have been breaking the speed limit for the last 30 minutes, how may tickets would I get? I suspect only one.

[jake-the-peg]

Absolutely

The detection method *is* important though - if you get pulled by a police office and given a ticket and then get pulled by the same officer 10 minutes later still speeding you'd expect to be in pretty deep doo-doo wouldn't you?

[cathfromsaron]

i know someone who was 'done' by two consecutive cameras and had two letters!

[ChuckFickens]

To be fair if anyone didn't spot several bright yellow speed cameras in a row then they'd deserve everything they get. anyone showing that little observation shouldn't be on the road

[MoonRocker]

Yes I would but what I'm trying to get to is that there appears to be no standard definition of the start and end of each offence it seems to depend on the detection rather than the offence itself.

What if you get pulled by an officer for speeding minutes after going through a speed camera? One offence I would suggest but you may get prosecuted for 2.

Anyone know of any test cases where this has been explored?

[MoonRocker]

Yes thanks chuck, do you have the ability to discuss this on an objective basis?

[ChuckFickens]

This has come up a few times in courts anyhow.

If you can prove that you were caught by consecutive cameras in a short space of time then you can argue in court it's one offence and the magistrate may take this into account when sentencing.

It's happened with the gantry cameras on motorways and people have got away with only having one conviction for it.

Although I maintain that if anyone doesn't spot several clearly visible cameras in a row then getting them off the roads is going to be safer for everyone.

[MoonRocker]

yes you are correct, this is merely an examination of the technicalities.

[New Judge]

There is no definitive answer to this question.

There have been cases of drivers being prosecuted for multiple offences within a fairly short distance when they have been detected by cameras, with each “detection” being treated as a separate offence. Then there have been those who successfully argued against such multiple prosecutions suggesting that they committed a single offence over a long distance. The notion that the opportunity for “rehabilitation” should be available between offences is a laudable aim, but is not absolute. For example, shoplifters who set out on a spree and commit theft from a number of premises within an hour or so cannot reasonably expect to argue that they were not given the chance to mend their ways before going on to commit the later offences and so should have the spree treated as a single offence.

The short answer is that drivers who are either not offered or refuse to accept fixed penalties for such multiple offences can expect the Magistrates to hear the full facts of each offence and they will decide accordingly how those offences should be treated. That’s what Magistrates do. As for having to rely on their common sense, that quality was removed from the “necessary qualities” used to recruit magistrates about five years ago as the term was deemed too subjective.

[MoonRocker]

so how would that work in court? would I plead guilty to the first and not guilty to the rest, or is there a preamble where I could suggest they are one offence somehow?

[Old_Geezer]

I see the logic, but would suggest that shoplifting from a number of premises is a clear cut case of separate offences, since one has finished one offence and makes a deliberate decision to go again. Whereas if you are on a single journey any detection of going over the arbitrary limit could easily be considered a single offence. Particularly so if there was no slow down between detections. After all, I'm no expert but I suspect if in the same shop you swipe from 3 different shelves different items, that would be a single offence surely ? Also isn't stealing and speeding different types of offense ? If so that could change the way one looks at it, what one considers the dominant viewpoint.

[New Judge]

Yes, OG, they are different, and three items stolen from one shop in a single visit would certainly be considered as one offence. I was using the analogy to try to illustrate that the concept of “rehabilitation time” between offences is not an absolute requirement that must be always be provided.

I suppose, MR, if you were attempting to evade the multiple charges in the manner you suggest you might have to plead guilty to the first and not guilty to the others, leaving the Bench to decide the matter based on your defence.

As with many things legal nothing definitive is written down about this (though there may be some case law from higher courts for the Magistrates’ guidance). The success or failure of this defence would depend very much on the individual circumstances presented to the court on the day.

[TWR]

I would have though if this went to court & you pleaded that it was one offence, would not the jury state, after realising you had been speeding through Camera 1 you had the opportunity to reduce your speed to the permitted speed of 70 mph?

[paddywak]

A stretch of road near us stretching about 20 miles has recently had the speed limit reduced to 50mph enforced by a series of average speed cameras, if, like MoonRocker, I do 90mph along the length of road would that be one offense over the whole length or several offenses between the different sets of cameras?

[TWR]

In my opinion Paddy, if there was 4 cameras, there would be 4 offences! after passing through the Ist & knowing you had committed an offence you had chance to reduce your speed to the correct speed.