Is it legal to speed.....

[Dick Spanner]

....when you are overtaking a long line of traffic (in the uk)? I probably got snapped by a camera van this morning at 75 - 80mph in a 60 limit BUT I was three quarters of the way past a line of slow moving traffic. I'm sure someone has told me in the past that you can not be booked for speeding if you are in the process of an overtaking manouvre.

[garcon]

Unfortunately, you CAN be booked for speeding while performing an overtake. The "official" stance is that you should not overtake if you would be required to exceed the posted speed limit to complete the maneouvre safely.

However, I believe this contradicts a degree of commonsense, not to mention advanced driving guidelines from a number of sources, which advise maximum safe use of available performance to complete the maneouvre quickly, thus spending the minimum time in the 'danger zone'.

Once upon a time, when speed limits were enforced by trained traffic police, a degree of discretion would be used in this scenario. Unfortunately, speed cameras don't have that discretion, and I suspect the civilian operatives of "Safety Partnership" tali-vans don't either.

[garcon]

By the way, this probably ought to be in the road car forum...

[elephino]

Most definitely illegal. You are never meant to speed but if it can be proven to avoid an accident (and it had better have been a biggie) you would be able to argue out of it in court - and this has been done.

[ensign14]

If there were that particular loophole, drivers could get away with speeding on the wrong side of the road...not sure that's particularly conducive to road safety.

[JohnMiller]

Was in court last week on just such a charge, and represented myself.

Was told that the law is that you cannot speed - hence you and I were guilty and need to plead so.

The magistrates can find you guilty but apply no point sor fine if they think you had reasonable need to speed.

I had a reason that sounds better than yours in that I found myslef in a position where through no fault of my own I had to speed up or crash.

The magistates (****s) said that it wasn't a good enough reason. Three points, a 'means related' fine and costs.

******s.

[Dick Spanner]

Christ, I had been considering taking it to court and arguing against it but by the sounds of it I'd be better off shutting up and putting up.

[imull]

a mate got hit by this.

IAM apparently tells you that it is ok to break the limit to overtake as long as you return to the speed limit when the maneuver is finished...

[garcon]

The IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) used to tell you that, but that advice is no longer officially sanctioned. These days it's "don't break the speed limit for any reason", just to keep the nannies happy.

John Miller's advice seems to make sense - plead guilty but with mitigating circumstances, be apologetic, meek etc. etc.

[Mattracer]

Just don't let on what sort of car you did it in. That would sink you real fast.

[Tim Falce]

If it was a camera and you were on the other side of a line of vehicles then if you get a summons you could argue that the reading may not be accurate as the other cars could be causing a false reading or reflection of the beam. It all depends where you were and where the camera was and if it saw your number plate

[KPC]

Yep, the golden rule is usually to sidle up along side a coach or lorry. Not that helps you!!

[Dick Spanner]

Unfortunately it was a camera van parked in a layby with it's nose initially facing me, I only realised as I drew level with it what it was so I'm guessing they'll have a nice shot of my rear end! I could have jammed my anchors on and dropped to 60 in time but there was a car coming in the other direction, admittedly it was some way off but I'd rather get the fine and points than potentially endanger someone else.

[JohnMiller]

Almost identical to what I got fined for D Spanner, except substitute other car for 40 ton juggernaut coming over hill.

[garcon]

Had a potentially interesting one yesterday.

The standard Gatso camera is only designed to work from behind, so to speak. i.e. if you trigger it, two pictures are taken of your rear, so the lines in the road can be used as a second calculation of your speed.

I was on the A68 in Scotland, overtaking a coach at maybe 75-80mph. A Gatso facing me flashed, even though it's designed to flash cars going the other way.

This also happened to me some time ago - then, I didn't get an NIP presumably because it was filtered out as an incorrect triggering of the camera. It'll be interesting to see whether I get one this time - if I do I shall be contesting.

[pplater]

I think the front-flashing thing is for safety, or am i wrong. Last year in Australia, the police discovered that a number of speed cameras were working incorrectly- hundreds of people had been unnecesarily fined...

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by pplater
hundreds of people had been unnecesarily fined...

And that was before the cameras went haywire...

[Dick Spanner]

I haven't heard anything yet, touching wood and crossing finger's!

[Woolley]

Surely if you're on the wrong side of the road, and therefore approaching the camera instead of heading away from it, your speed is technically -75mph, which I consider to be well under the speed limit. In fact at 135mph below the 60 limit you ought to be congratulated, not fined.

[imull]

speed is a scalor not a vector and therefore direction is irrelevant only magnitude is important...

Dick, If the envelope does not land on your mat withing two weeks of the alleged offense then it is null and void anyway (isnt it?)

[garcon]

I think there's a statutory period for the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) to arrive - not sure if it's two weeks though.
Woolley - love the way you think, man!

[JimW]

Originally posted by falcemob
If it was a camera and you were on the other side of a line of vehicles then if you get a summons you could argue that the reading may not be accurate as the other cars could be causing a false reading or reflection of the beam. It all depends where you were and where the camera was and if it saw your number plate

(For GATSO) The radar measured speed is not relevant when it comes to consideration of the evidence in court. Only the photos and the measurements taken from them (elapsed time and measured distance against the marks on the road) are the legal criteria.

I believe that the notices are issued however on the basis of the radar measured speed.


Regards

Jim

[jase]

Jim, what you're saying is that the NIP is based on something that isn't used in court or can't be used?

[JimW]

Originally posted by jasongore
Jim, what you're saying is that the NIP is based on something that isn't used in court or can't be used?

My understanding is that the GATSO device has been recognised by the Secretary of State on the basis that the road markings/timing are approved and will hence be accepted as "fact" by the courts. The radar is a device triggering mechanism.

Again my understanding is that, perhaps because there is a few MPH gap between the speed limit and the trigger level, the NIP issuing authority (at one stage this had to be a constable, I'm not sure if this still holds good but I suspect it does) does not screen the film except for the number plate.

So I believe the short answer to your question is "Can't".

(Goes away and spends a few minutes with Google. )

The ACPO Traffic site http://www.pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/ACPO_full.htm contains the following:

"A requirement of the type approval (for speed measuring devices) is that unmanned/automatic devices should have a second means* of checking the primary speed measurement. One such means offered by manufacturers at this time is the taking of two photographs of the offending vehicle at a known time apart."

*

So I think my understanding of the effect was correct, but the requirement stems from corroboration requirements, not lack of trust in the accuracy of the radar.

Regards

Jim

[imull]

prety sure (though not 100%) that the peiod for a NIP is 2 weeks.