Gatso UK Boss caught driving at 102mph on a 70mph road

Darren · Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject:

Keep us posted. I've no time for the angels who claim never have to sped. Nobody is perfect, it is all too easy to miss a sign or to slip into follow the rest of the traffic mode and have your speed creep up.

Hence my hatred of speed cameras that have no judgement and issue penalties automatically.

That doesn't of course excuse those who claim to have been unaware that they were travelling at 120mph! Regardless of the debate about road speeds, conditions etc, we all know when we're travelling at that sort of speed and we all know the penalties if we're caught.
_________________
Darren Griffin

Matt865 · Regular Visitor Joined: Dec 30, 2006 Posts: 92

BBC is reporting he entered a guilt plea. That's a driving ban. Here's hoping it's a long one.

MaFt · Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 11:58 am Post subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/8035511.stm

£300 fine, 6 months ban and 6 points...

MaFt

scarymonkey

UKHABU · Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 5:16 pm Post subject:

The road was actually the A14.
He Admitted offence that occured just before 13:00 on 4th January official speed was 102.92 mph.

Fined £300 + £46 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

6 points and 6 month ban.

He was also reported as having committed two previous motoring offences, including a past speeding offence, from 2006 and 2007.

he pleaded that a six month ban "would be a significant punishment on me as an individual"
He also said that his children were all in private education and any ban might affect his "long-term aspirations" to keep them in thier current schools. He also estimated that hiring two personal drivers for the duration of a six-month ban would total £30,000.

Well perhaps he might notice that big round dial on his blue Volvo that is his speedometer and then he wouldn't "think" he was "only" doing 90mph (on a 70 mph limit road) next time!

What goes round comes around as they say.
_________________
Silva MultiNavigator
GSAK V4.2.2
MemoryMap OS 2004 & V5 Navigator
Navman Pin(Mitac Mio 168)
Navman SmartST Pro V2 & V3
Mitac Mio 558

DennisN · Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject:

richard345 · Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject:

One interpretation of the law by magistrates for the rich and one for the poor. Doesn't your heart bleed for his poor little kiddiewinkies and their oh so busy and rich daddy.

I guess £30 grand is probably pocket change for him.
_________________
Ric - TomTom 520 DEAD - Passed to the great traffic jam in the sky. Now using Maps & Waze on Samsung Galaxy S4 + CamerAlert of course!

Jellyroll · Lifetime Member Joined: May 17, 2006 Posts: 57

Jellyroll · Lifetime Member Joined: May 17, 2006 Posts: 57

I blew it! Rolling Eyes

At the trial I set out to make a good impression. I wore my Interview suit and everything!

Firstly, I set out to demonstrate why, although I wasn't arguing that the recorded speed of 51mph was "incorrect", it was within the margin of error that can be expected from even a freshly calibrated Gatsometer device when photographing a vehicle travelling at exactly 50mph, and that the three Magistrates should consider that to have been my speed at the time. I was mildly admonished for introducing "technical" evidence (i.e. Section 7.6 of The Speedmeter Handbook (Fourth Edition) Publication Number 15/05), but the Prosecution didn't mind, and I apologised, explaining that my belief was that a trial of this nature had no requirement for disclosure. So, I was allowed to proceed.

I then showed the photographs I'd taken to demonstrate that the offside terminal sign and repeater could have been (and probably were) obscured by other traffic, while the nearside terminal sign at the start of the speed limit was obscured by overhanging branches for most of the approach to it, and they were accepted, along with the letter from London Streets that said "Thanks for bringing that foliage to our attention, we'll deal with it."

Then I provided the distances of the signage - 30 metres between the terminal sign and the solitary repeater on the outside lane, 1055 metres between the repeater and the sign for the camera - and a copy of DfT Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/95, which gives guideline maximum distances between repeaters of 350m/500m in a 40mph limit.

Finally I showed the photographs of the camera, and the "repeaters" 100m beyond it that were 750mm in size - 150mm bigger than the signs indicating the start of the 40mph limit, and 450mm bigger than the recommendation in Leaflet 1/95 - and demonstrated how, if reading the road ahead as one should, the repeaters were visible and readable before the camera sign, so fooling any "reasonable person" into believing that the speed limit in force was anything but 40mph precisely because they were the correct size for terminal signs rather than repeaters.

In response to all this, Prosecution offered the opinion that these did not constitute a defence, they were mitigations. The Magistrates seemed to agree.

I explained that I appreciated that my choices were to plead:

Not Guilty
Guilty
Guilty with Special Reasons
Guilty with Mitigation

I said that, because it was my belief that the misleading, inadequate and hidden signage made the speed limit unenforceable, the Not Guilty plea had seemed the appropriate one, but that as a layperson I was content to be guided by those with more experience. The Magistrates asked if I wished to change my plea to "Guilty with Mitigation", and believing that they were concerned with justice, I said I did.

Big mistake! It seems (and I really should have known this) that without pleading "Special Reasons" (which requires advanced notice), then the moment I changed my plea to guilty it became inevitable that I'd get points. Sad

So, I was congratulated by everyone (apart from the Prosecution, but including the Magistrates, the Clerk and the Recorder) on the way I'd conducted myself and the case, given three points, and fines and costs totting up to £315 (which, under the circumstances, probably really did take into account my mitigating factors). Compared with three points and £60 for just paying up a year ago, this clearly can't be considered a resounding success.

The morals:

If pleading Not Guilty, don't be swayed, and don't be fooled into thinking that anyone has your best interests at heart other than your own legal adviser.
If you are your own legal adviser, the advise you get may not be the best advice.
Moral victories are not as good as real victories.
Acquitting oneself with honour in court isn't as good as being acquitted by the Magistrates.
Always use your navigation device's Speed Camera warnings, and make sure you keep them up to date.

DennisN · Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:41 am Post subject:

Jellyroll · Lifetime Member Joined: May 17, 2006 Posts: 57

Next time? Confused

DennisN · Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:34 pm Post subject:

Jellyroll · Lifetime Member Joined: May 17, 2006 Posts: 57

Now Tax Returns I've had better luck with. Sorry to hear that yours didn't go so well.

Too dismal! Time to cheer up.

Did anyone see the motorbike Tower Bridge jump last night before Fifth Gear? Did anyone notice that his initial speed was clearly stated to be 36mph? Does anyone wonder whether the Average Speed Cameras stayed on during the stunt? A new world record, and five points on his license! Laughing

mikealder · Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:01 am Post subject:

On a serious note if you have all the evidence from the hearing including photographs of the camera location and road signs etc I would send the whole lot to a number of major newspapers -Include the comics (you know which ones I mean) - as well as they might be more interested in publishing an article based on this.

Its not going to pay your fine or get the points removed but it will increase public awareness that not all speed cameras are correctly signed, positioned etc and could save other motorists a fine, on these grounds suggest they publish an article - At least this way you would get to have the last laugh if a few others get their cases thrown out of court due to your experiance - Mike

Jellyroll · Lifetime Member Joined: May 17, 2006 Posts: 57

Wise words, Mike. I'll wait until I get back everything I'm expecting - my driving licence counterpart, at least, if not a formal written verdict - then contact the local press down in that part of London (Ilford Recorder and Ilford & Redbridge Press). Local coverage may escalate into national coverage, and stands a better chance of getting off the ground than trying straight for the red-tops, I suspect.

	PocketGPS
	Web