Theoretical question about speeding

rgunning

Was arguing about this one a few days ago. This is purely hypothetical.

It stemmed from one of those stories that someone got done for speeding twice on one trip, it's happened to a few people (not me though, phew!)

If, for the sake of argument, there was two speeding cameras positioned quite close to each other. You are doing 140 km/h on a 120 km/h limit stretch. You get caught by camera one, and then by camera two a few minutes later. You did not slow down between the two cameras. Have you committed two offences or just one?

cashmni1

2
Provided the 2 cameras are not to take your average speed over distance. How close together?

stealthyspeeder

1

(if the speed limit has not changed between the two cameras)

Danbo!

You shoot someone with a very powerful gun, bullet enters and exits their head, and into another bystanders head, killing them both. Have you committed two offences or just one?

stealthyspeeder

noblestee wrote: »

You shoot someone with a very powerful gun, bullet enters and exits their head, and into another bystanders head, killing them both. Have you committed two offences or just one?

2 because 2 people are dead because of your actions.
In relation to the speed offense, the speed limit was broken once but recorded twice, its a bit like saying, you shot somebody, two seperate guards saw you do it (indepentatly of each other) and reported it twice! Have you commited two murders!? no!

Berty

It is possible to drive from Newry to Dublin one a single speed limit so if you were to do 140 the whole way you would pass through many Garda jurisdictions which means they all get a hop off you.

stealthyspeeder

I reckon you could get out of the speeding charges using this line of defence in a court, however I think you would be jumping out of the oven and into the frying pan as you are then admitting to driving consistantly over the speed limit for a sustained period of time which amounts to driving without due care and attention and possibly dangerous driving which are a tad more serious

Berty

In theory yes.

But in theory you could argue that if you get one parking ticket on your car you may as well leave it there for the day but in reality they will keep putting them on your car and most likely tow it.

Mena

No idea how they would treat this here in Ireland, I would assume you'd be done for both. Back home however it would be two offences, no questions asked. Fell fowl of it many a time

Danbo!

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

2 because 2 people are dead because of your actions.
In relation to the speed offense, the speed limit was broken once but recorded twice, its a bit like saying, you shot somebody, two seperate guards saw you do it (indepentatly of each other) and reported it twice! Have you commited two murders!? no!

touché!

rgunning

Yeah, I agree with that myself, but here's the thing, if there is a third speed camera in between, and that clocks you under the speed limit, then it is two offences, right?

So in other words, legally, it would be better for you to speed through all three?

The murder one is a good analogy, but you are speeding in two different areas, technically two different crimes.

To me, the grey area here is how far apart would the cameras have to be.

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

In relation to the speed offense, the speed limit was broken once but recorded twice, its a bit like saying, you shot somebody, two seperate guards saw you do it (indepentatly of each other) and reported it twice! Have you commited two murders!? no!

biko

I would say 2.
You were speeding on this stretch of road and on this stretch of road - two stretches, two fines.

peasant

Unless the two cameras are at the exact same location, it's one offence per picture taken.

How could it possibly be different ...no matter what speed you were doing inbetween.

rgunning

The argument against this would be if you bring the cameras closer and closer together till it would be difficult to slow down between the two of them. I know this is very pedantic, but it is a theoretical question and the law must be pedantic by necessity.

peasant wrote: »

Unless the two cameras are at the exact same location, it's one offence per picture taken.

How could it possibly be different ...no matter what speed you were doing inbetween.

stealthyspeeder

rgunning wrote: »

Yeah, I agree with that myself, but here's the thing, if there is a third speed camera in between, and that clocks you under the speed limit, then it is two offences, right?

So in other words, legally, it would be better for you to speed through all three?

The murder one is a good analogy, but you are speeding in two different areas, technically two different crimes.

To me, the grey area here is how far apart would the cameras have to be.

Yea if you dipped under the speed limit you would be breaking the limit twice! but legally, i'd rather have 4 points for speeding than maybe 5 for dangerous driving!?

As far as the areas go, I think unless the limit changes or the road changes, no matter how far apart the cameras are, the rational holds firm. As if it was down too distance alone, this could be taken to extreme. For example, instead of the speed camera taking one photo, it could take 6 very quickly, all showing a violation of the speed limit at very slightly different locations, just miliseconds apart! 6 fines, 12 points, instant disqualification. ( I dont think it'll come to this but it is a hypothetical question!)

DanGerMus

You may have only passed the speed limit once but you're constantly breaking the law as long as you're over it. Lets say you drive from Limerick to Dublin and never go under the limit if there were 10 cameras to catch you you could be convicted 10 times as long as none of the cameras fields of vision intersected they could definatly be prooved as completely seperate incidents.

TheNog

The only thing that is relevant a conviction for speeding on two occasions is time and location or townland. So a person could technically be prosecuted if caught on a camera and further down the road by a mobile speed trap. Each offence could have the same townland but different times i.e. caught by camera at 5.40pm and caught and stopped by patrol car at 5.45pm

Anyone ever see two speed traps one after the other?? I have seen a couple. Confuses the hell out of the flashers!!!

Fey!

This was tested in a court in Britain a few years ago. A guy was doing a consistent speed on a motorway, where the speed limit was 70mph. He had cruise control set at, for arguments sake, 90mph. He passed through 6 cameras, each time recorded at 90mph. This would be 12 points, and bye bye license.

His solicitor argued that, as the speed was the same on each camera, he did not slow to below the limit and then break the limit again, ergo it was one offence, not 6. (I can't remember if times of passing the cameras and distances between cameras were factored in).

The court ruled in favour of the defendent, and hit him with 2 points instead of 12.

biko

So, in essence if you're speeding you might as well keep it up and not slow down? Crazy

WHITE_P

If the two traps are located in different / adjacent townlands, even on the same road, you would be charged for both incidents.

DanGerMus

Fey! wrote: »

This was tested in a court in Britain a few years ago. A guy was doing a consistent speed on a motorway, where the speed limit was 70mph. He had cruise control set at, for arguments sake, 90mph. He passed through 6 cameras, each time recorded at 90mph. This would be 12 points, and bye bye license.

His solicitor argued that, as the speed was the same on each camera, he did not slow to below the limit and then break the limit again, ergo it was one offence, not 6. (I can't remember if times of passing the cameras and distances between cameras were factored in).

The court ruled in favour of the defendent, and hit him with 2 points instead of 12.

I find that hard to believe unless the proximity of the cameras was accounted for. Do you have a link to the story it would be an interesting read.

Steve

Leaving aside the automated process, if this went to court then it would be up to the judge to decide - someone continuously 'speeding' despite being flashed by speed cameras deserves a greater punishment than someone that got flashed once, said 'aw crap' and then slowed down.
The former could be read as lapse in judgement / concentration, the latter is deliberate.

rgunning

I guess that would answer that if it accurate. A link would be great.

Fey! wrote: »

This was tested in a court in Britain a few years ago. A guy was doing a consistent speed on a motorway, where the speed limit was 70mph. He had cruise control set at, for arguments sake, 90mph. He passed through 6 cameras, each time recorded at 90mph. This would be 12 points, and bye bye license.

His solicitor argued that, as the speed was the same on each camera, he did not slow to below the limit and then break the limit again, ergo it was one offence, not 6. (I can't remember if times of passing the cameras and distances between cameras were factored in).

The court ruled in favour of the defendent, and hit him with 2 points instead of 12.

L-M

I remember a post on boards before where this happened someone, or else someone told me. But anyway, they passed through two fairly close traps, but only got one fine.

The reason behind this was because they weren't given time to correct their actions or whatever.