Is it worth while contesting a fixed-penalty notice speeding fine?

Madd Finn · 20-11-2015 02:43PM #1

Got my third fixed penalty notice speeding fine in the post today.

It accuses me, probably accurately, of exceeding the speed limit by doing 60kph in a 50kph area. Or in old money (I drive an old car with speedo in mph) I was doing 37.5mph in a 31.25mph area.

I know that in reality I have broken the law but I'm feeling a little hard done by and I wonder if I'm being seen as a soft touch because I paid the other fines promptly and without fuss.

I don't believe I was driving recklessly. I was keeping to a reasonable speed and frankly to ensure that I never ventured over such a low limit I would either have to drive so slowly as to encourage road rage in other motorists or keep such a close eye on the speedo that it would detract from my general observation of the conditions around me. Neither situation is desirable.

I'm tempted to not pay the FP and take my chances in court where my arguments would be those mentioned above.

Both my other fines were for driving on dual carriageways at about 50mph 80kph in areas where unusually low limits for a dual carriageway pertained.

Anybody any experience in contesting such charges in court?

I won't respond to finger waggers who say "Serves you right. Don't break the law" (Tell me something I don't know)

Nor am I looking for any bastard's sympathy. Just some frank advice, hopefully based on experience, of whether it would be worth the effort.

I CAN afford to pay the €80 FP but I'm just in a "**** it let 'em work for it" mood.

My two other FP fines (none of the penalty points still valid) were for driving at fairly normal speeds for a dual carriageway on parts where the speed limit was unusually low. eg 50mph (back in 2003) on the 30mph limit area of the Long Mile Road, and a similar indiscretion on the outer reaches of the Navan Road.

MarkR · 20-11-2015 02:47PM

Doesn't matter if you believe if you were driving recklessly or not, the fine was for speeding, so I don't see how your argument will work out?

MikeCairo78 · 20-11-2015 02:56PM

You are not being seen as a soft touch - this system is automated. A judge will have no option but to impose a fine and penalty points as you broke the speed limit. If you want to appeal it, you need to write to the super in charge of traffic in whatever area the speeding occurred. I would say you have no chance of having it expunged if your argument is that you were driving at a safe speed. Speed limits are speed limits - from my experience you need to demonstrate that there was a reason for you to exceed the limit, eg emergency etc

GG66 · 20-11-2015 03:12PM

You were exceeding the speed limit by 20%
Harsh or not, that's significantly above any margin of error..

You'll get more points in court unless you have some technicality other than "but judge I was driving safely"

L1011 · 20-11-2015 05:58PM

Your arguments are useless and you'll be lucky to pay less than 250 in court.

magicbastarder · 20-11-2015 09:01PM

as above, you'd need to explain what grounds on which you'd be basing an appeal.

Victor · 20-11-2015 09:36PM

I can't see you getting any where with a judge.

Madd Finn wrote: »

My two other FP fines (none of the penalty points still valid) were for driving at fairly normal speeds for a dual carriageway on parts where the speed limit was unusually low. eg 50mph (back in 2003) on the 30mph limit area of the Long Mile Road, and a similar indiscretion on the outer reaches of the Navan Road.

The speed limits are low on the Long Mile Road because there are traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, private entrances and four schools together with the associated pedestrians, cyclists, young people and turning traffic.

Just because the risk of a head-on collision is reduced doesn't mean that it is safe to travel at a high speed.

Hilly Bill · 20-11-2015 09:55PM

Madd Finn wrote: »

Got my third fixed penalty notice speeding fine in the post today.

It accuses me, probably accurately, of exceeding the speed limit by doing 60kph in a 50kph area. Or in old money (I drive an old car with speedo in mph) I was doing 37.5mph in a 31.25mph area.

I know that in reality I have broken the law but I'm feeling a little hard done by and I wonder if I'm being seen as a soft touch because I paid the other fines promptly and without fuss.

I don't believe I was driving recklessly. I was keeping to a reasonable speed and frankly to ensure that I never ventured over such a low limit I would either have to drive so slowly as to encourage road rage in other motorists or keep such a close eye on the speedo that it would detract from my general observation of the conditions around me. Neither situation is desirable.

I'm tempted to not pay the FP and take my chances in court where my arguments would be those mentioned above.

Both my other fines were for driving on dual carriageways at about 50mph 80kph in areas where unusually low limits for a dual carriageway pertained.

Anybody any experience in contesting such charges in court?

I won't respond to finger waggers who say "Serves you right. Don't break the law" (Tell me something I don't know)

Nor am I looking for any bastard's sympathy. Just some frank advice, hopefully based on experience, of whether it would be worth the effort.

I CAN afford to pay the €80 FP but I'm just in a "**** it let 'em work for it" mood.

My two other FP fines (none of the penalty points still valid) were for driving at fairly normal speeds for a dual carriageway on parts where the speed limit was unusually low. eg 50mph (back in 2003) on the 30mph limit area of the Long Mile Road, and a similar indiscretion on the outer reaches of the Navan Road.

You got done for a breach of a speed limit and you admit to it so no real point in appealing. As bad as some of the limits are and how safe you were driving, the only factor they are interested in is the breach of the limit.

savagethegoat · 21-11-2015 08:19AM

not another one .

delahuntv · 21-11-2015 09:19AM

I feel the pain - i got two in one day! Both 60 in a 50. What was worse was i saw the vans both times but for some reason thought the limit in the 2 areas was 60! Hadn't a ticket in 5 years and then 2 in a day!!

Simply not worth even trying to defend it unless it meant that you had gone over the points limit and were facing a ban and even then it would be difficult.

On top you risk double points, higher fine and cost of day off work.

_Brian · 21-11-2015 09:30AM

I think OP should go to court and spin his sob story for the judge. Surely
He's being victimised here !!

highdef · 22-11-2015 10:54AM

For the road rage bit, if you are driving within the rules of the road, the mood of the other drivers is irrelevant to you. You have absolutely no obligation to break the rules just to please motorists around you and I would would urge anyone not to do such a thing.

If you are unable to keep to 50kmph because
it would detract from your general observation of the conditions around you, then you have some serious issues and perhaps being in control of a road vehicle is not for you. Are you implying that you can be more observant of everything around you on an urban road if driving at higher speed whilst still be able to react accordingly as you speed pass traffic, dodge pedestrians and cyclists and all the other hazards urban driving brings? That's just absurd.

Pinch Flat · 22-11-2015 11:11AM

How about just driving within the limit and avoiding such further notices? Going to court will be a waste of time and money. You've broken a speed limit - there's no defence that's going to stack up.

As regards other motorists, although it is neigh impossible to drive within the speed limit without some tool on your bumper, I've become accustomed to ignoring them. There's no way I'm going to end up with a notice just to try and keep someone behind me happy

Madd Finn · 24-11-2015 03:30PM

Victor wrote: »

The speed limits are low on the Long Mile Road because there are traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, private entrances and four schools together with the associated pedestrians, cyclists, young people and turning traffic.

This was explained to me by the cop who pulled me over when I expressed my surprise at the low limit. I managed to stifle myself saying "But it's ****ing Saturday!!" (which it was)

Madd Finn · 24-11-2015 03:33PM

L1011 wrote: »

Your arguments are useless and you'll be lucky to pay less than 250 in court.

You see this is all I wanted. Good practical concise advice.

Feck it I'll just pay the bloody thing and forget about it.

Until the next time.

:)

deathtocaptcha · 24-11-2015 04:42PM

There is no defense here. It's ridiculous to be asking to be excused from speeding. The judge would laugh at the idea of this and also fine you for wasting the courts time.

Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

That's the reason the limit is 50km/hr and not 60km/hr. Also, it's highly likely your speedometer was reading more than 60km/hr as the speedometer in most cars will overestimate your speed by up to 10% for legal reasons (it will never underestimate your speed).

GM228 · 24-11-2015 05:11PM

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

There is no defense here. It's ridiculous to be asking to be excused from speeding. The judge would laugh at the idea of this and also fine you for wasting the courts time.

Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

That's the reason the limit is 50km/hr and not 60km/hr. Also, it's highly likely your speedometer was reading more than 60km/hr as the speedometer in most cars will overestimate your speed by up to 10% for legal reasons (it will never underestimate your speed).

It's an EU directive that the speedo must read above the actual speed AFAIK.

GM228

donalh087 · 24-11-2015 06:52PM

I'm reminded of the Liveline caller who raged at a breath test very close to a pub because it didn't give him a 'fair chance'.

L1011 · 24-11-2015 07:58PM

donalh087 wrote: »

I'm reminded of the Liveline caller who raged at a breath test very close to a pub because it didn't give him a 'fair chance'.

Which shouldn't even happen as they ask how recently you've drunk alcohol as it can create off readings. Knowing Liveline, it probably didn't happen!

Madd Finn · 24-11-2015 08:10PM

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

Really?

Where did you get those stats?

I went searching for similar and I found these. Granted they're from America and they're only one study in Florida and they're quite old but the findings are very different from what you say.

It says that 12.5% of pedestrians in single vehicle crashes suffered fatal injuries at speeds estimated between 31 and 35mph (or 49.6 to 56kph) and 22.4% at speeds between 36 and 45mph (or 57.6 to 72kph)

So that's closer to one in five than nine in ten, and it's for a range of speeds that includes velocities much higher than 60kph.

Have you got any conflicting stats or did you just make those ones up?

Pinch Flat · 24-11-2015 08:50PM

Madd Finn wrote: »

Really?

Where did you get those stats?

"Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Source RoSPA UK"
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/speed-limits/speed-limits_stopping-distances-cars.html

Pretty clear in the link above

Victor · 24-11-2015 09:51PM

Madd Finn wrote: »

I went searching for similar and I found these. Granted they're from America and they're only one study in Florida and they're quite old but the findings are very different from what you say.

It says that 12.5% of pedestrians in single vehicle crashes suffered fatal injuries at speeds estimated between 31 and 35mph (or 49.6 to 56kph) and 22.4% at speeds between 36 and 45mph (or 57.6 to 72kph).

It may be the difference between travel speeds and impact speeds.

savagethegoat · 24-11-2015 11:12PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

"Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Source RoSPA UK"
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/speed-limits/speed-limits_stopping-distances-cars.html

Pretty clear in the link above

that can 't be right..that's 15 out of ten

L1011 · 24-11-2015 11:58PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

"Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Source RoSPA UK"
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/speed-limits/speed-limits_stopping-distances-cars.html

Pretty clear in the link above

That's a secondary source - not a primary one. The ROTR is inaccurate about actual rules from time to time.

I'd be interested if you could find the actual ROSPA source it references

Pinch Flat · 25-11-2015 12:11AM

L1011 wrote: »

That's a secondary source - not a primary one. The ROTR is inaccurate about actual rules from time to time.

I'd be interested if you could find the actual ROSPA source it references

Quick root around reveals this:

The most recent analysis of the role of vehicle speed in pedestrian fatalities in Great Britain 4, found that 85% of pedestrians killed when struck by cars or car-derived vans, died in collision that occurred at impact speeds below 40mph, 45% at less than 30 mph and 5% at speeds below 20 mph.

Source: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/

L1011 · 25-11-2015 12:22AM

That doesn't mean the same thing at all. Could see the ROTR authors thinking it does though.

Pinch Flat · 25-11-2015 12:33AM

L1011 wrote: »

That doesn't mean the same thing at all. Could see the ROTR authors thinking it does though.

Yeah who knows - maybe the RSA misquoted. Or I couldn't find the exact reference.

I'm reading it as broadly in line - RSA passage quoted above in brackets - 85% killed at 40mph (90% at 60 kph), 45% less than 30 mph (50% killed at 50kph) and 5% at less than 20 mph (10% at 30kph).

But irrespective of what's quoted above, surely the main argument is that higher speeds (even slightly higher) have the potential to inflict injuries exponentially on a pedestrian?

ezra_pound · 25-11-2015 04:10AM

L1011 wrote: »

That doesn't mean the same thing at all. Could see the ROTR authors thinking it does though.

It does mean the same thing. What are you saying?

L1011 · 25-11-2015 12:01PM

ezra_pound wrote: »

It does mean the same thing. What are you saying?

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even mean anything vaguely similar.

One claim is that 90% of people hit at 37mph die

One claim is that 85% of people that die were hit at up to 40mph. This includes every figure from 0 (well, 1) to 40.

Without another figure of the totality of vehicle-pedestrian collisions and the speeds each were at you can't even try figure out a relationship there.

Its very easy to read them quickly and think they mean the same thing, which is why I suspect the authors of the ROTR could have done that as fact checking and verification of the actual laws let alone side statistics is nothing something they've done well.

edit: the substantive difference isn't the 37/40 or 85%/90% by the way. Read and re-read the two claims, its easy enough to figure out the difference.

deathtocaptcha · 25-11-2015 12:27PM

All right you nit pickers... seen as you've all become armchair academics and experts on road fatalities, here's a whitepaper for you to read...

Because I know none of you will read it, I'll highlight the points which obliterate your arguments:

"The UK’s On The Spot (OTS) accident data collection project started in 2000 and continues to investigate 500 crashes per year. Investigations are undertaken minutes after the collision has occurred to gather all the perishable information. At the time of writing over 3,000 crashes involving all road users and all injury severities have been examined"

"It has been observed that a reduction of the speed limit on a road from 60 kph to 50 kph produced a 20 % drop in pedestrian accidents, and a 50 % drop in pedestrian fatalities"

"Further, Ashton and Mackay reported that the boundary car impact speed for the transition from mostly severe to mostly fatal pedestrian casualties was between 50 and 60kph, whereas the OTS dataset shows this change to occur above 60 kph. However, the number of fatal cases in the OTS database above 60kph is very small and this is an important factor to note when presenting the data."

realdanbreen · 25-11-2015 12:32PM

Madd Finn wrote: »

Got my third fixed penalty notice speeding fine in the post today.

It accuses me, probably accurately, of exceeding the speed limit by doing 60kph in a 50kph area. Or in old money (I drive an old car with speedo in mph) I was doing 37.5mph in a 31.25mph area.

I know that in reality I have broken the law but I'm feeling a little hard done by and I wonder if I'm being seen as a soft touch because I paid the other fines promptly and without fuss.

I don't believe I was driving recklessly. I was keeping to a reasonable speed and frankly to ensure that I never ventured over such a low limit I would either have to drive so slowly as to encourage road rage in other motorists or keep such a close eye on the speedo that it would detract from my general observation of the conditions around me. Neither situation is desirable.

I'm tempted to not pay the FP and take my chances in court where my arguments would be those mentioned above.

Both my other fines were for driving on dual carriageways at about 50mph 80kph in areas where unusually low limits for a dual carriageway pertained.

Anybody any experience in contesting such charges in court?

I won't respond to finger waggers who say "Serves you right. Don't break the law" (Tell me something I don't know)

Nor am I looking for any bastard's sympathy. Just some frank advice, hopefully based on experience, of whether it would be worth the effort.

I CAN afford to pay the €80 FP but I'm just in a "**** it let 'em work for it" mood.

My two other FP fines (none of the penalty points still valid) were for driving at fairly normal speeds for a dual carriageway on parts where the speed limit was unusually low. eg 50mph (back in 2003) on the 30mph limit area of the Long Mile Road, and a similar indiscretion on the outer reaches of the Navan Road.

My own view would be that the more times that you are caught the higher the fine should be. You have been fined three times which I would imagine means that you are speeding on a regular basis and only get caught a fraction of the time. You need to wise up before you injure somebody.

Is it worth while contesting a fixed-penalty notice speeding fine?

Comments