Successful defence of speeding offence

N

nt00deep

Registered User
Messages
349
(old thread from 2006 but with fresh post (#4) from Apr 07)

Has anyone successfully defended a speeding offence, and if so, on what grounds?

Before anyone jumps into the rights and wrongs, I've been through the recent thread on speed traps and so I don't need any wrist slapping.

I was speeding. In fact, I was accelerating at the time.

I was accelerating up to the 100km/h allowed approx 50m ahead. If he had waited 5 or 6 seconds, he probably would have caught me doing 99 in a 60. But he didn't. He caught me doing considerably less, but above the 60 allowed in that specific spot. I say 'he' but in fact it was an 'it'. A gatso.

I can remember preparing for my driving test, and my instructor telling me on approaching a 40mph zone from within a 30mph zone to start speeding up so that I'm doing around the 40 at the 40 sign. I thought that strange at the time, but did what I was told.

I am pondering a defence with the following factors in mind :
¬ the inappropriate 60kph limit on the first 200m of a dual carriage way
¬ the proximity of the scene of the offence to the 100kph zone
¬ the 30 min hold up due to a horse fair en-route contributed to me not holding off on the pedal for the full first 200m of dual carriage way.

Like I said, I know I was wrong. I know trying to defend it is a doubles or quits gamble re: points. I just want to see if there is any experience out there of these (what I consider marginal) cases being treated with any degree of latitude in court.
 
Last edited:
Re: Successful defense of speeding offence

In my humble, uneducated and inexperienced opinion I'd say you have no hope.

Speed limits are not set by individual drivers or judges but by the NRA or Local Council - unless you can show that the limit was illegal (ie not enacted properly by the local council) then you must abide by the limit: daft and all as it may seem to you

Speed limits are like invisible walls - it is one limit before the sign and another limit after; the sign dictates the maximum speed allowable until signed differently. Once again it is not up to individual drivers or judges to determine how close to a sign a limit begins or doesn't

Local traffic conditions are part of life and no dispensation given - speed limits don't change to allow nt00deep get home faster if there has been a horse fair.
 
Re: Successful defense of speeding offence

I'd like to see someone argue that having a speed camera within sight of the increased speed limit sign isn't a money-making scheme.
 
OP here. I chose not to pay the fine and waited for my day in court. I had my day in court.

Case was dismissed without prejudice. The garda did not show up and there was no record in the court of an adjournment having been sought by the garda.

Now I need to wait to see if they will summons again or just drop it. Not sure how long that wait might be though.
 
To be honest I would not have challenged it, but seeing as you did and the Garda did not bother to show up (and without explanation) I would now consider the matter closed and deny any further requests. Explain politely that you've already wasted your time showing up in court for no reason and you're not about to do it again.
 
Where is this?

It is nonsense to have a speed trap only but "50m" before a substantial speed limit increase. it is infact of a slight dnager where drivers will naturally get tetchy and agitated to a car holding fast to the 60K with a 100k sign in view.

On decelerating: ( as in coming off a Motorway where you know the slip is a standard 60kph)
Technically you should have already hit the lower speed when you get to the sign...not start decelerating as you pass it.

I wonder is this iuseful in the reverse as the OP describes above.
 
I was thinking of this as well, but I'd imagine speed limits must be kept in between signs. After all they are not targets to be reached before you get to them.;) But yes, I agree, nonsense to have a Garda waiting to catch people as they accelerate heading onto a dual carriage-way. As mentioned before, it's purely a money spinner.
 
nt00deep said:
OP here. I chose not to pay the fine and waited for my day in court. I had my day in court.

Case was dismissed without prejudice. The garda did not show up and there was no record in the court of an adjournment having been sought by the garda.

Now I need to wait to see if they will summons again or just drop it. Not sure how long that wait might be though.
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, what was your planned defence if Garda had shown up?

I too would love to see Gardai forced to justify the claim that these speed traps are anything more than taxpayer-funded scheme, to extract additional money from taxpayers.
 
nt00deep said:
....I can remember preparing for my driving test, and my instructor telling me on approaching a 40mph zone from within a 30mph zone to start speeding up so that I'm doing around the 40 at the 40 sign. ....
Click to expand...

Thats just daft. As per other comments its a limit not a target.

I would say in dangerous locations, and where they are made obvious Speed Cameras make perfect sense. But often they are placed to catch people out in locations where there isn't a history of accidents. Thats pointless.

You would expect that there would be (adjusted) stats to prove the effectiveness of speed cameras, in that there would be a reduction in accidents per number of vehicles in that location.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nt00deep http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=259074#post259074
....I can remember preparing for my driving test, and my instructor telling me on approaching a 40mph zone from within a 30mph zone to start speeding up so that I'm doing around the 40 at the 40 sign. ....


Thats just daft. As per other comments its a limit not a target.
Click to expand...

My instructor (also a tester) always told me that if i was driving in an 80kph zone(for example) that i should drive at that speed, not above it and not below it.

The same that you should drive at 50 through a town (obviously if its possible) and you can fail your test for driving slower!!!

So it seems it is a target.
 
Thrifty1 said:
My instructor (also a tester) always told me that if i was driving in an 80kph zone(for example) that i should drive at that speed, not above it and not below it.

The same that you should drive at 50 through a town (obviously if its possible) and you can fail your test for driving slower!!!

So it seems it is a target.
Click to expand...

That's plain wrong!!
You don't HAVE TO drive as fast as speed limit allows.
What your instructor was trying to tell you was probably that: you will be failed for driving too slowly/cautiously when there is no need to do so and if you don't move with the flow of traffic. In other words in a 80 kph zone if you drive too slow when the road is wide open and hold up the cars behind you. Otherwise, you should always be driving at the LOWER of the speed limit and the speed you deem SAFE based on traffic.

from rules of the road:

As a driver, you must always be aware of your speed and judge the appropriate speed for your vehicle, taking into account:
  • driving conditions,
  • other users of the road,
  • current weather conditions,
  • all possible hazards, and
  • speed limits.
Driving conditions relate to the volume of traffic around you and the quality of the road.

...

You must keep your vehicle to a speed that allows you to stop it:

  • safely, in a controlled way,
  • on the correct side of the road,
  • within the distance that you can see to be clear, and
  • without risk or harm to you, your passengers and/or any other users of the road.
...

Avoid driving too slowly

In normal road and traffic conditions, keep up with the pace of the traffic flow while obeying the speed limit. While you must keep a safe distance away from the vehicle in front, you should not drive so slowly that your vehicle unnecessarily blocks other road users. If you drive too slowly, you risk frustrating other drivers, which could lead to dangerous overtaking.
 
Thrifty1 said:
My instructor (also a tester) always told me that if i was driving in an 80kph zone(for example) that i should drive at that speed, not above it and not below it...............
Click to expand...

What a load of tosh

The speed limit is the max speed that you may drive at.

The actual speed that you choose to drive at will depend on the conditions at the time. It is up to each driver to drive at a safe speed.
 
Last edited:
Well obviously if the conditions are poor or there is a lot of traffic you cant/shouldnt drive at this speed.

I meant in normal conditions , i just assumed this was obvious and didnt need to be spelt out!

I presume what she meant was if the road was clear you shouldnt drive at say 60 in an 80 zone.
 
ubiquitous said:
For what its worth, I think this is very good advice.
Click to expand...

It's not good advice...an instructor will advise you to make reasonable progress. Speed limits are not targets even if most of us treat them as such. That kind of nonsensical thinking is what caused the motorway pileup last month.
 
KalEl said:
It's not good advice...an instructor will advise you to make reasonable progress. Speed limits are not targets even if most of us treat them as such. That kind of nonsensical thinking is what caused the motorway pileup last month.
Click to expand...

No - driving too closely caused last months pileup. The conditions were bad.

If the road is clear, conditions are good etc...etc...then driving at 60 in an 80 zone is wrong. That's the point the instructor was making...and yes it is good advice. It's called reasonable progress.
 
Gabriel said:
No - driving too closely caused last months pileup. The conditions were bad.

If the road is clear, conditions are good etc...etc...then driving at 60 in an 80 zone is wrong. That's the point the instructor was making...and yes it is good advice. It's called reasonable progress.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ...any eye witness I heard said people were driving at the same speed they would in clear conditions-in and around 120kph which was far too fast.
And blanket statements that driving at 60 in an 80 zone is wrong are misleading...I wouldn't do it but it is not wrong.
 
KalEl said:
I beg to differ...any eye witness I heard said people were driving at the same speed they would in clear conditions-in and around 120kph which was far too fast.
And blanket statements that driving at 60 in an 80 zone is wrong are misleading...I wouldn't do it but it is not wrong.
Click to expand...

Okay...we're splitting hairs...slow down, keep your distance is the general rule when driving in bad conditions.

However, under good conditions, you could take that logic further and say that it's perfectly acceptable to drive at 60 in an 80 zone as it's safer! The rules of the road, including the make reasonable progress one, are there for a reason. It is wrong to drive at 60 in an 80 zone (without due casue) because you end up holding other traffic up. One of the reasons many people who drive regularly get so frustrated with older drivers who seem to believe it's perfectly acceptable to drive at (excuse the old measurements) 15MPH in a 30MPH zone.
 
The pile up was caused was by drivers travelling at 120 on the motorway in bad fog. Im sure my instructor did not mean this, anybody with an ounce of common sense would adapt their driving to the conditions.

Hence why i didnt go into that detail in my previous post i had assumed (incorrectly it now seems) that this would be taken for granted.

What the instructor meant was that if the road was clear and conditions allowed you were to drive at the speed limit.

I can see that if you drive at 60 in an 80 zone you will encourage other drivers to overtake, you are causing an obstruction.

Likewise she said to drive at 50 through a town (again where conditions allow).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top