Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: ohmygod on March 19, 2025, 07:58:48 am
-
As they are average speed cameras it's quite probable - more likely a certainty if you were trying to slow down once you realised - that you were travelling even faster then 59mph at some point between the cameras
I did the calculations of travelling at 70mph at the first camera to the repeater signs - then 50mph from that point to the next camera. It works out at 54mph.
Of course, you cannot decelerate from 70mph to 50mph instantly but you'd see the 50mph signs prior to passing them - so 54/55mph is the likely average.
But as I already note, an average of 59mph would only be obtained by exceeding the 70 and/or 50 by some margin - exceeding one of the prevailing limits the OP thought they were in...
Clearly an average speed is just that, not an instantaneous speed. But it proves the peak speed was no less than the calculated amount. (Potentially in favour of the motorist if they reduce their speed during the gap between cameras)
-
... But I do think there is an argument to be made that the signage wasn't adequate in the section - as it was an average speed camera - the facts are that I'm being accused of speeding across the whole stretch of motorway from Jct35A-35 and not at a specific point...
No. You are being accused of driving in excess of the speed limit as measured by average speed cameras located at two points between J35A and J35. It is not a fact that you are being accused of speeding across that whole stretch of motorway.
As they are average speed cameras it's quite probable - more likely a certainty if you were trying to slow down once you realised - that you were travelling even faster then 59mph at some point between the cameras
-
But I do think there is an argument to be made that the signage wasn't adequate in the section
Take it to court and plead not guilty then.
If I pleaded guilty or was found guilty do I have criminal conviction that is always on my record?
You will have been convicted of a criminal offence and will have to declare it, if asked, for five years. Speeding is not a recordable offence, so you won’t have a criminal record.
-
Could such an argument be used as mitigation while pleading guilty rather as an outright defence?
The problem you have is that it is not really mitigation.
“I wasn't paying sufficient attention and therefore missed the big terminal signs” doesn't really cut it.
I suspect deep-down that you know that already though.
But I do think there is an argument to be made that the signage wasn't adequate in the section - as it was an average speed camera - the facts are that I'm being accused of speeding across the whole stretch of motorway from Jct35A-35 and not at a specific point.
If I pleaded guilty or was found guilty do I have criminal conviction that is always on my record?
What does the fact that it was an average speed camera have to do with the signage?
As you exceeded the limit on average you must have exceeded it at one or more point in the measured stretch.
On the positive side, that offence does not give you a criminal record.
-
Could such an argument be used as mitigation while pleading guilty rather as an outright defence?
The problem you have is that it is not really mitigation.
“I wasn't paying sufficient attention and therefore missed the big terminal signs” doesn't really cut it.
I suspect deep-down that you know that already though.
I actually believe I was paying attention (even if I missed the initial signs) but what I'm understanding from comments is that it's almost impossible to defend against strict liability.
I definitly will prepare the EH plea as the ban and points is going to affect my other half more than me.
But I do think there is an argument to be made that the signage wasn't adequate in the section - as it was an average speed camera - the facts are that I'm being accused of speeding across the whole stretch of motorway from Jct35A-35 and not at a specific point.
If I pleaded guilty or was found guilty do I have criminal conviction that is always on my record?
-
As already noted your choices are limited. Either continue with the guilty plea and attend could with a well-prepared EH plea or defend the speeding (with the cost risks attached).
Just in case it is not obvious, these choices are not mutually exclusive.
True - one should be preparing an EH plea regardless of the route taken. (If discharged from the speeding offence then that plea wouldn't be required)
-
As already noted your choices are limited. Either continue with the guilty plea and attend could with a well-prepared EH plea or defend the speeding (with the cost risks attached).
Just in case it is not obvious, these choices are not mutually exclusive.
-
Aren't the other signs or cones irrelevant in this case? They're not conveying the speed limit information and thats what I'm being charged with?
Context - cones and other signs should trigger an awareness that NSL is not in effect. Regardless, the terminal signs did convey the limit.
I accept I didn't register the speed change at the terminal signs (it was dark and my attention was not caught by it), but I did react to the next sign.
The camera is positioned around 210m after the terminal signs. The repeater is another 290m after the camera.
Given my calculations if you had reacted when seeing the repeaters and dropped to 50mph your average would be below the enforcement limit (+10%+2) - so it appears you continued to speed anyway.
I would say the speed was being enforced by the camera before adequate guidance had been given on the speed limit. In terms of what adequate would look like I would refer to the 350m recommended of repeater after a terminal sign in the TSM.
I would argue the terminal sign gives adequate notice before enforcement.
As already noted your choices are limited. Either continue with the guilty plea and attend could with a well-prepared EH plea or defend the speeding (with the cost risks attached).
-
Could such an argument be used as mitigation while pleading guilty rather as an outright defence?
The problem you have is that it is not really mitigation.
“I wasn't paying sufficient attention and therefore missed the big terminal signs” doesn't really cut it.
I suspect deep-down that you know that already though.
-
If you are convicted, the court are required by law to give you 3-6 points, unless they decide to ban you outright, or unless they find that there are Special Reasons Not To Endorse.
An outright ban to avoid totting up would subvert Parliament's intention in the totting up legislation.
SRNTE is mitigation concerning the commission of the offence (why you did it) that is so compelling that the court ought not to endorse your licence - where you are technically guilty, but are pretty much blameless. For example if you bought insurance in good faith and the broker turned out to be a con-man, you would still technically be guilty of driving without insurance, but it would be manifestly unjust to endorse your licence if you had no realistic way of knowing. If your argument is that you didn't notice the terminal signs due to inattention (as opposed to having any evidence that they were in any way defective), and that the repeater signs should have been 150 yards closer, IMHO the only way that would fly would be if 2 of the magistrates recognised you from the lodge, or if the prosecutor had spent the entire day so far going out of his way to annoy them.
If there is evidence of cones/roadworks/whatever that would give rise to the expectation of a reduced speed limit in the mind of a careful and competent driver, then even less so (if that is possible)
Any mitigation that falls short of SRNTE won't stop you totting up. Particularly if you try to argue that the TSM is somehow "guidance to the law" (whatever that means).
-
Literally my first reply to you.
-
I appreciate all the advice.
Could such an argument be used as mitigation while pleading guilty rather as an outright defence? What would be the penalty if I lost in either situation?
Problem is even if I were not given a ban I'm not sure I'd be able to keep my car with 12 points.
-
I would say the speed was being enforced by the camera before adequate guidance had been given on the speed limit.
And I would say the "guidance" (or I'd prefer to say, the instruction) was given by the terminal signs which you missed. The limit has to be adequately conveyed. The terminal signs tell you where it begins; the reminders are there to remind you it is still extant. They are not provided as back-ups to the terminal signs for those drivers who miss them. My view is that you'd struggle to convince a court that the beginning of the limit was not adequately conveyed when, on your own admission, you missed the compliant terminal signs.
But it doesn't matter what I think. If you think you'll succeed, give it a run. But I would have an EH argument in my pocket along with a cheque book if I were you.
-
I would say the speed was being enforced by the camera before adequate guidance had been given on the speed limit. In terms of what adequate would look like I would refer to the 350m recommended of repeater after a terminal sign in the TSM.
Well, that’s the argument you need to decide whether to run or not. I don’t rate your chances but it’s not hopeless and it’s your choice.
-
Effectively missing 4 signs - the argument that you believed the NSL was in effect would be a challenge. (There appears to be other indications such as cones and closed lanes)
Aren't the other signs or cones irrelevant in this case? They're not conveying the speed limit information and thats what I'm being charged with?
Your argument seems to be that if you had been reminded of the lower limit some 150 yards sooner, your average speed would have been below 57 mph. Are you sure? In any case, any speed above 50 is speeding, so you would still be guilty.
I accept I didn't register the speed change at the terminal signs (it was dark and my attention was not caught by it), but I did react to the next sign.
The camera is positioned around 210m after the terminal signs. The repeater is another 290m after the camera.
I would say the speed was being enforced by the camera before adequate guidance had been given on the speed limit. In terms of what adequate would look like I would refer to the 350m recommended of repeater after a terminal sign in the TSM.
-
I've made the hardship argument in my SJPN plea...
EH arguments cannot be made in writing but, as above, you will be required to attend court anyway as the SJ will not ban you in you absence. If you make an EH plea you will be required to give evidence on oath. Here’s the Magistrates’ guidelines which they consider when hearing an EH plea:
When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following:
It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn.
Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence.
Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive.
If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account.
Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable.
Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others.
-
The TSM is clear that the distances are recommendations only - so it does not give an absolute defence for the repeater not being at the recommended distances.
Looking at the stretch on GSV the first repeater IMHO could be a little earlier (It's around 470m). Prior to the terminal signs there are 'Average Speed Check' signs on both sides of the carriageway. Effectively missing 4 signs - the argument that you believed the NSL was in effect would be a challenge. (There appears to be other indications such as cones and closed lanes)
Of note, the distance from first camera to the repeater is only around 280m and a further 800m to the second camera. So if you were travelling at 70mph up until the repeater and then 50mph for the rest, your average speed would be somewhere around 55mph (taking into account some braking time from 70 to 50). So a clocked 59mph is notably in excess of that.
I think the chances of running an EH plea could be better than a defence to the allegation itself. Of course, avoiding an EH plea would be ideal.
The SJ will refer the matter to court anyway. How the points were accumulated is irrelevant to an EH plea anyway.
-
Your argument seems to be that if you had been reminded of the lower limit some 150 yards sooner, your average speed would have been below 57 mph. Are you sure? In any case, any speed above 50 is speeding, so you would still be guilty.
The limit must be adequately conveyed. You would need to convince the court that the big terminal signs (that you missed) and a repeater 500 m later isn’t adequate. Good luck with that - but if it’s the only shot you have you could try it. You are aware of the risks if you try it and lose.
-
The 350m figure for a repeater is from the DfTs own Traffic Signs manual.
But guidance, not law.
What weight does non-conformance to official guidance to the law carry in court?
As it's a motorway in the absence of signage I should proceed at the national speed limit? Shouldn't the guidance be relevant in such a speed limit application? There's a duty for drivers to be sufficiently reminded that the national speed limit does not apply?
-
And it's an average speed camera, so probably over 1/2 mile and the first repeater is therefore a moot point - there would be more opportunities to realise the limit was in force and reduce speed - to well below the limit if required to bring the average out at under the enforcement point. Do you have the makings of an Exceptional Hardship argument?
The violation report I received states the distance between cameras as 0.677 miles. I think if the repeater was in the 350m distance and I reacted to it my average speed would havebeen lower than 10% + 2.
I've made the hardship argument in my SJPN plea - basically my car is through employer and is the only one in my household. I'll lose it with the 12 points ban my other half suffers health issues and will be severely impacted by not having a transport to attend her medical appointments. (We both work over 300 miles from our permenant residence)
-
And it's an average speed camera, so probably over 1/2 mile and the first repeater is therefore a moot point - there would be more opportunities to realise the limit was in force and reduce speed - to well below the limit if required to bring the average out at under the enforcement point. Do you have the makings of an Exceptional Hardship argument?
-
The 350m figure for a repeater is from the DfTs own Traffic Signs manual.
But guidance, not law.
-
Agree it's not the most compelling defence but to give some more detail - It was driving after dark in an unlit section of the motorway so visibility is not the same as during the day. it's not beyond the realm of possibility for a person to miss the initial terminal signs driving at 70 mph especially as the signs are not overhead but by the side of the road.
The 350m figure for a repeater is from the DfTs own Traffic Signs manual.
-
“I didn’t have sufficient warning of the limit because I missed the big terminal signs on both sides of the carriageway” isn’t the most compelling argument.
You could run it since you’re facing a totting ban in any case but be aware if you lose you’ll face increased court costs (circa £650) and lose the 1/3 discount off the fine.
-
Hi. Appreciate some advice on my predicament.
I was clocked doing 59 mph between the M1 J35a-35 Southbound where a 50 mph speed limit was being enforced using average speed cameras due to roadworks on the smart motorway. The offence was back in October 2024 and it's progressed all the way to SJPN because if I'm convicted I'll be due a 'totting up' driving ban.
I've got 9 points from three previous SP50 convictions in the last three years. (none were excessive speeding, two were due my unfamiliarity with variable speed limits on smart motorways). I've pleaded guilty on the SJPN because I only saw the letter on the deadline and didn't have time to look into whether I had a valid defence.
However looking into it the charge and facts I'm wondering whether I have a mitigation or defence?
In this section of motorway the 50 mph speed limit came into force with temporary fixed plate signage which I must have missed (unlike me since I'm already on 9 points I have been very careful to always react to the speed limits), I've carried on assuming 70 mph speed limit applies and then when I've seen the next 50 mph repeater with camera sign I've slowed down. However because I've already entered the speed camera timing zone by the next camera my average speed is still above the limit.
Checking on Google Maps the repeater sign is postioned approx 500m after the 50 mph terminal signs. Do I have an argument that I did not receive sufficient signage to know that the national speed limit no longer applied. My understanding is for 50 mph limit on the motorway a repeater should be placed 350m after the speed limit change)? If the repeater was placed in the recommended distance I would have reacted earlier to the 50 mph change.