Free Traffic Legal Advice

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).

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).

Quote from: JustLoveCars on March 20, 2025, 08:33:57 am

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)

Quote from: Freecall on March 20, 2025, 07:41:17 am

Quote from: ohmygod on March 19, 2025, 10:27:05 pm

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.

... 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