How Is A Single Speeding Offence Defined?

[ToraToraTora]

Eg if I am speeding and I go past 2 different cameras one after the other, is that one offence? Surely the detection method alone cannot define the start and end of a speeding offence? Eg there is a road near me that has speed cameras but sometimes plod parks his van there too, so one could get caught by both. Is there any definition as to where an offence begins and ends?

[hc4361]

It's up to the court

"...where offences are deemed to have been committed “on the same occasion”, the Court has discretion to impose only the one set of points for two or more offences. Whether or not offences will be treated as committed on the same occasion is a matter of fact for the Court to decide. They need not have been committed simultaneously, but they must be linked in some way....."

https://www.richardsilver.co.uk/news/caught-speeding-twice-or-more-on-the-same-journey-how-many-penalty-points-will-you-get/

[spathiphyllum]

courts discretion

It is one offence, but if it stretches the entire journey then you're causing multiple moments of dangerous driving

[maggiebee]

TTT you only get "caught" if you are speeding.

[Baldric]

// multiple moments of dangerous driving //

Speeding is not necessarily dangerous, it depends on the location, type of road, road conditions, amount of traffic etc.

[spathiphyllum]

you are correct Baldric, maybe careless driving would be more apt.

[New Judge]

Indeed, a matter for the court.

I came across a case a while back where the driver was alleged to have committed three offences, all in a London Borough which has a blanket 20mph restriction. He argued that he had only committed one offence but it was shown that he had stopped at traffic lights and generally been caught up in traffic between the offences. It was ruled he had committed three individual offences and got nine points.

Not so clear cut is where a driver exceeds the limit on a stretch of motorway which has a number of cameras. If he can show that he did not reduce his speed (to below the limit) between them he could successfully argue that he had committed one continuous offence. The downside of this of course is that he cannot use the "moment of inattention" mitigation and has to admit to tanking it for a prolonged period.

“…but if it stretches the entire journey then you're causing multiple moments of dangerous driving”

Excess speed alone does not generally support a charge of Dangerous Driving, spathi unless the speed is grossly excessive.

Sometimes when drivers receive multiple allegations a begging letter to the ticket office results in them being treated as a continuous offence, must more usually they prefer the courts to decide.

[New Judge]

Sorry, Balders. Crossed posts!

[New Judge]

Same applies with Careless Driving, spathi. The definition of Careless Driving is "where the standard of driving falls below that of a competent and careful driver. WHilst it could be said that competent and careful drivers do not exceed the speed limit it would be foolish to charge Careless Driving when a perfectly reasonable and more specific charge is available. It's like the mobile phone offence. Using a mobile phone whilst driving certainly fits the definition of "Careless". But a suitable alternative exists.

[spathiphyllum]

mobile phones (and smoking) could and i think does fall under "lack of due care and attention"

[Deskdiary]

"TTT you only get "caught" if you are speeding."

There's always one.

[New Judge]

//mobile phones (and smoking) could and i think does fall under "lack of due care and attention"//

Which is now called "Careless Driving".

Yes indeed they do. And whilst there is no specific law against smoking whilst driving (other than the one which prohibits it in liveried commercial vehicles which is to do with health rather than driving - and which, by the by, seems to be almost universally ignored) there is a law against using a mobile phone. So, if using the phone was the only element of carelessness present it would be foolish to charge Careless Driving unless the matter waas aggravated by some other activity.

There is no law which says drivers must drive on the left. But anyone not doing so would face a Careless (or even Dangerous) Driving charge. But there are specific laws preventing some activities and they are more likely to be used.

[retrocop]

In the days of honorable speed detection on a marked motorcycle or police car we deemed the offence was complete after a pursute of 3/10 mile at fixed distance apart. If the speed was constantly over by 10% to a distance of say, 7/10 mile, then they went into the book for both excess speed and W.D.C. That seemed to be accepted in all the London Magistrates Court by the magistrates as fair game.

[spathiphyllum]

Yeah i get you, thanks NJ

[New Judge]

Happy Days, retro!

Of course, as you say, that was in the days when most speeding offences were detected in that way. Few are today.

[douglas9401]

Jumpers for goalposts etc.

[jno]

aye, douglas, and the AA man would always warn you of a speed trap by not doing anything...

[New Judge]

And today he would face a charge of obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty.