Tarquin?

Laura, whilst I sympathise to an extent with the concerns you have over further incoming NIP's the situation seems to be self induced. Take responsibility for your actions, not pleasant and not ideal. For whatever reason you exceeded the speed limit and were caught twice on the same day. Accidents (as they used to be called) or crash's as they're now referred to happen by definition unexpectedly. The fact you've never had an accident is not an indicator that you won't. The limit posted where you were caught will be there for a reason and I'm sure your local police / traffic officers will have attended RTC's at or near the location in their time. People get so concerned about their licences when caught speeding, they seem to forget that holding a licence is not a right. If only they considered that at the time. Of course it's easier to tackle the system, see what evidence they have rather than take it on the chin and admit the mistake / error of judgement. Of course if you were on nine points you might well find your driving style alters for the better. Which is more important safety or convenience?

Yep, you definitely have those days. But that comes with the territory really. I'm sure we'll reach the stage soon enough with the current improvements in technology from GPS and number plate reading to a point where speed enforcement will be done essentially via SPECS on a nationwide scale. I still think the investment would be better spent on more officers educating and reducing collisions. Equally society must plays its part in encouraging our younger generation, though not solely them, to take responsibility for their actions, good or bad. I'm far more likely to give a warning to a driver who holds their hands up than someone who plays the grey man at the roadside.

I think Jed you raise a valid point around mindset, in particular around the financial penalty. I know plenty of traffic officers who have points on their licence for excess speed, although usually it has to be said its no more than 3. Almost all of these have been camera related and all for minor infringements of the limit. I have to include myself here too sadly (). But my point is I was exceeding the speed limit on the piece of road, it was a loss of concentration on my part and consequently the NIP etc was issued. I paid the fine, accepted the points and got on with life. Annoying? Yes. But I have to accept I was travelling over the posted limit. Without question, on a personal level, one of my biggest frustrations is the lack of basic accountability certain members of the public have for their actions. Absent minded or not. It's no one elses fault. Just as it was no one elses fault when I was caught. The point the OP made here was indeed reasonable and valid and of course he took personal responsibility for his actions - no problem with that. And being so reasonable, why not write in, admit the offence and ask someone to use some discretion. Sadly that's not the way it works, but its fully understandable why he took that reasonable course of action. Equally, no problem with someone who feels the officer / technology / process has a legitimate fault / error or has not been operated correctly and feels they were not comitting the offence. Please contest it, but with some sort of legitimate basis and / or evidence. The vast majority of us go to great lengths to explain things to those we stop so they know how we have detected the alledged offence. We are happy to answer questions. Equally we look on nearly all people we come into contact with in this role as law abiding individuals who have made a mistake. We are, for many usually the first and hopefully the only contact they have with the police. Whilst the news could be bad in terms of the offence, we do try to leave a good professional impression and give a little bit of education. What does really narc are those immediately seeking a technical defence. Calibration, user error, anticipation / reaction times and many, many more I could go into. Asking such pointed questions as to fundamentally challenge your personal integrity. You could think of it as going to work every day and knowing more or less at least one person that day is going to call you a liar or incompetent or at best mistaken. Sadly, mistaken doesn't seem to be high on the agenda until the defence is running out of options. But hey, its the job we do, its worthwhile so I'll put the violin away now . As I said, it all comes back to mindset.

Still learning the technical aspects... hopefully the quote will appear! To answer the question my personal view is that it lies with the person administering the penalty. That's why I'm in favour of more traffic officers with the ability to use discretion and detect offences which technology cannot. However, when camera's were introduced I'm sure they were seen as a way to impact excessive speed. I think today the almighty dollar is too much of factor in their use. If that money were ploughed back into more traffic officers and more education of motorists then I'd feel a little more at ease. The challenge there of course is that then the public really would see it as a revenue generation exercise for the police, and rightly so. (I mean the public would have a fair point, not that we should have more money in this way!) Equally the central funding would diminish by a comparable amount I'm sure! The alternative would be to have no financial penalty if caught by a camera but uprated points against your DL, then there could be no suggestion of revenue benefits? I think ultimately we differentiate between minor infringements, significant infringements and the downright dangerous and criminal. I'm afraid only humans can do that and their aren't enough of us.

All, new to the forum and a serving traffic officer (police) I've read with interest everyone's view. I'm not sure there is an answer that satifies all for a number of reasons; (and I don't wish to patronise etc etc, please take my post in the spirit it's intended); 1. The limits (temporary or otherwise) are there to reduce the risk of a collision of any kind happening. In the main, lower speed, more time to react and take avoiding action should the need arise. Should a collision still occur then, as Pat has pointed out several times, lower closing speeds may help to avoid a fatality and / or serious injury. It's all about 'What if?'. Most, if not all of us drive to a level to which we feel safe. The point is that for the most part collisions (or accidents as they used to be) by definition are not expected. They can be caused by factors outside our terms of reference, ie what we don't expect. So 60, in a 50 limit at 2am may be perfectly safe and reasonable, as long as nothing happens. The point is that should something occur, the increase in speed over the limit is more likely to have a detrimental affect than if you were travelling at the speed limit. If its a pedestrian it may make no difference. If its colliding with the central reservation it could be enough to take you over onto the other carriageway. Either way there are no guarantees. It's all about mitigating risk. Think about seatbelts and the law. Most rarely if ever need them, but the impact of not having one on should a collision occur moves from minor with belt on (in many cases) to life threatening / changing without it. And of course no one went out expecting to be in a collision. Finally on limits, think about the 30mph limits. 5mph over takes a further 11 feet to stop in good conditions and average brakes. Small factors, at the wrong time and place have massive consequences. 50 in a 60 is no difference. 2. Discretion I full understand where the OP is coming from here. Were he likely to be stopped by police he may well have got a ticking off, or still the EFPN. The point is the officers could show discretion under the circumstances. But here then we have inconsistency. One officer could let you off with a warning and a slap on the wrist, the other issue the fixed penalty, everybody reads things differently. One only needs to look at situations and speeds you perceived as hazardous when you passed your test compared to those you perceive as hazardous now. Or maybe review the range of opinion on this matter on here. It's vast and the police are no different, since its made up of individuals. May be the answer is to have no discretion? But thats the position the OP found himself in in the first place. 3. No one is immune. Even to the advanced standard that Police officers are trained to they can and do get it wrong. Most on traffic will have had something like 7 -8 weeks of intensive driver training to get them to a level which is deemed 'safe' and 'competent' for their role. This followed up with refreshers, eye sight tests etc etc. But still situations occur even with a much heightened state of anticipation, vigilance and driver skill that cause everything from minor injury to fatality, both in response and non response situations. Ultimately we're back at mitigation and reducing risk. These are my own thoughts and views, they're not intended as 'the answer' and the only way of looking at things. I do stand behind them, although I'm willing to be challenged and educated. I am after all still learning like most of us.