A friend and fellow Scooby owner has a bit of a prediciment and I'm wondering if anyone out there has been through similiar circumstances. He was caught by some sort of mobile GATSO device fitted to a hired vehicle, he wasn't stopped at the time but received a NIP shortly after. He followed all the usual advice and replied saying he couldn't be sure who was driving at the time. They've now sent him a copy of a picture of his car with all the speeding/time info. The picture itself isn't very good quality (looks like video still) and you certainly can't identify the driver. Are the police trying to put the frighteners on him or do they have some conclusive evidence as to who was driving ?. The other worry is that another workmate who went through a solicitor rather than replying himself, although the date of the offence was the same and his reply went back before my mate's hasn't heard a thing yet. Maybe if using a solicitor the police realise that this sort of photo evidence is meaningless and they're just trying it on.

So,
has anyone any similiar experiences ?
are the police trying it on ?
what should he do next ?

Worst thing is that we don't have any speed camera's in Shetland and if any are sent up from the mailand there's a pretty good bush telegraph (including the local radio station !!) that let's most people know what's happening.

Kevin.

 

Surely if the offence has been committed, then he should pay the fine?

 

Agreed!

SimonM

 

I've just received one of these too. I don't deny I may have been speeding but suffice to say the raod was deserted and I had my aged mother in the car slagging me off for driving slowly i.e. like my father!!!!

Anyway, I was allegedly doing 45 in a 30. No boos or hisses I assure you there was no danger of pedestrians etc.

However, I've already replied and fallen on my sword (not of the pork variety).

Does anyone know what I'm likely to get - what is the difference between a NIP and a Fixed Penalty Notice.

Am I in deep ****????

Please respond with some comforting advice.

 

I believe the point at issue here is the fact that by signing to say that you were driving the vehicle at the time you incriminate yourself. This was all in the news a few weeks back and the advice was seek legal advice. I'm <B>not</B> condoning speeding at all but if European Law says that you don't have to incriminate yourself then the onus is, I believe, on the police to prove that you were driving at the time. Whilst the law as it stands undermines the position of the police force in enforcing speed limits with GATSOs it does go some way to show up the present limitations of the European Human Rights laws (but that's another matter). Go and speak to a solicitor, if you can get away with it then good for you; you might as well look after number one 'cos no other b*gg*r will!

 

A Notice of Intended Prosecution is exactly that; it informs you that the enforcing authority is intending to prosecute you for the offence detailed on the form.

A Fixed Penalty Notice offers a fixed penalty for admission of the offence without the need for court proceedings. The fines etc on FPN's are not as severe as those which could be levied by a magistrate.

For example, for an SP30:

Fixed Penalty Notice: £40.00 & 3 pts
Magistrate: Maximum £1000 & 3-6 pts

In your case it could go two ways. You could be offerred a conditional fixed penalty of £40.00 & 3pts providing you admit the offence. Or, they could take you to court and you could walk away with a maximum fine of £1000 and 6 pts on your license.

 

Or they could take to a Magistrate who could throw it out on the grounds of insufficient evidence unless they could prove it was you driving the vehicle .

PS. Stuart - just playing Devil's Advocate here; as I said before I'm not condoning speeding, as far as I'm concerned the law's the law. However, if there's a loophole that saves you getting points on licence (and sending the insurance ever higher) then exploit it until it's closed (which it should be).

 

Your friend should seek legal advice although the advice might be to take the penalty since Solicitors seem to be a pragmatic bunch of people (they'd recommend the lesser of two evils).

To the best of my knowledge the Police cannot use an enhanced picture as evidence. So it seems on the face of it to come down to whether or not the Police or the court has the power to compel the registered keeper to identify the driver...Check that out.

Check for other threads here on the same lines who have had their intended prosecutions dropped after requesting a hearing.

Just my opinions of course. Speed kills (apparently). Speeding in a built up area is wrong.

Jason

 

Stuart H - thanks for the reply - if its for me or not - can I ask...

1. How do "they" decide to prosecute or just go for a fixed penalty
2. Is any account taken of road conditions etc?

Finally - is there any chance of being banned - this is my first alleged or real offence in 23 years of driving and my wife is about to give birth (for real) and I have to drive to get to work.

Any more advice *greatly* appreciated - please

Thanks - yours most worried and law abiding.

 

Because of the personal issues involved I have answered this query by e-mail.

 

I have a print out of a baristers review of the situation.
Can't remember the URL but will post it tonight.
Basically, return the NIP stating you are unable to provide the requested information. DO NOT say anything else.

I suggest you wait until I have posted the site address.

Nigel

 

Stuart h, is it correct to say bikers will get away with this method of gatso vidio from the front, as they have no front number plate and wearing a crash helmet to cover there identity. Could be interesting. Dave.

 

So just run that past us again "I don't deny I may have been speeding" in the first message and - "law abiding" in the second ????????? - or is that law abiding now i've been caught.

Under the Road Traffic Acts for certain offences the police have to send out an NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. The NIP does not mean they will take action, merely that they have the choice. The local Superintendant or similar will then review the file and decide whether to take action.
If they decide to go ahead the case will then go to court in the normal fashion. No fixed penalty process.

Depending on circumstances you can respond in mitigation before he decides the course of action but doing 45 in a 30 because your mother told you to do so is unlikely to be successful!!

 

Check this out for a full explaination from a magistrates point of view.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Richard F:
<B> Also, what's speeding for some drivers might not be for others who are more able.

[/quote]

What arrogant tosh.

Speeding is simply that.

How about what's dangerous driving for some may not be for others who are more able.

See thread "Maniac EVO driver. "Equally arrogant bilge.

[This message has been edited by BarryK (edited 07 September 2000).]

 

Oh and NickF, that's a mighty nippy soap box you have there!

 

BarryK,

I was going to buy a standard UK soapbox, but I figured it would be cheaper if I got it from Europe. Then someone told me a grey soapbox would have more power, but only if I used SUL rather than NUL ... but it gives better MPG (possibly) so that's all right. And then there's the question of warranties.

I'm tempted by an 01 box, but it's not as boxy, though it looks to be better made.

NickF

PS In reality, my driving box is the one that goes at 90-95mph on the motorway. My riding box is the one that goes at 100+ ... and as I said, that's on deserted 6am Sunday roads.

 

Oh dear BarryK

I presume you would therefore believe the reaction times and generally driving ability of a 90 year old Bexhill on Sea resident to be equivalent to a driver in their mid-twenties?

If you honestly do then fine. If however, you are yet another of these "speed kills - end of story" types, maybe you should think more about your driving. I for one do not believe myself to be a good technical driver. I think my observation and anticipation is good but I know my car feel isn't particularly. I also know that my driving ability has changed since I passed my test and I now do not drive the same way I did. People have different abilities to drive cars - sorry that's a fact. Otherwise, I'd be earning 35 million a year or whatever Mr Schumacher earns.

I guess I must be arrogant if I say that some people are better drivers than others.

Just because the law is the law, this does not mean it is right all the time.

 

I do love the people on this BBS sometimes! You buy a car that will do 0-60 in 5.something and go on to 140mph and then condemn speeding outright!

Speeding is a subjective thing. End of story. I don't think many people would think that 45 in a 30 past a school (for example) is acceptable. However, 45 in a 30 where there are no houses on the road and at 1 in the morning is easier to accept. Also, what's speeding for some drivers might not be for others who are more able.

If the law defines speeding as one given circumstance (ie. "we decide that this road cannot be driven at more than 30 mph") then they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any given person was speeding at any time in order to convict. If they can't play by that rule, they don't get a conviction.

You don't HAVE to cough to a crime. Whether you SHOULD is a matter for the individual. The law is generic and so cannot take situations into account (that's the letter of the law I mean, not individual officers). If they have to play by certain established rules, then a citizen has every right to make sure that they do.

You are perfectly entitled to attempt to avoid prosecution although if you try it, and fail, you can't complain if the sentence is worse than if you admitted it.

 

Like it or not, the motoring offence of speeding is definitely <I>not</I> subjective.

The best outcome of everybody in the country refusing to incriminate themselves in such cases is that we end up with a thorough review of speed limits, offences and driver training in the UK. I doubt it will happen though!

 

davespencer,

Yup, bikers do get away with it when the camera is front-facing. As we're the subject of massive discrimination in all other areas, I'm sure you won't deny us this!

Richard F

Couldn't agree with you more about the speeding hypocrisy on this BBS. I don't know anyone (and I include my father in law, the most law-abiding person I've ever come across) who doesn't speed every time they go out in the car or on the bike. You all have a self-imposed 29mph limit in built up areas, when the rest of the traffic is flowing at 35? I don't think so. And you sit there at 70 on a motorway as a Micra whizzes past? Again, you're stretching the bounds of credulity.

I'll be honest, I speed all the time. Generally not round town, and obviously not when near junctions, houses, schools etc. But on an open stretch of road, I use speed as the conditions allow, which may well mean 80-90 in a 60 zone during the day and 100+ on a Sunday morning thrash. Motorways are generally a 90-95mph zone.

I'm sure this may not sit too well with some of the more righteous BBS members, but as Richard F pointed out, if you didn't intend to drive quickly, why on earth did you buy an Impreza Turbo?

Oh, and for the record, I've been stopped for speeding twice in the last 18 years of driving/riding, and never had a speed-related accident.

I agree that the law is the law, but people used this argument to justify apartheid, deny women the vote, and send children to work down coal mines at the age of 14. It didn't make it right then, nor does it now.

Nick F
(climbs off soapbox)

 

Barry K,

I have to agree with Richard F with regards to driver's ability being an important factor that is not taken into consideration by the law. I am always suprised when I meet people who can autopilot from A to B and not remember anything about the journey... this doesn't necessarily make them "bad" drivers, but it does imply that they aren't thinking about their driving as much as they might.

The numerous reductions in speed limits that are constantly appearing over the country are a testamant to the lowest common denomenator approach to driver instruction and management. Unfortunatley, when inappropriately low speed limits are put into place they will be respected by fewer drivers than would respect a more appropriate limit.

I have yet to witness an inappropriatly low speed limit being raised, except for one particular fiasco in my town where some bright spark in the liberal council had managed to get ~4 short stretches of 30 mph limit around the junctions on a mile of 40mph road... maybe he/she was going for the comedy policy vote?

One problem these days is that councils can now place speed limits on roads without having to go through a sensible procedure, involving traffic police and/or other genuine "experts"... there are guidelines, but, IIRC, these are not always followed as they are not mandatory. I'd be happy to be wrong on this point.

I suspect that traffic police do give consideration to how a car is being driven when deciding what course of action to take... I'd like to think that a car driven erraticly at 70mph on a 70mph section of motorway is more likely to recieve police attention than a car being driven "responsibly" at 80mph... although, by the letter of the law, both drivers are committing offences. Of course, Mr Gatso can't do anything but collar cars exceeding a certain speed, so that does nothing about Mr Erratic.

I also suspect that anyone who rides motorcycles on a reasonably regular basis is going to be more observant, and probably safer, behind the wheel of a car.

Moray

 

So we should have a multi tier law? Who appoints the "more able"? Even an observant driver if he is speeding is more likely to hit the schmuck who "pulls out" in front of them

So a 20 year old driver over the drink drive limit is "less able" than an experienced drinker over the drink drive limit. So what?

Different people, different abilities. Same prosecution. QED. We have to draw the line somewhere.

If that Richard Burns drove down my street at 80 mph, I'd say "oy Burns, NOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Formula 1 drivers have accidents and they don't even have traffic coming the other way!

I agree about the faffing about with unreasonable speed limits though.

Although the argument runs, just because you don't see a need for the rule, it doesn't mean there isn't one. Remember the "Young Ones" episode where Vivian read "Do Not Lean Out of the Window" on the train door, wondered why, leaned out and had his head knocked off by a bridge.

 

Hmmm

Seems we're actually coming from the same point of view (in a way). I don't think we should have a multi-tier law and I also don't think I'm above it. If I'm speeding and I get caught within the guidelines laid down which govern HOW I get caught/ prosecuted then fine.

All I was originally saying was that the law has one way of catching everyone but it must be certain to use that one method in the correct way, ie proper calibration of speed guns etc. If the police can't prove they caught you legally, then you shouldn't be convicted.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dave T-S:
<B>
Depending on circumstances you can respond in mitigation before he decides the course of action but doing 45 in a 30 because your mother told you to do so is unlikely to be successful!![/quote]

You haven't met my mother......

 

Ooh I love it when you can start a good ruck then walk away and leave them to it!!

I said my driving's not perfect - and it seems to have got more hooligan like since owning a Soob!!

My approach to the speeding thing - my daily commute is 14 miles cross country, all single carriageway roads, five villages with 30 limits and the rest the national speed limit (60) with only pigeons, pheasants and deer to worry about.

I stick rigidly to the 30 limits - or at least no more than 32-33mph - there are many mobile speed traps moving round the villages (although I am up before them in the mornings) and it is largely selfish as I have a clean license and don't want a blister on it!! This intensely annoys my fellow commuters if I get away from the station before them and hold them up through the five 30 limits!! You can almost see their eyes out on stalks sometimes - "that ba**ta*d in the Impreza drives like a granny in the 30 limits and like a bat out of hell outside them why does he have to hold me up" - I lose them outside the limits then when they are doing 50 through the next 30 limit to weld themselves to my bootlid again it makes them feel better because they can go home and tell wifey they are such a wonderful driver because the kept up with an old fart in an Impreza Turbo all the way home!!
Still, got to get your kicks whatever way you can!!

In the sixty limits (no houses, only fields), it's as much as the car, the road surface or my mood will permit without doing a Burnsy and putting it on its roof!!

Also keep to 40's, 50's and sensible on M ways. It's worked so far, would like to say I have got more sensible over the years but I doubt it.

Taff - take your point about your mum mate - she does sound vaguely familiar!

 

Yep, I'm with Dave on this one.

Gob****es!

 

Barry K,

I wasn't proposing a multi-tier law, I was just agreeing with Richard F that driver ability in a variable that isn't factored into the law.

With regards to your comment: "So a 20 year old driver over the drink drive limit is "less able" than an experienced drinker over the drink drive limit. So what?". Sorry, but I am not sure we are on the same planet here, I was talking about driver ability and you are talking about driver's chemical abuse tolerances... I fail to see the relevance in your "argument". I suspect it was a one generic rule for everyone comment. IIRC, the statistics point to the middle-aged "expirienced drinker" as being less responsible about drinking and driving than the 20 year old age bracket.

As you say, just because we don't see a need for a particular rule, say an inappropriate speed limit, doesn't mean there isn't one, say the funds that can be raised by policing said limit.

Moray