Speeding notice - what's the next move?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
theres a very good discusion about this on one of the magazine web sites,
LRE or LROI i think. i would do a search there too. It was very info. Went
into what to write back, what to ask for, how not to word it etc.


Best of luck Mark


"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So SteveG <"s.goodfellow"@blueyonder" < was, like
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Whilst not condoning speeding (or any other illegal act) I think you
>> might find some useful information at www.pepipoo.com
>
> Cheers - I'll have a look.
> --
>
> Rich
>
> Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous
>


 

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:43:14 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>1. DO NOT fill in their pre-printed paperwork, if you sign it you are
>>signing a disclaimer to PACE, and the fact that you haven't been cautioned
>>as is required by law. You are effectively signing both an admission to
>>guilt and giving up your statutory right to a caution.
>
> does the paperwork say that on it, in words that the ordinary bod can
> understand?

Austin, that's the impression I get from the guys on the BMWland forum, I've
never been unlucky enough to get caught to be in a position to read one
myself so can't comment on the wording. I'd imagine its not all that clear,
either way, after all it would have been written by a government
department!!!

Badger.


 
So Austin Shackles was, like

> On or around Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:43:14 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> 1. DO NOT fill in their pre-printed paperwork, if you sign it you are
>> signing a disclaimer to PACE, and the fact that you haven't been
>> cautioned as is required by law. You are effectively signing both an
>> admission to guilt and giving up your statutory right to a caution.
>
> does the paperwork say that on it, in words that the ordinary bod can
> understand?

Don't think so - the form I have to fill in is just to confirm who was
driving (which I am quite happy to do). On receipt of that, they say they
will send me the prosecution stuff, which I imagine is where the fun starts.

--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
Werwe you speeding or not ??? If so, tough louck thats the law of the land,
if not good luck try to wriggle out any way you can.



John H




"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van
> on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the
> instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of
> Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a
> fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One
is
> the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57, but
I
> was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed the
camera
> van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies and I can't
> prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather than roll
> over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you
> factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the village, the
> road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.
>
> There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of
the
> calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or
> something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble
for
> the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of
what
> to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the driver -
I
> assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next move, guys?
>
> What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was
> looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in
> 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now
> off my chest, and thanks for listening :)
>
> --
>
> Rich
>
> Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous
>
>


 
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:41:57 GMT, "Hirsty's" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Werwe you speeding or not ??? If so, tough louck thats the law of the land,
>if not good luck try to wriggle out any way you can.
>
>
>
>John H
>
In many ways I agree. I recently fell out with my Dad for a short
while when he was indignant at getting a ticket for 40 in a 30. There
was all the usual bluff about 'you can't drive round looking at the
speedo', but the fact remains that if you are not capable of
controlling the speed of the car, you shouldn't be driving it.

But, taking the longer view, if the authorities are going to put speed
cameras on the _exits_ of villages (which they do with great
regularity) then they serve no purpose other than as revenue raisers.
We therefore have every right to make it as difficult as possible for
the powers that be to collect our money, including demanding the right
time on notices and accurate measurement.

There's a camera about to go up near me, and I applaud it as there
have been two accidents recently in which vehicles have ended up the
garden of someones house. It's actually not possible to go round the
corner above 25mph (as many have found out). That is where cameras
should be sited, not where law abiding motorists will be accelerating
out of a hazard having made a proper assessment of the conditions and
being a few yards from a national speed limit sign.

I did 65 (reasonably safely) past a camera in Nottingham yesterday in
a 40 limit. I'm not sure whether the 'rushing to hospital' excuse
(whilst entirely true) will help me out.
--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
So Tim Hobbs was, like

> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:41:57 GMT, "Hirsty's" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Werwe you speeding or not ??? If so, tough louck thats the law of
>> the land, if not good luck try to wriggle out any way you can.
>>
>>
>>
>> John H
>>
> In many ways I agree. I recently fell out with my Dad for a short
> while when he was indignant at getting a ticket for 40 in a 30. There
> was all the usual bluff about 'you can't drive round looking at the
> speedo', but the fact remains that if you are not capable of
> controlling the speed of the car, you shouldn't be driving it.

Agreed.

>
> But, taking the longer view, if the authorities are going to put speed
> cameras on the _exits_ of villages (which they do with great
> regularity) then they serve no purpose other than as revenue raisers.
> We therefore have every right to make it as difficult as possible for
> the powers that be to collect our money, including demanding the right
> time on notices and accurate measurement.

What I was trying to say, but put much more clearly.

> There's a camera about to go up near me, and I applaud it as there
> have been two accidents recently in which vehicles have ended up the
> garden of someones house. It's actually not possible to go round the
> corner above 25mph (as many have found out). That is where cameras
> should be sited, not where law abiding motorists will be accelerating
> out of a hazard having made a proper assessment of the conditions and
> being a few yards from a national speed limit sign.

If all cameras were placed where there was a specific need, I doubt if there
would be any opposition - certainly not from me. ISTR that the original
GATSOs were to be placed at accident black spots and at traffic lights to
stop people going through on amber (weren't they originally called "traffic
light cameras"?), and I remember thinking what a good idea that was.

> I did 65 (reasonably safely) past a camera in Nottingham yesterday in
> a 40 limit. I'm not sure whether the 'rushing to hospital' excuse
> (whilst entirely true) will help me out.

Good luck!

--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
Tim Hobbs wrote:

> I did 65 (reasonably safely) past a camera in Nottingham yesterday in
> a 40 limit. I'm not sure whether the 'rushing to hospital' excuse
> (whilst entirely true) will help me out.

I hope you weren't doing 65 around the ringroad at all (I assume you were
heading for the QMC, in which case you probably were)

The whole damn ringroad and most radial roads in Nottingham are rigged for
SPECS now.

Far more insidious form of speed camera.

P.
 

"Paul S. Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Tim Hobbs wrote:
>
>> I did 65 (reasonably safely) past a camera in Nottingham yesterday in
>> a 40 limit. I'm not sure whether the 'rushing to hospital' excuse
>> (whilst entirely true) will help me out.
>
> I hope you weren't doing 65 around the ringroad at all (I assume you were
> heading for the QMC, in which case you probably were)
>
> The whole damn ringroad and most radial roads in Nottingham are rigged for
> SPECS now.
>
> Far more insidious form of speed camera.
>
> P.

Isnt that the horrid one that works out your average speed between two
points - and if that exceeds the limit you get a notice?

I remember when they trialled that on the M1 at leicester - we were doing a
job in nottingham and a load of my staff came up from london, when we got
there one chap had his head in his hands

"whats up malc?" I asked
"we were laughing at the registrations being displayed on the matrix sign,
only when we got here, the lads checked the car and told me that last one we
saw was mine"

He got away with it cos they were testing!

Si


 


I tend to see speed
> limits as more of a long term goal than a restriction. I am the type
> that ****es off other road users by sticking rigidly to the speed
> limit, sorry guys but no amount of gesturing nor driving on my bumper
> will pressure me into breaking the law.
>

Got to admit, so am I.
Mind you having said that I am all for Necklacing the bloody cameras for the
simple reason that they are not used for safety most of the time but simply
for revenue gathering.
I too am a strong believer in one being responsible for ones own actions. If
a rule is set then stick to it otherwise we all start to decide what we will
do and sod anybody else. if the rule is so bad then change it at the next
vote.

John H


 
So Hirsty's was, like

> If a rule is set then stick to it otherwise we all start to
> decide what we will do and sod anybody else. if the rule is so bad
> then change it at the next vote.

Good point. So which party should I vote for at the next election if I want
"safety" cameras restricted to "safety" related sites? No-one's offering
that at the moment.

Democracy, for all its virtues, can be a bit of a blunt instrument.


--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So Hirsty's was, like
>
>> If a rule is set then stick to it otherwise we all start to
>> decide what we will do and sod anybody else. if the rule is so bad
>> then change it at the next vote.
>
> Good point. So which party should I vote for at the next election if I
> want "safety" cameras restricted to "safety" related sites? No-one's
> offering that at the moment.
>
> Democracy, for all its virtues, can be a bit of a blunt instrument.
>
Wandering off-topic slightly further, I think it's more a question of :-
"what party is the least likely to lead us into another war that's really
none of our business and potentially make us victims of increased terrorism
in the process?"
Just my tuppenceworth, speaking as someone with first-hand experience.
Badger.


 
On or around Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:04:18 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>>
>Wandering off-topic slightly further, I think it's more a question of :-
>"what party is the least likely to lead us into another war that's really
>none of our business and potentially make us victims of increased terrorism
>in the process?"
>Just my tuppenceworth, speaking as someone with first-hand experience.
>Badger.
>

<sour>
any or all of the shpxref, if the bloody yank government wants it.
</sour>
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
George Orwell (1903 - 1950) Animal Farm
 
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:57:09 -0000, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So [email protected] was, like
>
>> My mother is a magistrate at a nortumberland court, and she finds its
>> ussually a lot easier just to admit it was you, unless you have very
>> good evidence that is against the case, which you don't seem to have.
>
>I admit it was me, and I admit I was about 5mph over the limit. No problem
>there. What I would argue (to a magistrate or anyone else) is that the
>speed and the time of the "offence" were actually wrong. Would your mother
>approve of this in her court? If so, I'm glad I don't live in
>Northumberland.

Quite a few 'mothers' are Jps :)

May I suggest you allow it to go before the court and then request an
investigation into potential irregularities in the evidence? I don't
mean 'demand', more, as I said, 'request'. You may add that this is
not a denial of the offence, however it is a denial of the degree of
the offence. May sound daft...

 
So Mother" <"@ {m} @ was, like

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:57:09 -0000, "Richard Brookman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So [email protected] was, like
>>
>>> My mother is a magistrate at a nortumberland court, and she finds
>>> its ussually a lot easier just to admit it was you, unless you have
>>> very good evidence that is against the case, which you don't seem
>>> to have.
>>
>> I admit it was me, and I admit I was about 5mph over the limit. No
>> problem there. What I would argue (to a magistrate or anyone else)
>> is that the speed and the time of the "offence" were actually wrong.
>> Would your mother approve of this in her court? If so, I'm glad I
>> don't live in Northumberland.
>
> Quite a few 'mothers' are Jps :)
>
> May I suggest you allow it to go before the court and then request an
> investigation into potential irregularities in the evidence? I don't
> mean 'demand', more, as I said, 'request'. You may add that this is
> not a denial of the offence, however it is a denial of the degree of
> the offence. May sound daft...

The daftest ideas are often the best :) Makes sense, though, if I get that
far. I won't deny the offence, only their figures. I may borrow your
phraseology, though - it sounds suitably clued-up.

I've sent off the form admitting it was me (which it was) and I'm waiting
for the actual prosecution documents to come though. I'm going to request
the calibration certificates etc on the camera used, and if they check out
I'll probably plead guilty. I've got too much going on in my life at the
moment to add to the hassle and worry.

I'm sort of hoping that they may think it not worth the aggro and drop it.
I was talking to a biker today who has been summonsed 4 times in the last
year and threw tham all in the bin. Said he never heard from them again.
May be just talk, but if they are catching about 5000 a year in this
county**, then I guess being awkward might persuade them not to be *rsed.

(** Local "Safety" camera partnership made £300,000 at the last count.
Local paper made them reveal the figure under the new Freedom of Information
Act. They had asked them twice before, but the Talivan refused to release
the revenue figures "as it might undermine support for the safety
initiative". You soddin well bet it would.)


--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
Richard Brookman wrote:

> I've sent off the form admitting it was me (which it was) and I'm waiting
> for the actual prosecution documents to come though. I'm going to request
> the calibration certificates etc on the camera used, and if they check out
> I'll probably plead guilty. I've got too much going on in my life at the
> moment to add to the hassle and worry.

If UK law is like NZ law then you'd best request the training records of
the operator too. In NZ a request like this often leads to the whole
thing being dropped as the operator had missed his 6 monthly refresher
course or whatever. If they don't have training records you might like
to insinuate that as the operator's knowledge/technique hadn't been
tested/refreshed of late there is substantial doubt as to whether the
equipment was being deployed correctly.


--
EMB
 
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 22:09:09 -0000, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The daftest ideas are often the best :) Makes sense, though, if I get that
>far. I won't deny the offence, only their figures. I may borrow your
>phraseology, though - it sounds suitably clued-up.

It may sound even dafter, but Courts do try to be fair. Moreover,
they have a duty to be fair and impartial. If you request of the
Court, or the bench, information in order to further clarify the
evidence as presented, they have a duty to listen to your request and
if reasonable, in the interest of justice, grant it.

>I'm sort of hoping that they may think it not worth the aggro and drop it.
>I was talking to a biker today who has been summonsed 4 times in the last
>year and threw tham all in the bin. Said he never heard from them again.
>May be just talk, but if they are catching about 5000 a year in this
>county**, then I guess being awkward might persuade them not to be *rsed.

This won't really be an issue soon as statutory fines will be doshed
out in such 'FTS'* circumstances (I cannot comment upon whether this
is a quick, easy and dirty means of disposal of 'non-proven
offences').

>(** Local "Safety" camera partnership made £300,000 at the last count.
>Local paper made them reveal the figure under the new Freedom of Information
>Act. They had asked them twice before, but the Talivan refused to release
>the revenue figures "as it might undermine support for the safety
>initiative". You soddin well bet it would.)

Courts (sadly) don't care about this. Their duty is to weigh the
evidence, and make a judgement accordingly. If you don't like it,
vote for a change - the Police and Courts aren't working hand-in-hand,
both simply do what they are charged to do by the lawmakers. Mind,
whoever you vote for, 'The Government' always seem to get in... ;-)




* FTS - Fail To Show, also knows as DNA - Did Not Attend
 
On or around Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:40:36 +0000, Mother <"@ {m} @"@101fc.net>
enlightened us thusly:

>Courts (sadly) don't care about this. Their duty is to weigh the
>evidence, and make a judgement accordingly. If you don't like it,
>vote for a change - the Police and Courts aren't working hand-in-hand,
>both simply do what they are charged to do by the lawmakers. Mind,
>whoever you vote for, 'The Government' always seem to get in... ;-)

ain't that the truth.

Mind, I do rather like the way the freedom of information act is being used
to get embarrassing details out of various places that didn't want 'em
exposed. I wonder if that's what they had in mind.

There was something recently, I know, it was the report about the beagle 2
mars probe. The govt. wanted it suppressed, by the sound of it, but one of
the papers used the FIA to get it made public. Sniggers were heard from
some quarters.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then
something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination -
we learned to talk." Pink Floyd (1994)
 
The speed cameras in Melbourne (Australia) were recently found to be faulty
and the cops had to do a lot of refunding and recrediting of demerit points.
Shows that fighting things can have a result. Having said that, you've
admitted you were going too fast (not at the speed the camera reckons) so
cop it sweet and learn from it. A colleague got done for speeding recently
(118km/h in a 100km/h zone) and he reckons the thing that really brought it
home was being given the nickname "speedy" at work. Peer group pressure
made him realise that speeding is never safe.

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van
> on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the
> instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of
> Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a
> fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One
> is the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57,
> but I was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed
> the camera van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies
> and I can't prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather
> than roll over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless,
> until you factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the
> village, the road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.
>
> There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of
> the calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or
> something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble
> for the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of
> what to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the
> driver - I assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next
> move, guys?
>
> What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was
> looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in
> 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now
> off my chest, and thanks for listening :)
>
> --
>
> Rich
>
> Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous
>


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sierra Charlie
Which one next?
Replies
19
Views
1K
Sierra Charlie
Sierra Charlie
2008Freelander
New member New Zealand 2008 Freelander next to my 1982 G-Wagon LWB
Replies
6
Views
507
2008Freelander
2008Freelander
E
Td5: Shaking engine at short notice at a standstill directly after releasing the clutch
Replies
1
Views
304
miktdish
miktdish
Flossie
Lost me clutch, thoughts? Found the fault with a pic.
Replies
19
Views
2K
KISSMYAURA
KISSMYAURA
J
Puma 2.4 (08) Service Kit Recommendations
Replies
7
Views
471
Hellsteeth
Hellsteeth
Back
Top