[Closed] Speeding penalty

Sorry you're talking bollocks Clubber.

Of course she should play the system, thats what its there for. She isn't doing anything dodgy or illegal she would be going through a fair trial. If the evidence is there, she would be prosecuted as normal.

What she shouldnt do is, if there is any doubt, allow herself to be put through rubber stamp justice.

mtb rossi - then you are a dick - this is not a murder case ffs!

The principle is exactly the same

OK, no point arguing it with you - we're clearly not going to agree.

She may well hold her hands up and say 'its a fair cop' but, she is also well within her rights to fight it and test the evidence presented against her. She shouldn't be made to feel guilty because of that right.

You may have the legal right, but as far as I am concerned you do not have the MORAL right to try and evade justice for something you KNOW you did.

Everyone has a right to a free and fair trial and the minute people start to think its OK to waive that right or just allow themselves to be 'processed' is the minute we fail as a free society in my opinion.

Yes especially when you know you are guilty as charged and have done the same thing multiple times. Remember you have rights and just ignore your own responsibilities to other people and the wider society in general 🙄

[url= http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=speeding+fines ]Christ google is awash with Jackal companies[/url]

Thats her moral choice, but those are the options as asked for by the OP.

ditto - just sad I have to live in the same society as folk with that attitude. Scream blue murder if you think you have been accused of something you have not done but to try to weasel your way out of something you know you are guilty of makes you, well, a weasel! And no one likes a weasel.

Wow, this thread has gone ape!

I think we should all stay indoors as the outdoors is a dangerous place.... 😉

mtb rossi - then you are a dick - this is not a murder case ffs!

Nah - it's ok. If they type your date of birth wrong on the piece of paper, 60+ in a 30 zone is fine, innit.

Yet another example of people trying to make someone else take the blame for their own idiocy.

Well no, no one likes a weasel. But it's down to them. It's the most fundamental principle of justice but also its most flawed. It allows people, who are clever enough, to quite literally get away with murder.

Why do you think we go to great lengths to gather evidence through forensics, CCTV and other methods.

I like weasels. They get a bad press 😉

[img] [/img]

On a general note I bloody have near misses with people on the road who lack spatial awareness or any hazard perception let alone not noticing big clues or brightly lit warning boxes that shout 'warning you may lose your job if you sail through here speeding'. I don't give a rats-ass if it makes me all allmighty. Its just people need to understand that they share the road with many other people. If she keeps her licence its own a matter of time isn't it? Some people have speed engrained into them and nothing will slow them down. A ban might give her a better job that doesnt rely on driving.

Lack of awareness + speed + a job thats on the road = bad things.

Sorry wrong forum. Pistonheads will offer you impartial advice as a fair few of them are cycling-haters (sad but true).

I thought the OP's query was about trying to avoid points/fine/ban based on the late arrival of the NIP, from the way I read it there was no question about guilt?
I presumed that had this late NIP not taken the points to 12 then OP's wife would have taken the FP?

Nice Weasel clubber 😉

I liked it too. Looked pleasantly startled...

I take it back - I quite like the look of that weasel.

See. One weasel and what was a potential conflict flashpoint in the thread is converted to peace and harmony.

As you were...

The weasel of peace!

I love you Clubber

I know 😉

🙂

Only w*nkers like mboy above shirk their responsibility by trying to get off things they know they have done. I'm sure your wife is not a w*nker!

Eh? I've not shirked anything... I got done for speeding once, 9 and a bit years ago, took the 3 points and the fine on the chin. I just stated what I know a couple of people to have done in the past, exploiting a legal loophole. I've not done it, nor do I need to, but for someone who might need to, it's worth investigating no?

Mmm.. mboy seems to be advocating people trying to evade their responsibilities..?

Read it how you want, I was trying to be helpful... There is currently still a legal loophole around the need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle at the time, so I understand. Surely you're not advocating that you think it's better that Bushwacked's wife loses her job?

No I have close scares at least once a week with people who look straight through me or actually don't seem me until I've shouted at them.

Yup, I get that quite a bit when I'm on my bike too. There's plenty of shit drivers out there, and more often than not, they're going too slowly not too quickly! I've been knocked off my bike before by someone who clearly just couldn't see past the end of his nose, wouldn't have made much difference had he been going twice the speed (except maybe he'd have missed me as it happens!).

It worries me that someone can rack up points when cameras are clearly signed before you get to them and if you see them they are bright yellow. Ontop of that the OP's partner is speeding.

Fair comment, they aren't exactly conspicuous. Sometimes peoples concentration can wane though, you might get distracted. I bet if we took everyone from this thread on an extended drive, and monitored their ability to spot everything on the drive and react accordingly, everyone would miss a few things. It is fact that humans make errors, and even those who are most used to doing certain tasks will only get them right 95% of the time on the whole (there are all sorts of studies been done into this BTW guys!). Obviously the key is that the 5% mistakes we make are hopefully in a non critical area. I consider myself a reasonable driver, but I still make mistakes. I entered a corner on an unfamiliar road on Saturday evening, in the wet, probably about 5mph too fast (I was doing 45mph in a 60 limit, just goes to show that speed limits mean cock all quite frankly!) and the rear tyres of the car broke traction briefly and I had to correct with a little bit of opposite lock.

Yes getting caught 4 times in a short space of time is perhaps careless, but how many times do you drive over the speed limit each day? I bet that most people on here, who consider themselves "good law abiding citizens" will regularly break the speed limit, even if only by a few mph. I've done it, we all do it. I also know of people unlucky enough to have got a speeding ticket for doing 31mph in a 30mph zone, so so much for the 10% over rule... And I'd bet we've all done 31mph in a 30 zone plenty of times, without realising.

If I wasn't a cyclist I'd follow alot of Pistonheaders views 'aww mate they are generating income and victimising the public' whereas when you have close-calls it REALLY DOES change your perception on drivers awareness, ability and speed.

No, they just took LOTS of decent coppers off the road. You know, the policeman, a person that has the ability to use his judgement as to whether or not something was indeed safe or not. A speed camera only detects excessive speed, a policeman can detect all sorts of things, including drunken driving, drug induced driving, driving without due care and attention, and all sorts of other things that speed cameras cannot detect!

Close calls that I've had (including being hit) don't make me question people's ability to deal with speed, they make me question the majority of people's ability to drive... FULL STOP! The only way to improve this in the future is to make the driving test much stricter, and require many more skills to pass, with regular retest intervals. But that won't happen anytime soon.

Soon cameras will disappear which is sad in a way. Normal people have the ability to spot them. they carry our a valuable function of removing the elderly and visually impaired.

Crock of sh*t. The only sad thing is that the £20k plus that each one cost in the first place (plus annual running expenses) wasn't used more constructively, perhaps putting more plod on the road... Having been pulled over twice in the last year (once my brake light had failed, that day ironically, the other time just a random check), I'm grateful of the service that the traffic police provide. Each time they were polite and courteous, took their time to examine that my car was safe and roadworthy, that it was insured, that I was legal to drive, and then let me get on my way... I didn't feel victimised in the slightest! Can a speed camera check that I've got a license, I'm insured, I'm not drunk, that the car has an MOT, is safe to drive etc?

Think you lot really need to stop reading the Daily Mail, see that actually there is often 2 sides to every story. It's not like Bushwacked's wife has conciously been putting points on a Dead person's license, unlike the woman that recently got prosecuted for doing so, is it!

Quick! We need another weasel!!!

Look into my eyes...

[img] [/img]

the weasel looks dodgy - eyes too far apart - abit like kate moss

if its May its not valid, you should get them no later than 6 weeks, even if you had a hire/lease car you should get it in that period of time, after that its not valid, BUt she should take a big leason and slow up or be more aware of whats going on around her if she is driving for a living, I got done on the mobile REVENUE camera last year for being 2mph over the limit in a 30, 3 points/£60 he was also on the other side of the road shooting across a grass island, did not know they could get you both ways, got that after 28 years of points free driving for a living,

That, I believe, is the stoat of uncertainty.

That weasel is unsettling. 🙁

The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section 1.-
1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—
( c ) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of
the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence
and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed,
was—
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the
person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time
of the commission of the offence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 6.-(3)
inserted the following sub-section into the RTOA 1988 (as above).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person
may be served on that person—
(a) by delivering it to him;
(b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known
address; or
( c ) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or
first class post addressed to him at his last known address.

The 14 day time limit only applies to the first NIP in the chain, i.e. the one to the registered keeper

Further: http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/procedure/notice_of_intended_prosecution.htm

The registered keeper was contacted within 14 days, however it has been several months before I, the driver at the time of the alleged offence, was contacted. Do I still have a case to answer?
The only obligation upon the Police is to issue the original Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days. Despite taking so long to contact you, the delay does not provide you with a technical get out. The Police have 6 months in which to prosecute.

The Weasel says so.

Not seeing a speed camera is bad driving. (Well, bad observation.)

[img] [/img]

Weasel doing the hula (hula hoop not pictured)

There is currently still a legal loophole around the need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle at the time, so I understand.

Surely you're not advocating that you think it's better that Bushwacked's wife loses her job?

No, and I don't think anyone else would either. Which is why the unnecessary hardship plea would most likely work in this case - esp since the extra points date from a time before she cleaned up her act.

3 points is careless, 6 very careless - but 12? It makes you wonder. I can't pass judgement as I haven't driven with the OP or his wife, but it does raise a few questions, that's all.

I've been knocked off my bike before by someone who clearly just couldn't see past the end of his nose, wouldn't have made much difference had he been going twice the speed

It bloody well would! You'd have been smacked twice as hard and flown twice as far...

Technically, four times as hard and four times as far (well, based on energy conservation only...)

Only if you ignore the law which requires you to identify the driver and/or take the risk of a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, both of which generally carry a much larger sentence than the speeding. If she was the only person likely to have been driving the car at the time, as is likely to be the case from the info given, then they're likely to be able to make a pretty good case for the latter if she decides to mess around.

Fair point, but if there is a case that one of several drivers may have been driving the car at the time, but you are uncertain as to who it was, provide each name and address of the likely drivers, then surely this is not perverting the course of justice?

And if it is, how come I know people that have managed to do this (recently) and got away with it?

And yes, attempting to pervert the course of justice would just be totally bloody stupid, I should add!

Nowadays, can't they pretty easily prove who was driving just by showing phone tracking records? Particularly if they think you're trying to pull a fast one? (onbiously won't work if there were several people who could have been driving in the car but would they really be willing to put their necks on the line?)

Technically, four times as hard and four times as far (well, based on energy conservation only...)

LOL, there's always one! 😉

In my case though the driver definitely WOULD have missed me had he been going twice as fast, he'd have turned in front of me, not into me... But that is besides the point.

Surely as probably all of us have strayed over the speed limit at some point in time we should all "morally" put our collective hands up and wander straight down to the nearest cop shop? Or does the moral argument only come in to it if you've actually been caught?

Speeding where there are no cameras is fine. It's like trees falling in forests where there's no one to hear...

Surely as probably all of us have strayed over the speed limit at some point in time we should all "morally" put our collective hands up and wander straight down to the nearest cop shop?

Yep, but punishment is meant to discourage people from doing it, so what we should morally do is therefore go one step further and be discouraged from speeding. So if you find yourself over the limit, resolve not to do it again and make the effort.

Points are only there to replace people's sense of obligation.

Surely as probably all of us have strayed over the speed limit at some point in time we should all "morally" put our collective hands up and wander straight down to the nearest cop shop? Or does the moral argument only come in to it if you've actually been caught?

Which is precisely why the whole moral argument is a total crock.

I bet there's plenty of people reading this who speed more often, and to a greater degree than B's wife does, but haven't been caught... I don't see them rushing to admit fault!

Speeding where there are no cameras is fine. It's like trees falling in forests where there's no one to hear...

Does that one work if you get pulled over by a copper for speeding though? 😉

Jesus people on here are such leftys, drive your car at the speed thats appropriate for the road/conditions and look out for speed cameras for when your judgment doesnt match the local councils

It's the 'appropriate' part that's the issue.

One man's appropriate is another man's far too fast.

I know, why don't we label all roads with a certain speed? That way, everyone will be doing more or less the same thing and traffic will flow nicely. We could make the pace nice and easy to keep everything that bit safer.

Surely as probably all of us have strayed over the speed limit at some point in time we should all "morally" put our collective hands up and wander straight down to the nearest cop shop? Or does the moral argument only come in to it if you've actually been caught?

Good point.

Confession time - for a few weeks I had 9 points on my licence - and very worrying weeks they were too. Did the trick though as I have modified my ways, especially in built up areas. I don't think I ever break the limits in 30s & 40s any more but whilst not reckless I seem to be less prone to strictly observing 60s and motorway limits. I have a desire to own a quickish car at the moment which means the beast must still be yearning within.