I suspect the OP is being prosecuted for careless driving in the absence of any camera/speed trap evidence he was speeding.
The officer can make a statement saying the manner of the driving was careless, including driving at excessive speed.
Looks like the OP has made roadside admissions.
A careless prosecution is a little more serious than a fixed penalty notice for speeding, and could carry a ban and a larger fine.
If the OP intends to maintain his guilty stance, time to get his mitigation in order for the court appearance.
And the best way to do that is to contact an experienced, local solicitor.
These guys - and gals - know how their local magistrates work, which makes their input invaluable.
|
Section 59 is an outrageous device as the Police become judge & jury, with no option to object before a court of law.
Having said that, everything I've read about them suggests that it's aimed at chavs in maxed out Corsas and Saxos as a "catch-all" so the Police can put them under a bit of pressure to behave. I'm therefore extremely surprised to hear of one being used against someone who has been driving for 25yrs and so must be at least early 40's.
Edited by Bill Payer on 13/12/2009 at 09:55
|
|
S59 won't take you to Court - you're not being prosecuted. Its basically a very formal warning as outlined in the second posting. As Bill says a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut if what the OP says is accurate. If they were ordinary street Officers they wouldn't be able to do you for speeding as they would have to prove lots of bits about calibrated speedos and the such like. It seems that they have used S59 as a tool to sanction you.
|
Thank-You all for the info. What I really like to know is, say I was caught again, could they take my car and crush it. And WOULD they. Seems really harsh on me this section 59 thing.
It is not a banger, 2003 ford ka, and I am no boy racer (58). l.o.l Many thanks for info. Graham.
|
Sounds a little heavey handed. may be you could fit one of these & should the situation arise again you may have some defence. It also records sound so its excellent to record an officers attitude if you can remain with the car. It records vehicle speed time & date & GPS location + google map of your position & G force on your X Y & Z axis
www.roadhawk.co.uk/products.htm
Some says it overkill but for less than £200 can save a lot of time & stress
|
|
Does seem heavy-handed. Did you fail the "attitude" test?
|
|
Not in any-way. Totally polite the whole time.
|
|
What is this "Attitude Test" and where is that written in law ?
|
The attitude test is a method employed to get you off driving offences. It only works face to face with police officers.
Fail it, and you get done
Pass it and you get off.
We could tell you how it works, but then we would have to kill you to keep its secrets known to the select few.
Edited by Altea Ego on 13/12/2009 at 17:59
|
i would make a formal complaint to the chief constable in writing, sent be recorded delivery, copied to your local MP and newspaper
its totally out of order this
and like the coppers who keep arresting people or keeping them talking at the side of the road for hours for no more than taking tourist snap shots
they are abusing their powers
sadly its will be your word against theirs, but unless the decent folk push back on this nonsense we will see ever more of it, cumulative affect of multiple people complaining will put pressure on them
next time dont admit anything, if they didnt have a calibrated speedo they cannot do you for speeding
doing 40 in a 30 if you are driving safely is unlikely to be driving without due care or similar, otherwise every emergency response driver in the country would have lost their licence
for me it shows how badly trained many coppers are now, i know for sure their driving training has been significantly reduced from where it was a few years ago
|
It does seem this is wrong. I am a member of another site (a Corsa one) which does sadly have some boy racer types (but they often get banned) but a few of them have been issued these for hanging around in McDonalds car parks playing music and that sort of thing.
I understood they were aware of dealing with anti social car use and speeding can be anti social but it does seem like abuse of powers. Probably little point complaining to the cheif because they all look after their own.
I think seeing a lawyer is the best bet if you can afford it.
|
but a few of them have been issued these for hanging around in McDonalds car parks playing music and that sort of thing.
Not minor stuff IMHO
Local lads tend to hang around our village community centre playing music and that sort of thing. In the case, apart from the decibel level (and richter scale of the bass!) the sort of things involved were revving engines, squeeling wheelspin starts etc plus dropping loads of rubbish.
My daughter works at a drive in McDonalds - same behaviour there is intimidating to the staff and potentailly dangerous.
Section 59?? Bring it on!!!
Edited by Bromptonaut on 13/12/2009 at 19:53
|
Somewhere above, retgtwe said "if they didnt have a calibrated speedo they cannot do you for speeding"
I don't believe that is correct, so long as two experienced officers held the view that you were speeding. (I realise there was only 1 in this case)
|
|
He's nearly right = opinion of an Officer corroborated in some way - which is what the speedo does(calibrated) - CPS nationally won't process evidence unless corroborated by an "approved device" - in t'old days the opinion of two Officers was sufficient, not any more. This is not a "charge" or a summons so CPS don't come into it. The truth lies between over zealous 59ing or a proportionate response. IMHO depends on a number of factors, time of day, lighting, other traffic, pedestrians, whether there is a record of complaints in this area and the Police have promised ot target apparent speeding drivers = with respect to retgwe politicising the debate and going on about 70 limits being 30 is irrelevant in this particular case unless he knows something of where this happens. This could have happened mid-afternoon through hordes of carol singers or Gregorian chanters at dawn for all we know.
Edited by Pugugly on 13/12/2009 at 23:08
|
|
What I really like to know is say I was caught again could they take my car and crush it.
No - you just have to pay the fee for taking it away and you can have it back again.
And WOULD they.
Only if you didn't go and collect it.
|
Found this on the net...
Since 1 January 2003, the police have had the power to seize vehicles being driven in a careless and inconsiderate manner or off-road without consent and in a way which causes alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public. The measure introduced by Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, was brought in specifically to respond to growing public concern about the anti-social use of vehicles. Youths racing vehicles around estates and driving recklessly on roads and footpaths or across parks and open spaces have been a growing problem which can blight local communities causing misery and distress to people going about their daily lives. The power enables the police to put an immediate stop to this dangerous and anti-social behaviour.
Seems wholly the wrong thing for your circumstance.
How did they know you were speeding... by following in a panda car?
If you are 100% sure of the circumstance, also that you are an upstanding citizen, then I'd have to write in to the Chief and ask why the anti-idiot sanction was used against you.
From my reading of section 59 it seems if the same guys stopped you under similar circumstances, now you have the first warning, they could take you car on suspicion without the need for proof/court/prosecution. I wouldn't want that hanging over me.
|
All correct MM - the only correction I would make is (nt mentioned n the Act) is that the car and driver's details are entered on PNC so it doesn't have to be the same guys - a recipient or his car can be stopped in any part of E&W and the seizure notice issued. They won't go amd scrap your car you can have it back for fee (set by law).
The Officers involved must have a record and reason for issuing a 59, it has to pass a basic evidential test and be recorded in the Officer's notebooks. It may be issued as a result of a third party complaint, Police aren't obliged to disclose the identity of the third party but their information has to pass an evidential test. May be worth complaining about though - but it may seem as a reasonable response where 40mph n a 30 limit may be anti social. Obviously some respondents have additional knowledge about this incident to be able to foam at the mouth about proportionality
Edited by Pugugly on 13/12/2009 at 19:39
|
Speeding is not the actions of a normal prudent driver and so it falls within the defintion of due care (S3). Speed as such also satisfies the second leg of the S59 requirement mentioned above so game,set and match to Forces that are starting to use this as a deterent.
Which Force is involved?
dvd
|
Speeding is not the actions of a normal prudent driver
Not sure you are right there DVD. Quite a lot of normal prudent drivers exceed speed limits.
|
|
I've had a quick browse through the legislation and cannot see if there is a time limit between the first warning and the second occasion when the car can be lifted. Surely there must be one???
My interpretation is that the two occasions should be connected. In other words Sec 59 warning issued - drive away - return later and the Herbert has decided to ignore the warning - car lifted. However I can see some merit in the two occasions occurring over two days or even weekends.
My other interpretation is that 'careless driving' does not stand on its own there must be something anti social - tyre squeeling etc.
|
Some advice for Cambridgeshire Constabulary staff here:
www.hampshire.police.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FC5DA188-1F5E...f
Nut and bolt legislation here (scroll down to Section 59):
www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020030_en_7
|
|
S59 seems to give a fairly simple method of confronting stupidity. Our patch has an attraction for rally drivers and wannabees. The police are stretched trying to stop anti-social doughnutting, sprints etc etc. Local police used it when a youth apparently decided I needed a fright, as I crossed over a minor road from a less minor one. Was half over, when he turned in. Despite me wearing head torch, and dog having retroreflectives, he decided to drive right up within easy reach of his bonnet, which I rapped as a "warning". He now has a S59 notice, after he admitted the facts. I suspect he had form. Not that I imply the OP has any! If correctly used, S59 seems a valuable tool.
|
"Speeding is not the actions of a normal prudent driver"
Take any motorway on any day and you could fill one of your books in 5 minutes.
We could argue all day long about speeding, arbitary limits etc that are arrived at on a whim.
70mph on a motorway in good conditions is too slow, 70mph in fog/rain is too fast.
IIRC even the police argued for an 80mph limit.
|
"Speeding is not the actions of a normal prudent driver" nosense, sounds like the cops making the law up as they go along
there are many roads that were 70 limits for more than 20 years that have had the limit reduced in recent times to 30 for political reasons, there is absolutley no way doing 40 mph on those roads is suddenly unsafe in the absence of any other reason to slow down
normal prudent drivers routinely assess the nonsense signs and limits they see and make a judgement call on whether its remotely sensible, sometimes they go more slowly and sometimes the vast majority of prudent good drivers go faster
i would be surprised if this interpretation has been proven in court, and if it has its a disgrace
really good decent honest coppers should not be supporting ever more persecution of the vast bulk of decent ordinary folk
personally i can take you to many 30 limit roads where nobody does less than 40 including the cops
what complete tosh
complain and complain loud
|
Many Thanks to all the advice and replies. Think I may drop the chief constable a line, see if I can get any where. The police car did not have a speed recording device fitted. And he was driving alone. It was me that admitted doing 40 m.p.h. He said I was doing in excess of that, but could not prove it. Then stated that he was going to give me a section 59.
|
Looks like an attitude test failure to me.
|
complain and complain loud
Like "I broke the law, got caught and the police let me off with a warning"
yes I would be shouting to the Chief Constable about that one!
|
I'd be very interested in what the Chief Constable thinks if you complain too. You have already admitted to an officer you were doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and were charged under this section 59 notice. What is there to complain about? You admit some guilt.
Perhaps better to enquire what the section 59 means for you? How long does it last before someone takes the car etc.
|
Difficult one.
I got nicked for speeding in completely benign circumstances and was zapped in a way that broke several aspects of the ACPO guidelines. I wrote out a snotty letter to the local Chief Con but the police office relative advised me not to send it unless I wanted to be stopped everytime I was out in the car.
|
|
12 months IIRC Fullchat
Edited by Pugugly on 13/12/2009 at 22:34
|
Right. Thanks all so much. Think it last 1 year. So just gonna leave it. Still think its a bit harsh though. Many thanks all for your help and advice. Merry xmas to all.
|
Still think its a bit harsh though
So do I. But if this was due to speeding this time then next time you might just get 3 points and 60 quid fine anyway. Probably issues because the officer (and you) knew you were speeding and you admitted it.
Merry Christmas to you to.
|
still an abuse of power
tough enough jobs the cops have without alienating their natural supporters ever more
|
still an abuse of power
It's not really an abuse of power, is it? Graham admits that he was speeding, and a fair percentage over the speed limit. The policeman dealt with him using the tools at his disposal and, on balance, the outcome is probably better than getting the points.
Now, if he hadn't been speeding, or if it was marginal, then using a s59 to get around the fact that you couldn't justify a speeding ticket would seem to be much closer to an abuse of power. Now perhaps the s59 powers provide an ability to abuse power if they see fit, but so does just having a police uniform, it doesn't mean that if that power is used it is always an abuse.
Edited by SteelSpark on 14/12/2009 at 00:45
|
I'm all for upholding the law in a fair way. But it seems the police officer concerned knew his "evidence" for speeding would not pass the requirements of a fixed penalty or court case so used a heavy handed warning. This isn't some harmless warning if it allows the impounding of the OP's car should a similar circumstance occour in the next 12mths.
It appears Section 59 can operate without absolute proof so can be used when a "reason to suspect" exists.... this is a pretty grey area if the ultimate threat is taking a vehicle.
If I was caught speeding I'd want the punishment for that crime ... £60 and 3 points or whatever... asuming the crime could be properly proven.
Not some public order type sanction related to idiots with over-blinged and under-maintained motors who have little respect for public or police.... and will often offend time and time again while laughing in the face of authority.
Edited by M.M on 13/12/2009 at 23:01
|
|
MM - This law was brought in by Blunkett in response to a constituent moaning about boy-racers in a surgery. It was tacked on to a piece of legistlation (Police Reform Act) that happened to be going through the House at the time - another poorly put together bit of law which wasn't thought out by our Dear Leaders at the time. I must add that I agree with the principle though ! It was then left to the Police to finish off the law by developing local practices - it took a good twelve months for the Police to establish a national database (on PNC) - I managed to overturn one a few years ago - the story is on a thread here somewhere but Ican't be bothered to search !
Edited by Pugugly on 13/12/2009 at 23:13
|
Idea !
Maybe the government ought to set up some hidden speed cameras on all motoways.Give it a fortnight before sending out the fines so the nation does not cotton on and Voila ! They could then reduce to zero, the billions they have borrowed/wasted in no time at all.
Even better, just send a speeding ticket to ALL motorists because they have all broken the speed limit at some point and I would wager that most would just pay it anyway, if the attitude on this thread is the norm.
Come on guys admit it, you have all broken the law. £60 to Alistair and get good ole Blighty out of the financial doodoo !
|
No thanks! The Government have already had unquantified thousands of £s off me, without my approval, to bail out and banks AND dish out Xmas bonuses! Enough is enough so no more!
|
|
Sadly I understand the cost per family of the banking bail out is £41,000... going to take more than a few speeding fines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
