... or rather perverting the course of justice
|
If you're admitting to us that you were speeding then you deserve a penalty.
--
L\'escargot.
|
If you're admitting to us that you were speeding then you deserve a penalty.
Had the temporary limit not have been in effect, going 52mph would've been a perfectly reasonable speed in a 50 zone, and certainly wouldn't have got any attention from PC Plod or his giant yellow money-boxes. However, if you knowingly drove past a 40 sign, and didn't adjust your speed as necessary, your choices are:
a) Accept you were in the wrong, pay your £60 and get 3 points,
b) Claim ignorance of the temporary limit, and open yourself up to allegations of driving without due care & attention plus the speeding offence,
c) Tell them you don't know who was driving, and risk being done for perverting the cause of justice as well as the speeding offence.
Both (b) and (c) have potentially far stiffer penalties than (a) IMO. Your choice though.
|
"Had the temporary limit not have been in effect, going 52mph would've been a perfectly reasonable speed in a 50 zone,"
Speed signs are maximum not minimum to me a more sensible speed in a 50 zone would 40 and speeding through roadworks having worked roadside I would give a ban for life.
|
Speed signs are maximum not minimum
The Police don't want to know unless you're going 10% plus 2 over the limit (i.e. 57 in a 50 zone), and rightly so. If they caught everyone for going 30.1mph in a 30 zone, we'd all be walking to work. Unlike the zero-tolerance brigade, the Police are quite reasonable about speed.
|
|
|
I would certainly NOT try to claim that you were not driving at the time of the offence. It might work for people with expensive lawyers, but its quite possible that you'll end up in deep water and losing a lot more than £60.
Sounds like you were zipping through at a fair speed - presumably there were cones, working vehicles etc around, as well as the 40mph signs? Difficult to defend that one.
I suspect a lot of roadside workers subscribe to the view that 'speed kills'. In my youger days, when I was working at my father's garage, I used to do the occassional roadside recovery and it could be quite frightening. Trying to hook up a car at the side of a busy dual carriageway with amber lights flashing and you've got half-wits missing you by inches at 80mph! Unfortunately most drivers don't care unless its them or their family at risk.
|
How do the people that have already convicted this driver of the offence
a>know he was the one driving
b>know he was speeding
Furthermore I didn't have any 'fancy lawyers' and managed to succesfully fend off attempt by the scamera partnerships to stitch me up for something I didn't do. ;-)
|
'Cuz I guess he would have written something along the lines of, " Just notified of speeding offence of 52mph when I wasn't even driving the car"..... The title of the thread also implies that he was doing it.
Speed camera threads are really boring now. Cameras are out there, they are a fact of life. If he wasn't driving then fair enough, he should defend himself. But stating you're were 'not driving' when you were (as OH seemed to be suggesting - via use of 'quotation marks' - ramps up the stakes very considerably).
|
I take issue with the assumption that someone is guilty without proof.
Take my own case, I was 'done for speeding in a 70mph zone' and I wondered if there was any 'getout' as I was unsure of who was driving. It turned out there was and I'd suggest everyone at least looks into challenging what may be an unfair allegation rather than accepting a fine and points because it's easier.
As for being bored by speed camera threads why not try exercising some restraint and not reading or commenting on them if they are that tiresome? It might be more constructive than the rather pathetic comments I've read here suggesting people just bend over and take what the authorities want to give them .
BTW I should add I don't condone breaking speed limits in road works, they are there for a reason. However by the same token I don't assume that people accused of doing so are actually guilty..........
|
>>I take issue with the assumption that someone is guilty without proof.
So do I, as do probably most of us - maybe all of us.
But I am unable to see the righteous indignation in OP's post which would suggest he thought himself as anything but guilty as a guilty thing.
Whilst you may think yourself very clever, OH, as you had what was presumably true doubt as to the identity of the driver, you were in a completely different situation to OP here.
|
Presume what you like and I don't just think I'm very clever ;-)
I didn't read any indignation into the original post and neither did I read any admission. I prefer to deal in the facts of what's possible rather than make value judgements about what someone may or may not have done.
|
|
A vacuous has-been politician and his wife may have no idea as to who was driving when they were clocked by a camera (I wonder if he is related to Lewis at all?), but OH, given your interest in cars, I would be very surprised if you genuinely didn't know who was driving when you were clocked. ;-) Whether the driver is guilty or not is another matter ...
|
I would suggest Old Hand that you temper your advice with a bit of caution.
You may or may not be aware that on the recent change of ACPO Traffic Head, now CC South Yorks, a warning was given that more attention was to be paid to those who it appeared were trying to circumvent the system. If you have been following matters then there has been an increasing number of those prosecuted for this and at the best a heafy fine, the worst prison sentence for perverting the course of justice.
What comes around will, in time, come around.
dvd
|
Thanks for the update, best to proceed with caution then and do your research on pepipoo if you want to fight back against what may seem to some a system which goes against natural justice.
I have to admit that as I don't live in the UK and only drive there in a foreign reigstered car these days that my current knowledge of the subject has waned somewhat.
I do find it hard to understand how someone can be found guilty of perverting the course of justice if they can show good cause and due dilligence however. Do you have any handy links to the cases? I'm always interested in the erosion of what little freedoms remain in my mother country.
|
I'm always interested in the erosion of what little freedoms remain in my mother country.
Answer: not many. We don't have a democratically-elected leader, we can be held for 28 days without any evidence brought against us, and we're cornered into confessing to committing motoring offences of which there is often none other than circumstantial evidence (namely a picture of a car) which wouldn't be admissible in a court of law for any other offence. Rule Brittania! ;-)
|
I am not saying lie down and take the penalty, but if this is a first offence and its only 3 points, then that is not too much of a deal nowadays. Yes if there is any doubt, fight the case, but if you don't have serious doubt, just sign the NIP or whatever, return it , and get on with your life.
However, if its now taking you nearer the 12 point mark and nearer disqualification, you need to ask yourself why you have all those points and are you really safe to be on the road???
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
Yes if there is any doubt fight the case but if you don't have serious doubt just sign the NIP or whatever return it and get on with your life.
That's right just take it on the chin, do what you're told and conform. Don't ask questions just comply.
|
but if you don'thave serious doubt just sign the NIP or whatever return it and get on with your life.
>That's right just take it on the chin, do what you're told and conform. Don't
>ask questions just comply.
We choose to live in this scepter'd isle. By doing so, we agree to abide by the law. If OP broke it and was caught then yes, he should indeed do as he is told.
You choose not to live here. And when you come here, you bring a foreign registered car and so can get away with breaking our laws. Fine. With luck eventually a real policeman will get hold of you.
|
That's right just take it on the chin do what you're told and conform. Don't ask questions just comply.
I was brought up in an era when 'traditional British values' were common. I was brought up to obey the law, and if I were to break the law and be challenged then I put my hand up and accept the consequences. It was this 'conformity', i.e. the rule of law and order, and the respect for it, was one of the things that made the British respected around the world. If I don't like a law then I will argue against it, but I don't think that gives me the right to ignore the law and freedom to break that law. If I am wrongly accused then I will fight tooth and nail to defend myself and see justice done.
In the context of being caught by a speed camera, I would never stoop to evading prosecution by refusing to say who was driving the car; if it was me, I would say it was me, if it was another person, I would give their name. Maybe I am stupid or too compliant, but that's the way I was brought up. Maybe its really clever and smart to get away with it by feigning poor memory, but its not honest.
As regards the original poster, then IF he was driving and IF he was speeding past the roadworks then he should take it on the chin and perhaps look upon it positively it as a wake-up call that he should concentrate on his driving a little more in future.
|
Answer: not many. We don't have a democratically-elected leader we can be held for 28 days without any evidence brought against us and we're cornered into confessing to committing motoring offences of which there is often none other than circumstantial evidence (namely a picture of a car) which wouldn't be admissible in a court of law for any other offence. Rule Brittania! ;-)
... not forgetting we have no right to a peaceful protest if those in power don't want us to!
|
|
Forgot about that! How long before we start burning books? ;-)
|
"we're cornered into confessing to committing motoring offences ........... which wouldn't be admissible in a court of law for any other offence."
Wrong: you can be extradited to the democratic USA on minimal evidence - and none required for a UK court.. thanks to Messrs Blair and Brown. (after all what's a few cases of injustice compared to a war on false evidence?:-(
madf
|
war on false evidence?:-(
I think we should probably chill out and get back to motoring?
I've got strong feeling on this too, but the BR perhaps isn't the place to air them.
Edited by Webmaster on 02/05/2008 at 21:01
|
|
You may well be right but I feel duty bound to mention people who aren't young American girls using the phrase 'Oh My God' sound pretty stupid. The acronym doubly so.
|
The 'Hijacked by Aliens' defence:
'... a deep harmonious voice, neither male nor female. My client was bathed in perfect warmth and the air was suffused with golden light. He felt that no harm could come to him.
'Imagine my client's shock and horror on receiving this allegation that at that very moment he was being clocked at 117mph by a camera in the Old Brompton Road....'
|
The 'Hijacked by Aliens' defence:
LOL!
|
"a deep harmonious voice, neither male nor female. My client was bathed in perfect warmth and the air was suffused with golden light"
The proscution proved he had been listening to Cliff Richard with the climate control at high whilst speeding through an amber
|
'... a deep harmonious voice neither male nor female. My client was bathed in perfect warmth and the air was suffused with golden light. He felt that no harm could come to him. 'Imagine my client's shock and horror on receiving this allegation that at that very moment he was being clocked at 117mph by a camera in the Old Brompton Road....'
The court finds that a driver susceptible to control by aliens is not fit to drive. Lifetime driving ban ...
although a drive who can manage 117mph on the Brompton Rd must have something going for him!
|
You may or may not be aware that on the recent change of ACPO Traffic Head now CC South Yorks a warning was given that more attention was to be paid to those who it appeared were trying to circumvent the system
First port of call should be South Yorkshire Police then, given that they've had problems identifying drivers of their cars when they're caught speeding, and a large proportion of speeding incidents by their officers aren't prosecuted.
In fact they have prosecuted themselves once for failing to identify speeding police drivers!
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006...l
|
|
Indeed, one rule for them. Another rule for the rest of us.
|
"Indeed, one rule for them. Another rule for the rest of us."
I'm sorry but does the above post with a link to the CC of S.Yorks Police getting prosecuted show that infact there is NOT one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
--
Fullchat
|
Ravenger
the reason why S Yorks do not prosecute all Police speeding incidents could this be the reason:
Exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits.No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.
S 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ????
dvd
|
|
So truly a case of "one law for them and one law for us".......! :-)
|
In that context, yes. ;-)
--
Fullchat
|
|
... to me a more sensible speed in a 50 zone would 40 and speeding through roadworks having worked roadside ...
in reply to andy bairstow - you may be surprised to read this thread
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=422384...0
... failed the guy because he was driving at 60 on a 70 limit dual carriageway!!! ...
..... my cousing got failed for 44 in a 50 through roadworks! ....
"Making suitable progress".
|
|
|
|
|
