Irrespective of what one thinks about speed mentioned and it sticks in my craw, the guy asked for advice and gets flamed. Not HJ is it?
My two penneth:
Presumably having been served with request under S172 RTA 88 to name and shame the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an offence of speeding OP is in this position.
He either accepts that he or his wife was driver and signs the form and returns within 28 days. The speed involved will not qualify for a Conditional Offer (£60/3 points) and a summons will be issued with a view for the Magistrates to consider a ban which may be evaded if one can prove such will cause undue hardship and evidence will be required on this.
But the OP is in a quandry as neither can remember who was driving at the time of being flashed. I am always wary when I read this but I suppose it can happen. The photo does not apparently help.
The position is that the 172 form HAS TO BE complied with a a driver named and returned within 28 days. Failure to do so is an offence so a summons to Court where, if found guilty, in addition to fine, CPS Costs, Victim Support donation, SIX POINTS on the Licence.
But a person shall not be guilty of an offence if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. This will have to be argued before the Bench with what evidence can be mustered, who in fairness have heard it all before and will take some convincing.
If the route of failing memory is to be taken then consider naming both on the Form as driver togehtre with a note why both are named. It will then be up to the SCP whether they accept and NFA or continue on for a Court hearing. I suspect it will be the later.
Off track but bad memory - is that not a condition that could make a driver unsafe on the road and a risk to others? If so, when the Bench hear such cases as outlined why don't they refer the matter to DVLA who can invoke Medical procedure to see if the person is fit to hold a Driving Licence? The power IMHO is there.
To AS (stands to attention and salutes for ex Pilots are my heroes):
From my days patrolling in and around RAF Leeming I was always under the impression that a RAF Pilot reported for dasterdly traffic offences, because RAF did not feature as an injured person, proceedings were held at a civvy Court (unless caught by Snowdrop on Camp limits) and not Court Martial and a review of his behaviour conducted as it could show L.M.F. (lack of moral fibre). If that was the case then ..............>OUT.
dvd
|
Irrespective of what one thinks about speed mentioned and it sticks in my craw the guy asked for advice and gets flamed. Not HJ is it?
Unfortunatlely, DVD, increasingly, it is the way threads are going.
|
As an (ex) speed freak, I'll try to offer some serious advice - but I don't think you'll like it.
Assume the police can prove who was driving at the time, so going with the 'can't remember defence' needs to be very carefully thought through with some good legal advice.
Sell the car. It's just not worth breaking the law to this extent.
Join RoSPA / IAM - and take their advice seriously
Do this before you go to court.
I - and others here - have had to change out attitude to speed on public roads. It looks like you're going to be converted too; one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
and gets flamed.
According to the online dictionary I checked, flamed means to insult or criticize provokingly.
I don't see any of the posts as being in that vein.
|
"I expected one or two replies, not 30+ !!"
As the chicken said to its mates, who were now tempted to start pecking each other just because it had run across the yard too fast.
;)
|
With the greatest respect to my learned friend DVD I have to say that I don't think OP has come out of this too badly! I think what may have raised the blood pressure and vitriol levels among our members was:-
"I have been done for doing 97 in a 60 limit (nice day and little traffic so no danger!!)."
Many of us may have taken this to read as "I know the law but but doesn't apply to me"
I am sure that wasn't what he intended but I think it was a poor start to long thread which actually contains sound advice among the asides and harsh comments!
|
" I posted at just after 3pm and then been out shopping and been for a gargle. Not everyone spends their life on computers. I expected one or two replies, not 30+ !!
Car was snapped on a normal 60mph road. Its a quiet road, the weather was good and the car is ticking over at 100mph so my concience is clear on the safety aspect."
So you do possess a good memory.
"I can't believe you can get a ban for doing under 100"
Its the rules. We all suffer the same consequences. Get used to it, or, move to Germany.
"There is no point in telling ME to slow down now after the event"
So you admit you were driving.
Why the need for the post. And the churlish responses from a new member to the forum is pure arrogance. What did you expect.
|
What did you expect.
Sympathy from a load of fellow petrolheads, I suspect, what he infact got was very little sympathy and a list of things he needs to do before its too late... and the consequences if he does them too late!
|
Scribe - not sure that moving to the Fatherland would help the OP - he was doing 97 in a 60, not on an unrestricted section of autobahn.
DWD - what you see above is most certainly not flaming. For a copper you seem to have led a sheltered life!
I'd have thought you'd have picked up on the issue of stopping distance - it's about 150m at 100 mph, so his comment "nice day and little traffic so no danger!!" implies that he has absolutely no comprehension of the danger of his speed.
Edited by oldnotbold on 16/09/2008 at 11:01
|
|
|
I like to think that we are more brain-heads than petrol-heads here!
|
I think this bloke (if a real situation in the first place) has had a very fair hearing and some good advice.
Did he expect some Mr Loophole style assistance? If so, he knows where to go for that.
The more he has posted (if a real situation in the first place) the more smug and self-righteous he has sounded.
If you aren't a wind-up merchant, jez, I suggest you pay up and look big.
|
The original poster came for advice on how to get off this offence. But the consensus is he cannot and someone will get points and a fine. And possibly a ban.
If 6 points cause a problem (ban under totting up or even a short ban full-stop) worries the original poster then he should seek legal advice. This is most likely going to the magistrates court.
Not naming a driver in itself is an offence and the fine is likely to be bigger than admitting the offence. And the points likely to be the same (6). And not naming a driver is not a defence under the European Law of Human Rights - the others that tried that route failed in the European courts.
The easiest, least stressful way forward is to accept what has happened, name the driver and hope the fine is not too large and no more than 6 points.
Best of luck.
|
|
|
|
If the route of failing memory is to be taken then consider naming both on the Form as driver togehtre with a note why both are named. It will then be up to the SCP whether they accept and NFA or continue on for a Court hearing. I suspect it will be the later.
If only it were that simple!!! SWMBO and myself are currently in a similar position to the OP, but it was 36 in a 30, we genuinely do not know who was driving, it was most certainly one of us, but the picture is obscured by the sunvisor, the reason we dont know who it is is becasue the camera is between 2 different carparks for a shopping complex, we both needed to go to different shops at either end so both drove each way to drop each other off at various times in the morning ( I have a medical condition that prevents me walking very far and she was 7 months pregnant at the time!!). We followed all the advice and guidance on the Hampshire Police website and contacted the SCP by letter at least 6 times, even sending the S172 back with both names on.
We are now waiting for a date for the court case as she has been summoned for failure to provide details, and curiously, she has also been summoned for the speeding offence - I did not think they could summons for both as the first needs to be proved first. But we shall see what transpires.
I am happy to go to court as the phone advice I was given by the SCP was basically to lie and say one of us was driving to avoid going to court!!!! How bad is that, now you should plead guilty to an offence that there is only a 50% chance you committed just so you dont have to go through a legal system that is supposed to be there to protect us!!!!
Whatever happens we will loose in a big way over this but I have standards and principles.
And both myself and swmbo have clean licences.
|
|
Your till receipts from your shopping trip will tell you who was shopping at the time and who was doing the driving.
|
|
Very good, apart from the fact the carparks are less then a minutes drive apart, now would you like to tell me which is more accurate, the till clocks or the clock on the camera? - and also, I was window shopping (in a Honda garage as it happens, so unlikely to have a receipt for my shopping). Also bare in mind this was back in April, and the purchases were small items so receipts not kept for this long if at all.
|
I'm no supporter of silly speed limits but if the car parks are less than a minute's drive apart why were you doing 36 in a 30 limit? How did you even manage to get up to 36? In a shopping complex area?
Edited by Optimist on 16/09/2008 at 12:30
|
|
It was actually on a piece of dual carriageway that separates them.
|
OK. But you acknowledge that one of you broke the limit. Which of you is the more likely culprit? I think you're just heading for significant grief.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Edited by Optimist on 16/09/2008 at 12:49
|
Yep, we have held our hands up from the beginning that it was one of us, no argument offered there. But as for who? It really could have been either, neither of us speed as a matter of course, but it was not our car, it was swmbo fathers car, so not one we are used to driving - he had her car as he needed to move some stuff around and hers is an MPV.
And we are prepared to do the time, no arguments in that, but we would like to know who it should be to do the time - would you like to do the time for someone else, just because it may have been you, but equally may not?
|
Oh come on.
We all drive unfamiliar cars but usually slower than our own because of the unfamiliarity. Any way, the unfamiliar car has a speedo, doesn't it?
I'm sure you'd like to know who should do the time, but that's for you and not for the justice system, isn't it? If you can't say who was driving, how can a court?
Take it on the chin. Toss a coin if necessary. Move on.
|
Anyone can mistake, I doubt if you are always within 6mph of the speedlimit, and it is exactly for the justice system to ascertain who was driving, as it always used to be.
You used to get stopped by a copper who may use his judgement to give you a telling off if not too serious, but if he deemed it necessary to issue a ticket, at least he knew who to issue it to, the camera can't do that, so as a result we are all now supposed to know exactly who is driving what vehicle at every precise second of the day!!
I hope you never have to fight a similar incident - or maybe you are just quite prepared to bend over and take what is given!!! I have never given into bullies and am not about to now, and that is exactly what the SCP are in this incident.
|
I don't understand this, R75.
You say the car in question belongs to your wife's father. How come your wife has been written to in regard to the identity of the driver, then?
No-one is bullying you or asking you to bend over. It's the law being applied and you're desperately casting around for a way out.
I often drive above the speed limit. My wife rarely does. So if we were flashed in either car I would put my hand up if the identity of the driver was unclear.
What does the wife's father say? Isn't he now involved?
|
|
Where I work the clock in the software I use drifted to over 7 minutes different from the real, correct time. There isn't likely to be much help one way or the other by comparing the times on till reeipts IMO. BTW, when I complained to management about the inaccuracy of my computer/time it was correctd and as a rsult my computer was correct and over 400 compters on the same network became 7 mnutes out! What a result!
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you used a credit or charge card.
Driving to and fro between shopping centres a minute apart so often in such a short space of time that you can't recall sounds a little bizarre and may to a Magistrate. I'd do a bit of digging if I were you otherwise you might be perceived as trying it on.
|
Surely the bright flowery dress and the 7 month bump will give you clues.
Then again, maybe not. :)
|
|
|
Why is it bizarre? We travelled between the 2 sites maybe 2 or 3 times in the morning, nothing unto odd in that, as previously stated I cant walk very far due to medical reasons and swmbo was 7 months pregnant so to comfortable walking!!!
|
OK so two or three journeys over the course of a morning and you know that on occasion it wasn't you because you were window shopping while your wife drove towards you on one of them. Was the camera flash on that leg of the journey (if not actually that actual journey?) You also know the time of one of the 1 or 2 journeys (because that's when you were flashed) and you still can't recall and you have no way of checking your credit card receipts.
It can't require Poirot to work it out, can it?
|
No flash on these cameras, they are of the forward facing type.
Now why do you think we are fighting this? We both have clean licences, the speed was such that we would have been offered a driver awareness course, not even points just a fine/payment for course. But there ar principals here, we don't know who it was so would possibly be lieing (50% chance of it anyway) if we put one of our names down. Since when has English law required us to lie? It is situations like this that actually devalue our laws.
If people dont stand up for what is right then our whole system either collapses or becomes a farce!!!!
|
I take your point, but your response seems to be based on not really making reasonable efforts to determine who was driving when it would be easy to do so and that isn't the same as a principled response.
One of you will end up with the punishment which will require one of you to cough for it and whilst it's up to you I'd suggest that your relationship with your wife is worth more than the fine/points combined.
|
You are quite right of course Nsar, We should go down every avenue to ascertain who was driving the car, and with that in mind I shall now be writing to the SCP to find out how often and against whose timings the clocks are set in that particular camera, at the same time I will write to the Honda garage to find out if they have cctv footage from that morning and if it show who was driving the car and at what time, not forgetting of course to find out how accurate their clocks are. Then I will write to all the shops my other half might have visited asking them for cctv footage and also ascertaining how accurate their time stamps are.
Oh and whilst we are at it, can you tell me the list of shops you went in, the order that you entered them in, the products purchased there and exactly where you parked the last time you went shopping (please only use an example that is over 6 weeks ago as that is how long it took before we got the S172)
|
LOL!!
I think R75's sarky reply is justified in the face of the cynical attitudes some people on here have.
There is a fault in the system. A system intended to close "get outs". It already assumes you are guilty.
Dont take it out on someone who doesnt know. I want to live in a country that helps honest people. Sure someone deserves the points and fine, but in my opinion,in this case, the powers that be should just lump it and accept that a reasonable person just doesnt know who was driving then there'll be no conviction. How many times have we seen the news and someone who has blatantly commited a heinous crime has had their prosecutuon dropped due to "lack of evidence" yeah right!
If the speed cameras cant tell who was driving - thats lack of evidence IMO.
|
I appreciate your stand. If you genuinely can't remember who was driving even after due diligence, you should walk free out of court.
Unfortunately the current law in country has become "guilty until proven innocent" :(
|
|
Reading this thread and I am agog.
Poor old R75. Is it so hard for people to see that sometimes you genuinely cant remember who was driving?
For R75 to say either way he could be genuinely perjuring himself. (If perjury is the correct term)
Optimist said words to the effect "take the penalty and move on!" Well scuse me, but after a pleasant shopping trip, perhaps having other things on his mind and "moving on" with daily life and other important matters, it hasnt sunk in indelibly who was driving at the time of the offence! My my, how lapse of him (sarcasm)
Although speeding is absolute, as I has said in other threads, surely there is room for the magistrates to wiggle a little bit on this case? 36 on a dual carriageway isnt that heinous and R75 seems a genuine guy. If he has gone to the trouble of chasing it through with honesty and principle surely we have a legal system to accept that?
|
Read my post to R75 at 12.55 a few above. I'm beginning to doubt we're getting the facts properly in this case.
If it's his wife's father's car why isn't FIL being applied to for the name of the driver?
Edited by Optimist on 16/09/2008 at 14:01
|
Read my post to R75 at 12.55 a few above. I'm beginning to doubt we're getting the facts properly in this case. If it's his wife's father's car why isn't FIL being applied to for the name of the driver?
He was, but he just filled it in with her name and sent it back, it was 6 weeks after the offence that she got the S172, he was not aware that I was with her that day, nor did he need to be. We are all insured to drive each others cars, so no problems on that front.
Anything else I can help you with?
|
He was, but he just filled it in with her name and sent it back, it was 6 weeks after the offence that she got the S172, he was not aware that I was with her that day, nor did he need to be.
Taking/driving without owner's consent?
|
Reflecting on this, I do have some sympathy. My wife and I use each other's cars all the time. If asked who was driving what car at a particular time on a day some weeks before might indeed prove difficult to remember, unless there was some significant event connected to the timing.
I think, however, that I would remember doing the ton in a 60 as this is such a variance from normal speeds and oddly enough I would be astonished to be accused of breaking a lower speed limit such as a 30 or 40 as I am quite careful to observe those due to the usual necessity for them for safety reasons.
Where some might come unstuck is on motorways or dual carriageways where it is relatively easy with a few moments lapse of concentration to drift over the speed limit.
Of course I never would but I can see that lesser mortals might......
;-)
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 16/09/2008 at 14:05
|
I really can't see what the 2 protagonists in this thread are on about really. If I was NIPed & the evidence was incontrovertible, there would be no choice - I suffer the penalty.
The two 'co-driver' examples here at least have the advantage of deciding who might better take the penalty - if they genuinely can't determine who was actually driving.
There would be no 'lie' in R75's case since to lie you have to know the truth & then subvert it. Of course, a cynic might say that being unable to show or prove who was driving at the time of an offence has proved a viable defence in some cases - not that I'm a cynic, but I believe that's the legal position.
Solomon (of King fame) once had a similar problem when 2 women claimed a child was theirs' & sought the great King's wisdom & judgement. Solomon said it was impossible to decide after hearing the womens' testimony who the true mother was, so in scrupulous fairness he decided to divide the child (literally!) between them. When hearing the judgement one woman said she couldn't accept the judgement & begged the King to award custody to the other woman - whereupon the King said "Only the true mother would sacrifice herself in this way for her child, you are the true mother".
The use that analogy, if the courts took the view that both are guilty unless one takes the penalty, I'm sure there would be many cases of recovered memory syndrome.
Edited by woodbines on 16/09/2008 at 14:29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"but it was 36 in a 30"
I couldn't possibly remember the trillions of times I've done that but I can remember each and every occasion in the last 25 years that I've driven at an indicated 115 or so in a 60 zone.
|
I couldn't possibly remember the trillions of times I've done that
I know what you mean Dave and I used to think like that but do now try very hard to keep to the lower limits. I was "invited" on a speed awareness course some years ago and they were at pains to point out that the most pedestrian fatalities and injuries happen in 30 and 40 mph limits. Having been made to watch CCTV footage of what happens to a child struck at 35 mph certainly made me change my views on speeding in urban areas.
I am certainly no Saint or Angel and don't want to sound like some born again anti-speed activist but the lower limits are even more important in my opinion.
|
|
|
It does stretch credibility a bit, saying you can't remember which of you was doing 97 in a 60 limit within the last couple of weeks. And it tends to suggest that both Mr and Mrs habitually exceed speed limits by that sort of margin.
Like midlifecrisis, if this happened to me I would know the guilty party must be me, because my wife wouldn't go at that speed or exceed a limit by that much. But actually I would remember that it had been me.
One gathers from jez's posts that both licences may already be heavily fingermarked, so he can hardly claim the whole thing is a surprise. Still, one feels some sympathy for those done for speeding unless one happens to know that they are dangerous drivers.
|
107 replies in 23 hours! Rather more heat than light generated, however!
|
>>I have never given into bullies and am not about to now, and that is exactly what the SCP are in this incident.<<
How are you being bullied? You (or your wife) got caught speeding.
Anyway try your "dunno guv'nor" shrug with the Magistrate and let us know how you get on. I'm sure if you get away with it you'll tell us and vice versa.
|
|
|
Thanks you all for the many replies. I assure it is not a windup, I only wish it was.
I have now done a lot of research and we have decided that both our names will go on the form and I will write a covering letter explaining the situation. I realise that there is a chance we will have to attend court be we are prepared for that. I also intend to reference the case of Tiff Needell who got done on a motorway and neither he nor mrs Needlel could remember who was driving, and he got away with it. It think this sets a precedent and will include a print out of the news item.
The Sunday school teachers who replied I assume never brake the limit? And if you do you drive straight to a police station and pay £60, yes? I thought so.
Dont forget that my car is a high perfornamce vehicle capable of out accelerating, out braking and out handling probably 95% of cars. It is probably safer at 100 mph than the average ford focus at 60 so in my opinion safety does not come into the argument. I have an accident free record, as does my wife. If the weather was bad or traffic conditions bad then I drive much more slowly, as does my wife.
|
have now done a lot of research and we have decided that both our names will go on the form and I will write a covering letter explaining the situation. I realise that there is a chance we will have to attend court be we are prepared for that. I also intend to reference the case of Tiff Needell who got done on a motorway and neither he nor mrs Needlel could remember who was driving, and he got away with it. It think this sets a precedent and will include a print out of the news item.
PLEASE get a solicitor.
Edited by Webmaster on 17/09/2008 at 02:10
|
On the form YOU have to name A driver - not give then the choice of two. I think that the Tiff Needell case did not relate to a nomination of Mr or Mrs - he said that he drove so many different cars, in the course of his journalistic and TV work that he could not say, one way or the other, that he was driving or not driving a particular car at a partucular location on a named date and time. This is not quite your position!
I could be wrong but I don't think that covering letters are accepted to accompany the 192. You either fill in the form as requested - name a driver and sign, or have your day in court to make your case.
|
|
|
|
>>Dont forget that my car is a high perfornamce vehicle capable of out accelerating, out braking and out handling probably 95% of cars. It is probably safer at 100 mph than the average ford focus at 60 so in my opinion safety does not come into the argument.<<
Be sure to mention this at the hearing, it will have a significant bearing on the outcome.
|
Dont forget that my car is a high perfornamce vehicle capable of out accelerating, out braking and out handling probably 95% of cars
Such arrogance will bring very little sympathy to the magistrates! Instead of accepting it was wrong to do 97 in 60 you are just trying to glorify it!
|
|
|
|
Dont forget that my car is a high perfornamce vehicle capable of out accelerating out braking and out handling probably 95% of cars. It is probably safer at 100 mph than the average ford focus at 60 so in my opinion safety does not come into the argument. I have an accident free record as does my wife. If the weather was bad or traffic conditions bad then I drive much more slowly as does my wife.
[Comment removed by sarcasm filter]
|
|
|
Dont forget that my car is a high perfornamce vehicle capable of out accelerating out braking and out handling probably 95% of cars. It is probably safer at 100 mph than the average ford focus at 60 so in my opinion safety does not come into the argument.
My word.
I had to register just so that I could reply to this! Maybe you should put it to the test. Drive your super Beemer into a tree at 100mph and see how well it comes off. As others have mentioned, it's funny how there was a thread the other day about which drivers get the most abuse. I hate to stereotype but goodness you've done wonders for BMW drivers everywhere!
How long ago did you get your TS10? It appears to me that you are one of those fools that seem to think that the laws don't apply to you. Now - I certainly put my foot down from time to time, but if I got busted doing an indicated >100 in a 60 area, I would just fess up.
I think only Mr. Loophole can help you here. Do let us know how you get on. Maybe I can take that Beemer of your hands if you're not able to drive it in a few months time :)
Edited by Webmaster on 17/09/2008 at 02:10
|
|
|
Dont forget that my car is a high perfornamce vehicle capable of out accelerating out braking and out handling probably 95% of cars. It is probably safer at 100 mph than the average ford focus at 60 so in my opinion safety does not come into the argument.
I didnt want to add anything to this tread without being branded a preacher, but really this is starting to annoy me
having a high perfomance car, still does not give you the right to break the law!!!
The law cannot be simpler, you have broken the limit thefore you must suffer the consequences
is your car still safer at 97 mile ahour on a public road if your tyre blows out????
If you want to reach these speeds, then utilise your power of the car on a track, not on the expense of the safty of other road users!
(im aware of bad spelling)
|
|
|
|
double post by mistake,
Edited by redlightzone on 16/09/2008 at 18:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should have said Fullchat not midlifecrisis. Sorry chaps, mistake.
|
|
|
|
>couldn't possibly remember the trillions of times I've done that but I can remember each >and every occasion in the last 25 years that I've driven at an indicated 115 or so in a 60 >zone.
>>>>>97 in a 60 limit (nice day and little traffic so no danger!!).
The OP seems to remember it quite clearly as well
|
"The OP seems to remember it quite clearly as well"
I rest my case. No further questions your honour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
