Can an off duty police officer give me a ticket?

[vonhosen]

Lunablack said:

vonhosen said:

It's not a fine, just like the Police insisting your vehicle is towed at your cost following a collision wouldn't be a fine.

Semantics.... Of course it's a fine.... It's a monitory penalty to get your car back.... Anyone can see its a fine in all but name...

If your car is towed following a collision the insurance company pick up the tab.... Totally different, and to compare one with the other, is meaningless..

Both are removal & storage fees, just as is the case if your vehicle is seized & removed for no insurance. You get the car back when you pay the removal/storage fees, you get your fine for no insurance from the FPN or court. They are separate & who pays the removal fee is immaterial. If you can get insurance to cover your liabilities that's OK, but it's still your liability. If you have third party only insurance cover (minimum required by law) you may not get them to cover that liability.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 29th January 10:44

[Lunablack]

We're not talking about no insurance etc..... We're talking about having to pay, to get your car back following seizure for a second S59 offence...

If your car is seized by the police, and you have to pay to get it back, you can call it whatever you like, but it's a financial penalty therefore its still a FINE..

You can call it a fee or a charge, to make it sound less like a fine, but I'd bet that anyone subjected to such a charge will feel they've been fined, and I for one would agree with them

[vonhosen]

Lunablack said:

We're not talking about no insurance etc..... We're talking about having to pay, to get your car back following seizure for a second S59 offence...

If your car is seized by the police, and you have to pay to get it back, you can call it whatever you like, but it's a financial penalty therefore its still a FINE..

You can call it a fee or a charge, to make it sound less like a fine, but I'd bet that anyone subjected to such a charge will feel they've been fined, and I for one would agree with them

That's like saying having to pay for your driving licence renewal is a fine because a fee is involved, so we'll have to disagree.

The illustrations were to show that in all three of those cases you can have your vehicle towed by Police & none of them are a fine, irrespective of who pays the fee or if there is also an offence/fine in addition to the removal fee.

[Lunablack]

I still have a paper licence....... So no fine....... Err sorry fee for me

Besides for those that have to pay, it's every 10 years, so again hardly comparable to the S59 Recovery FINE...

[vonhosen]

Lunablack said:

I still have a paper licence....... So no fine....... Err sorry fee for me

Besides for those that have to pay, it's every 10 years, so again hardly comparable to the S59 Recovery FINE...

It's still a fee for those who have to pay for the renewal. Some people (in fact most) don't have to pay a Sec59 removal fee

[Lunablack]

FINE......... We'll have to agree to disagree

[streaky]

vonhosen said:

Lunablack said:

I still have a paper licence....... So no fine....... Err sorry fee for me

Besides for those that have to pay, it's every 10 years, so again hardly comparable to the S59 Recovery FINE...

It's still a fee for those who have to pay for the renewal. Some people (in fact most) don't have to pay a Sec59 removal fee

Most people (drivers/users) avoid s.59 notices by not driving foolishly.

Streaky

[George H]

streaky said:

Most people (drivers/users) avoid s.59 notices by not driving foolishly.

Streaky

If you witnessed the supposed "foolish driving" then I would take your opinion seriously.

[Lunablack]

George H said:

Thanks for the explanation

I can't complain, I was in the wrong - wasn't thinking and was doing 60 on a road that has just had the speed limit dropped from 60 to 40. I just always though something would need to proved in order for a warning to be issued.

Mmmmm

[George H]

Lunablack said:

Mmmmm

Speeding doesn't mean it was in any way foolish or dangerous. I break speed limits all the time, if you look at the google street view link I posted its a long straight clear road. I would bet that 75% of people do 60 down it.

[vonhosen]

Chosen speed may or may not amount to a Sec 3 RTA (above or below the speed limit).

[Lunablack]

George H said:

Speeding doesn't mean it was in any way foolish or dangerous. I break speed limits all the time, if you look at the google street view link I posted its a long straight clear road. I would bet that 75% of people do 60 down it.

I was just amused that someone would say "I can't complain".

But then goes on to make a complaint




FWIW. I think S59 is amongst the most odious, unconstitutional, misuses piece of crap legislation going..... The fact that a lot of the police seem o like it, I find even more worrying....

I hope you win the fight

[streaky]

George H said:

streaky said:

Most people (drivers/users) avoid s.59 notices by not driving foolishly.

Streaky

If you witnessed the supposed "foolish driving" then I would take your opinion seriously.

I was commenting in general on vh's point; which, if you had read (and subsequently) quoted fully, would have been plain.

The Queen's comment in Hamlet, Act III. Scene II, comes to my suspicious mind. The BiB (current and retired) on here will know to which phrase I refer.

Streaky