97 in a 70 - citation mentions dangerous!??
Discussion
Evening everyone,
Long story short:
A9 outside of Inverness, December.
Followed by undercover police on a dual carriageway, machine inside their car states 97 in a 70. Police were polite and respectful, as was I.
Citation comes through in the post today with good conditions noted, light traffic and good state of road repair. Nothing nasty.
The thing that scares me is the following on the form:
"The charge(s) against you are that you were driving xxxxx car DANGEROUSLY on XXX road contrary to section 2 as mentioned"
Then underneath that, it says "alternatively" and goes on to state:
"You were driving xxxxx car at a speed of 97mph contrary to sections 88 and B9"
I can type the whole lot out if you like but you most likely get the idea - the top charge mentions the word DANGEROUS but has no mention of speed, the paragraph below that on the citation doesn't mention dangerous but DOES mention speed.
I don't understand what they mean by 'alternatively'. I have a summons but also have the option to plead by letter.
Do I need a solicitor? My licence is clean at the moment but understand that dangerous driving is bad.
There was no mention of dangerous driving at the scene, we had a polite discussion about how I was pressing on but they thought my standard of driving was good, although 97 was way too fast.
Any advice to save me having a bloody breakdown?
Long story short:
A9 outside of Inverness, December.
Followed by undercover police on a dual carriageway, machine inside their car states 97 in a 70. Police were polite and respectful, as was I.
Citation comes through in the post today with good conditions noted, light traffic and good state of road repair. Nothing nasty.
The thing that scares me is the following on the form:
"The charge(s) against you are that you were driving xxxxx car DANGEROUSLY on XXX road contrary to section 2 as mentioned"
Then underneath that, it says "alternatively" and goes on to state:
"You were driving xxxxx car at a speed of 97mph contrary to sections 88 and B9"
I can type the whole lot out if you like but you most likely get the idea - the top charge mentions the word DANGEROUS but has no mention of speed, the paragraph below that on the citation doesn't mention dangerous but DOES mention speed.
I don't understand what they mean by 'alternatively'. I have a summons but also have the option to plead by letter.
Do I need a solicitor? My licence is clean at the moment but understand that dangerous driving is bad.
There was no mention of dangerous driving at the scene, we had a polite discussion about how I was pressing on but they thought my standard of driving was good, although 97 was way too fast.
Any advice to save me having a bloody breakdown?
You'll probably be getting a summons as 97 is too fast for a fixed penalty so it could be a short ban or 4-6 points
http://www.ukmotorists.com/speeding%20fines.asp
http://www.ukmotorists.com/speeding%20fines.asp
wack said:
You'll probably be getting a summons as 97 is too fast for a fixed penalty so it could be a short ban or 4-6 points
http://www.ukmotorists.com/speeding%20fines.asp
Hey. See above, I have a summons etc, I just don't understand the charges!http://www.ukmotorists.com/speeding%20fines.asp
Dr Jekyll said:
It could be that you can plead guilty to speeding, or try and fight it and get charged with dangerous. A ban for speeding is bad enough but better than prison and a criminal record.
This is how I'm reading it, I'm just trying to be sure, appreciated that I'm not alone in my logic..
That's my question really, is it one, is it both?
If dangerous was the initial charge though my ears would have pricked up scene-side and I definitely would have realised.
They even said at the time they wouldn't expect it to go any further than 4 points and a few hundred quid fine, the conversation turned to cars after that!
Perhaps I'm getting my knickers in a twist over nothing, but I seen the Section 2 violation and started to have palpitations.
Any other advice welcome (aside from not speeding, I've learned that much).
If dangerous was the initial charge though my ears would have pricked up scene-side and I definitely would have realised.
They even said at the time they wouldn't expect it to go any further than 4 points and a few hundred quid fine, the conversation turned to cars after that!
Perhaps I'm getting my knickers in a twist over nothing, but I seen the Section 2 violation and started to have palpitations.
Any other advice welcome (aside from not speeding, I've learned that much).
desolate said:
I got done in Scotland and although I didn't get done for dangerous the police were very nice and it was a decent chat.
They said they would put me down at 101 instead of the 118 they recorded.
I ended up getting charged at 118.
118, Jesus. You would have caught a cold with that, no?They said they would put me down at 101 instead of the 118 they recorded.
I ended up getting charged at 118.
Sir Lord Poopie said:
CoolHands said:
being told 97 is 'dangerous'
OP was in violation of the highway code. That could be deemed dangerous. 
97mph on some A roads isn't dangerous, let alone a motorway/dual carriageway (conditions and car dependant)...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff