Motoring solicitor in or around Basingstoke?

[Centurion07]

Long story short: I got caught on the M25 at 0100 on a sunday morning doing 69mph through a gantry indicated 40mph (compulsory, not advisory). Since I have eyes, there was almost zero traffic and gantry signs are more often than not wrong, I didn't bother slowing down. Doh.

Anyways, having sent the S172 back admitting it was me, I've now had the papers back inviting me to attend court (yay!). I believe that 69 in a 40 means I'm looking at a possible ban which, given the above circumstances plus the fact it would appear that the signs were displaying 40 because, OMG!!!, there was a SINGLE car on the hard shoulder (nothing else anywhere in the 40 stretch) is possibly a little bit harsh.

Two points: 1. I don't think I would do myself any favours if I tried to put my case forward. 2. Would a solicitor bother going to the trouble of finding out why the 40 limit was in place & exactly what time it was removed (i.e. if the NSL signs went back up 30 seconds after I got caught).

Any advice/recommendations gratefully received (even the "OMG you kitten-murdering bd, take your punishment like a man-type ones as well).

I should add that I'm a private hire driver, so a ban would put a little bit of a crimp in my earnings, although I have no dependants.

[HantsRat]

Just put in a good statement. You will not get a ban for this. No need to waste money on solicitors etc.

[Stoofa]

Well really you have no defence:
Gantry at 40mph for no reason - not a defence, you've already said you saw one car on the side of the road and you are not always aware of what is going on when the speed reductions are in play.
It sounds well posted and you just decided not to slow.

You can try and mitigate - but personally not convinced the magistrates are going to automatically agree with you.
But I'm feeling points rather than ban.

[Centurion07]

Yep, fully aware I have no defence; guilty as charged! It's just as per usual the gantry signs bore no relation to what was actually going on and since there was only a single car on the hard shoulder, and even if that had been part of a larger incident, whatever it was had long since been cleared as there was literally nothing/no other vehicles around.

I don't think me presenting mitigating circumstances of "well, we all know those gantry signs are crap don't we so damn right I didn't bother slowing down" is going to cut it!

[anonymous-user]

Centurion07 said:

It's just as per usual the gantry signs bore no relation to what was actually going on and since there was only a single car on the hard shoulder, and even if that had been part of a larger incident, whatever it was had
long since been cleared as there was literally nothing/no other vehicles around.

That's what people say when debris is knocked to the hard shoulder and they assume all the signs are wrong,
How do you know it had been "long clear" maybe the driver had broken down live lane which many do and just 'limped' the car from a live lane to the HS.

[Centurion07]

speedyguy said:

That's what people say when debris is knocked to the hard shoulder and they assume all the signs are wrong,
How do you know it had been "long clear" maybe the driver had broken down live lane which many do and just 'limped' the car from a live lane to the HS.

I don't, but as I said, there was little to no traffic, certainly nothing in front of me for at least a third of a mile, plus I have eyes and am perfectly capable of judging if there is an actual hazard or not on a well-lit motorway.

[Sushifiend]

Centurion07 said:

I have eyes and am perfectly capable of judging if there is an actual hazard or not on a well-lit motorway.

You assume that you have the authority to choose your speed based on your own judgement. By posting a speed limit, the authorities have taken away our authority to act according to our own judgement. This is something I resent deeply, but I also don't see how a speed limit sign can be "wrong". Whatever number it has on it is the speed limit, as long as that number is a valid speed limit authorised by the authorities.

[Centurion07]

Sushifiend said:

You assume that you have the authority to choose your speed based on your own judgement. By posting a speed limit, the authorities have taken away our authority to act according to our own judgement. This is something I resent deeply, but I also don't see how a speed limit sign can be "wrong". Whatever number it has on it is the speed limit, as long as that number is a valid speed limit authorised by the authorities.

This is why I asked if it's worth bothering with a solicitor.

I'm not disputing the fact I went through a 40 sign at 69, I just want to make sure the magistrates are aware that the circumstances in this case are not the same as had I been doing 69 down a suburban 40 with pedestrians everywhere.

I'm resigned to the fact at the very least it will be points and a fine, I just don't want to get hammered for the punishment that the above scenario would (should) generate.

The reason I asked about a solicitor is I assume they would be able to get hold of the paperwork relating to the change in limit i.e. why, how long for etc etc. I only asked because after a bit of research it would appear that +45% over the limit is possible ban territory.

[anonymous-user]

Centurion07 said:

This is why I asked if it's worth bothering with a solicitor.

The reason I asked about a solicitor is I assume they would be able to get hold of the paperwork relating to the change in limit i.e. why, how long for etc etc. I only asked because after a bit of research it would appear that +45% over the limit is possible ban territory.

If it was an incident rather than MIDAS (or possibly even MIDAS) anyone can ring up http://www.highways.gov.uk/highways-england/contac... and ask for the relevant log with all the timings signals were set which should be made available. People have asked before

[Centurion07]

Thanks for that.

I can't see it being MIDAS triggered but I'll get onto them & see if I can find anything out.

[johnfm]

Ring Andrew at AGT Law.

[carinaman]

It was 1AM traffic was light and there was a broken down car on the hard shoulder?

It seems a lot safer than being in a stream of traffic doing a legal 70 past stationary vehicles in laybys besides the A34 or A303.

[Cat]

carinaman said:

It was 1AM traffic was light and there was a broken down car on the hard shoulder?

It seems a lot safer than being in a stream of traffic doing a legal 70 past stationary vehicles in laybys besides the A34 or A303.

Why had the car broken down? Had it been reported as dumping any fluid or mechanical bits on the road? Had the occupants been reported as wandering around the carriageway? Was it definitely broken down or was there some other reason it was on the hard shoulder? Etc etc.

Presumably you have the answers to these questions so know that the speed restriction was unnecessary.

Cat

[carinaman]

I've changed an offside front wheel on the hard shoulder of the M5 when it was quite busy. No 40mph limit no assistance and managed to drive back onto the M-way having changed the wheel. It was in the last century though.

[Cat]

carinaman said:

I've changed an offside front wheel on the hard shoulder of the M5 when it was quite busy. No 40mph limit no assistance and managed to drive back onto the M-way having changed the wheel. It was in the last century though.

That's nice, although completely irrelevant.

I take it from your lack of answers you have no idea why the 40 limit was in operation when to OP passed.

Cat

[Centurion07]

So having sent off my guilty-by-post forms, along with the few mitigating circumstances, I was expecting to be informed of my punishment via post over the next couple of weeks, however, what I actually received was a letter saying "thanks very much for filling out all the paperwork, including the bit where you've pleaded guilty so it's an open-and-shut case, but we'd still like to see you in court".

Any ideas as to why I'm now due in court tomorrow having pleaded guilty by post?

[agtlaw]

Banhammer.

[Geekman]

Cat said:

Why had the car broken down? Had it been reported as dumping any fluid or mechanical bits on the road? Had the occupants been reported as wandering around the carriageway? Was it definitely broken down or was there some other reason it was on the hard shoulder? Etc etc.

Presumably you have the answers to these questions so know that the speed restriction was unnecessary.

Cat

At 1am, on a clear motorway, I'm pretty confident I'd be able to avoid people/mechanical parts on the carriageway, particularly if there was a sign warning me of this (much more useful than a speed limit sign). They don't have VSLs in France, and I never saw hordes of people being mown down in their broken down cars whilst I was there. I commute on the m25 every day and the variable limits simply don't work because like it or not, when a rational human being sees a vastly reduced limit for no apparent reason, they're unlikely to obey it. All that happens is that most people slow down a bit, but still above the limit, some people completely ignore them and blast through at 80, and a minority of people do obey them, so the combination of those three things simply causes more traffic and makes the whole situation more dangerous than it was in the first place.

If you're going to apply and enforce such limits, at least use average speed cameras to enforce them, and not ridiculous fixed ones. Average cameras would at least help traffic flow, and eliminate the constant braking/accelerating between gantries.

[Centurion07]

agtlaw said:

Banhammer.

They don't need to see me in person for that though do they? At least that's what the paperwork said.

[agtlaw]

Centurion07 said:

They don't need to see me in person for that though do they? At least that's what the paperwork said.

They won't disqualify in absence at the first listing but they may do that tomorrow (at the adjourned hearing) - whether or not you're present.