62mph in a 30 zone in the rain -

[Fat Audi 80]

62 in a 30, Caught by a Laser Equiped unmarked safety van on a bridge!

My mate has had his NIP for the above, sent if off pleady guilty by post hoping to avoid a ban. Case was heard today and he has been asked to go to court to expain why he should not get a banned.

Any advise please? This guy is fairly well off so a big fine will not hurt him that much. Also he works in the city and can SURVIVE without a car but would obviously prefer not to get a ban. How should he play it and what should he expect?? (he already has 3 points).

Cheers,

Steve.

[M@H]

Buy a pushbike.. ?

[pdV6]

From the few facts posted, sounds like he deserves a ban, especially as he appears not to have a valid reason for pleading against one.

[Fat Audi 80]

TBH he always drives quite fast (Audi TT), but did not realise he was in a 30. To put it in a little perspective, it was a road down to Southampton (dont't know the number) that is dual carriageway but a 30 zone, so it was not exactly speeding outside a school at 3.00pm. Although he drives the route regularly I don't think he was concentrating on the speed limit signs. On revisiting the scene he does concede that the 30 signs are very clear.

Steve.

[robp]

Outlook not good.
60+ in a 30 means your up a creek with no paddling impliment.

[madcop]

Sounds as though his attention may well be drawn to what he is doing when driving a car from now on rather than the more important aspects of his financial affairs!

Regular route!
Knows the road!

Should have been done for due care and attention too.

If he earns big money, then even the maximum fine will not hurt him, just rather inconvenience him.

I can feel a lengthy ban in my water, but I fear that it will not be long enough to make him reflect his responsibilities when behind the wheel of his TT!!!

[Fat Audi 80]

Thanks Madcop, been reading these forums for a while but only recently registered (could not resist getting involved). I find your attitude down to earth and refreshing but ever proffesional.

Steve.

[lucozade]

ok mate, well since nobody else has actually offered you any help I will try.... all is not completely lost yet.....

Check out www.abd.org.uk and refer to the speed limit signs information. There's loads of stuff on the subject of "illegally been done for speeding in a 30mph". From memory it refers to illegally changed limits.

Otherwise, if he has got money to burn then bring into question the laser equipment accuracy. I'm going through something similar to be honest and the CPS are craping themselves.

Go for it!

[MoJocvh]

A bit of an O/T reply, but I like those Clarks adverts on TV!!!!!

You know catchy tune, catwalk style presentation, etc,etc.

And they make good walking shoes too

[bjc]

I got pulled into court for 102 on the M4 for the same explain why you shouldn't be banned.
Think the best advice is
1-dress smart (taking it seriously
2-apologise for the offence
3-look REALLY sorry and not cocky
4-pray for a nice magistrate or one who as had there fun for the day.

I could survive without the car for a short while so said I would be severly incovenienced without it but would not lose my job. Ended up with £80 and a 14 day ban (could have been a lot worse)

Edited to say I thought they couldn't use lasers in the rain? Unreliable?

>> Edited by bjc on Wednesday 21st May 13:49

[Fat Audi 80]

Anyone got any thoughts on laser gun reliablilty in the rain?

I think you are right, dress up smart, look apologetic and grovel.

[danhay]

If he's already pleaded guilty then there's no point in questioning the accuracy of the laser.

It's now a case of convincing the magistrate why he shouldn't get banned. If he can produce some reasons or evidence that shows he needs to drive, then that would help.

[chrisgr31]

danhay said: If he's already pleaded guilty then there's no point in questioning the accuracy of the laser.

It's now a case of convincing the magistrate why he shouldn't get banned. If he can produce some reasons or evidence that shows he needs to drive, then that would help.

Well is it better to have a short ban say a week or two, rather than 9 points meaning that the next 3 years are spent ensuring that no Scameras or Scamera Vans are passed at a little in excess of the speed limit/

[CarZee]

Fat Audi 80 said: Anyone got any thoughts on laser gun reliablilty in the rain?

I was under the impression that neither laser nor radar was reliable in the rain and as such, the evidence could be rendered meaningless by showing the court (a) that it was raining and (b) the manufacturers usage guidelines and/or Home Office type approval details.

If it's enough for reasonable doubt, it should be enough to get you off.

[Pies]

Case was heard today and he has been asked to go to court to expain why he should not get a banned

Many,many years ago i got called to court to do the same.The answer i gave was loss of job etc.The fine was quite high but only three points on licence.As previously said dress smart etc,and as your m8 can afford it get a good brief

[Fat Audi 80]

Just in case you are interested in the outcome here:

6 points and £300 fine......

I am not saying anything.


Lucky B4ST4RD.

[swilly]

Fat Audi 80 said: Just in case you are interested in the outcome here:

6 points and £300 fine......

I am not saying anything.


Lucky B4ST4RD.

I wouldn't say he was lucky, cos that means he now has 9 points.

If farts too hard and pushes himself beyond the limit and is caught he is looking at a totted-up 6? 12? month ban.

[jatrichardson]

madcop said: Regular route!
Knows the road!

Should have been done for due care and attention too.

Exactly, MadCop - but cameras can't do that... They treat this guy in exactly the same way as everyone else. Question: if this had been a police surveillance, with uniformed officers, would they have pulled the driver and pusued the careless/dangerous driving thing? Or would the paperwork and the requirement to actually prove a real wrongdoing prove it just have been too difficult?

[madcop]

jatrichardson said:

madcop said: Regular route!
Knows the road!

Should have been done for due care and attention too.

Question: if this had been a police surveillance, with uniformed officers, would they have pulled the driver and pusued the careless/dangerous driving thing?

It depends on what the driver said at the time, it is possible that he could have been reported for careless driving as well without any self incrimination about knowledge of the limit and the conditions but disregarding them.

Or would the paperwork and the requirement to actually prove a real wrongdoing prove it just have been too difficult?

Paperwork to prosecute an offence of Careless driving is not too much greater than that for speeding. It would not be too difficult but any officer stopping a person in these circumstances would be aware that a ban is almost inevitable and a charge of Section 3, would not impose any greater sentence on the accused so there would be no point.