got by fuz 41 in a 30 from behind in a modile speed van, ...
Discussion
guys, i need some quick fast advice,
basicly, i got caught speeding 5th dec on a well known road to me, now i exactly remember the day and the time driving. now i know i didnt see a van on route, well not the hi vis back or side of a mobile cam van. it was 2.30 and quite.
now, ive asked for help identifying the driver, as two people drive and and use the car alot esp dec, buisy xmas shoping time,
i got the pic threw today, i requested it on the 27th dec! now, you cant see the driver!, and i am suprised its a rear shot, also the angle its taken would imply the van parked down a turning on the left. so not in shot. or imediatley on/near the road.
do i have any options. they clearly stated in the letter back to me, that it is my legal requirement to nominate a driver. now its seems a very bullyish way to get me to cough up the money. threatening a grand or so fine if i dont.
i thought the idea of cameras and mobile cameras were that they should be well visible. hence mobile vans get you strait on so you can see the hi vis markings on the vans/ and why fixed gatso's are bright bloomin yela. so you cant miss them or there fixed locations!
ive got a few days left before i apparently have to pay.
please help me
basicly, i got caught speeding 5th dec on a well known road to me, now i exactly remember the day and the time driving. now i know i didnt see a van on route, well not the hi vis back or side of a mobile cam van. it was 2.30 and quite.
now, ive asked for help identifying the driver, as two people drive and and use the car alot esp dec, buisy xmas shoping time,
i got the pic threw today, i requested it on the 27th dec! now, you cant see the driver!, and i am suprised its a rear shot, also the angle its taken would imply the van parked down a turning on the left. so not in shot. or imediatley on/near the road.
do i have any options. they clearly stated in the letter back to me, that it is my legal requirement to nominate a driver. now its seems a very bullyish way to get me to cough up the money. threatening a grand or so fine if i dont.
i thought the idea of cameras and mobile cameras were that they should be well visible. hence mobile vans get you strait on so you can see the hi vis markings on the vans/ and why fixed gatso's are bright bloomin yela. so you cant miss them or there fixed locations!
ive got a few days left before i apparently have to pay.
please help me
If it was you, then cop to it, accept the FPN and pay the fine/take the points. Really.
If it really wasn't you, then you have to provide the police with as much information as you can. Just saying 'Two of my mates but I forget which ones' is not good enough. Give them full names (not initials), addresses and any other information - job sheets etc. so that the police can carry out suitable inquiries.
Otherwise you will be charged with Failure to Supply, and the penalty for that is just as bad - in fact it's either just changed or is about to change to 6 points (as opposed to 3 as it has been to date). You have an onus to help the police *as much as possible*. If you aren't trying, the JPs will very, very quickly find your guilty of the second offence and you'll have a bigger fine and a lot more points.
I assume from your post that you're pretty sure it was you? Don't mess about - plead guilty and send the money. If you go to court it will be more expensive - costs for a start.
If it really wasn't you, then you have to provide the police with as much information as you can. Just saying 'Two of my mates but I forget which ones' is not good enough. Give them full names (not initials), addresses and any other information - job sheets etc. so that the police can carry out suitable inquiries.
Otherwise you will be charged with Failure to Supply, and the penalty for that is just as bad - in fact it's either just changed or is about to change to 6 points (as opposed to 3 as it has been to date). You have an onus to help the police *as much as possible*. If you aren't trying, the JPs will very, very quickly find your guilty of the second offence and you'll have a bigger fine and a lot more points.
I assume from your post that you're pretty sure it was you? Don't mess about - plead guilty and send the money. If you go to court it will be more expensive - costs for a start.
jetskirxdi said:
i thought the idea of cameras and mobile cameras were that they should be well visible. hence mobile vans get you strait on so you can see the hi vis markings on the vans/ and why fixed gatso's are bright bloomin yela. so you cant miss them or there fixed locations!
ive got a few days left before i apparently have to pay.
please help me
What was the limit and alleged speed?ive got a few days left before i apparently have to pay.
please help me
Where did you get the idea that Scamera vans want to make themselves visible? They have a quota of drivers to catch and the last thing they want is drivers spotting their van and slowing down! How are they gonna get your money if you slow down? Sounds like they've taken you from behind here.
jetskirxdi said:
i got the pic threw today, i requested it on the 27th dec! now, you cant see the driver!, and i am suprised its a rear shot, also the angle its taken would imply the van parked down a turning on the left. so not in shot. or imediatley on/near the road.
I think they have to be within xx metres of the road they are targeting. Have you checked out pepipoo yet?jetskirxdi said:
guys, i need some quick fast advice,
basicly, i got caught speeding 5th dec on a well known road to me, now i exactly remember the day and the time driving. now i know i didnt see a van on route, well not the hi vis back or side of a mobile cam van. it was 2.30 and quite.
now, ive asked for help identifying the driver, as two people drive and and use the car alot esp dec, buisy xmas shoping time,
i got the pic threw today, i requested it on the 27th dec! now, you cant see the driver!, and i am suprised its a rear shot, also the angle its taken would imply the van parked down a turning on the left. so not in shot. or imediatley on/near the road.
do i have any options. they clearly stated in the letter back to me, that it is my legal requirement to nominate a driver. now its seems a very bullyish way to get me to cough up the money. threatening a grand or so fine if i dont.
i thought the idea of cameras and mobile cameras were that they should be well visible. hence mobile vans get you strait on so you can see the hi vis markings on the vans/ and why fixed gatso's are bright bloomin yela. so you cant miss them or there fixed locations!
ive got a few days left before i apparently have to pay.
please help me
Return the paperwork with the statement that due to the rear shot it is not possible to determine who the driver was, and can they provide you with further details/photos/ information to enable you to identify the driver.basicly, i got caught speeding 5th dec on a well known road to me, now i exactly remember the day and the time driving. now i know i didnt see a van on route, well not the hi vis back or side of a mobile cam van. it was 2.30 and quite.
now, ive asked for help identifying the driver, as two people drive and and use the car alot esp dec, buisy xmas shoping time,
i got the pic threw today, i requested it on the 27th dec! now, you cant see the driver!, and i am suprised its a rear shot, also the angle its taken would imply the van parked down a turning on the left. so not in shot. or imediatley on/near the road.
do i have any options. they clearly stated in the letter back to me, that it is my legal requirement to nominate a driver. now its seems a very bullyish way to get me to cough up the money. threatening a grand or so fine if i dont.
i thought the idea of cameras and mobile cameras were that they should be well visible. hence mobile vans get you strait on so you can see the hi vis markings on the vans/ and why fixed gatso's are bright bloomin yela. so you cant miss them or there fixed locations!
ive got a few days left before i apparently have to pay.
please help me
Do not refuse to identify as this is an offence, but requesting more evidence is legitimate
The NIP is worded so you accept it is far easier and less painful to accept the 3 points and 60 quid yourself, even if you were not the driver.
Have you noticed that if you nominate another driver, you can get done for 6-10 points and 250 quid upwards unless you have a bloody Xerox copy of the other driver's insurance?
Have you noticed if you fail to nominate a driver, you can get ( now increased ) 6 points and as big a fine as the courts decide?
I have heard the insurance one is a bit of a red herring and rarely used, but going from NIP of speeding to failing to nominate is both risky and potentially very expensive - not least compared to the 3 and 60.
Simply, all this means is that if you cannot remember the driver, you will still need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt you cannot identify him/her. This defence is often used without problem by..so sad...the police, and famous or rich people. The latter do, of course, have fancy lawyers to back them up.
In typical British style, because many police and famous people were/are using this defence and getting off, the law was changed so that the masses only were punished more instead. The police and the famous still get off. Last I heard of was cops ( in Yorkshire?? ) where of 105 gatsoed.....0 were done, despite proof 30 or more were not on emergency calls.
If you, as a hard working taxpayer on an average income, decide to go the route of ' do not know the driver', you have to be damn sure you have your case in order.
You will need credit cards to prove ( perhaps) you were elsewhere, CCTV of you elsewhere, letters from witnesses...the whole works!
You can go the court and win, but it will need balls of steel.
Have you noticed that if you nominate another driver, you can get done for 6-10 points and 250 quid upwards unless you have a bloody Xerox copy of the other driver's insurance?
Have you noticed if you fail to nominate a driver, you can get ( now increased ) 6 points and as big a fine as the courts decide?
I have heard the insurance one is a bit of a red herring and rarely used, but going from NIP of speeding to failing to nominate is both risky and potentially very expensive - not least compared to the 3 and 60.
Simply, all this means is that if you cannot remember the driver, you will still need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt you cannot identify him/her. This defence is often used without problem by..so sad...the police, and famous or rich people. The latter do, of course, have fancy lawyers to back them up.
In typical British style, because many police and famous people were/are using this defence and getting off, the law was changed so that the masses only were punished more instead. The police and the famous still get off. Last I heard of was cops ( in Yorkshire?? ) where of 105 gatsoed.....0 were done, despite proof 30 or more were not on emergency calls.
If you, as a hard working taxpayer on an average income, decide to go the route of ' do not know the driver', you have to be damn sure you have your case in order.
You will need credit cards to prove ( perhaps) you were elsewhere, CCTV of you elsewhere, letters from witnesses...the whole works!
You can go the court and win, but it will need balls of steel.
jondude said:
The NIP is worded so you accept it is far easier and less painful to accept the 3 points and 60 quid yourself, even if you were not the driver.
Have you noticed that if you nominate another driver, you can get done for 6-10 points and 250 quid upwards unless you have a bloody Xerox copy of the other driver's insurance?
Have you noticed if you fail to nominate a driver, you can get ( now increased ) 6 points and as big a fine as the courts decide?
I have heard the insurance one is a bit of a red herring and rarely used, but going from NIP of speeding to failing to nominate is both risky and potentially very expensive - not least compared to the 3 and 60.
Simply, all this means is that if you cannot remember the driver, you will still need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt you cannot identify him/her. This defence is often used without problem by..so sad...the police, and famous or rich people. The latter do, of course, have fancy lawyers to back them up.
In typical British style, because many police and famous people were/are using this defence and getting off, the law was changed so that the masses only were punished more instead. The police and the famous still get off. Last I heard of was cops ( in Yorkshire?? ) where of 105 gatsoed.....0 were done, despite proof 30 or more were not on emergency calls.
If you, as a hard working taxpayer on an average income, decide to go the route of ' do not know the driver', you have to be damn sure you have your case in order.
You will need credit cards to prove ( perhaps) you were elsewhere, CCTV of you elsewhere, letters from witnesses...the whole works!
You can go the court and win, but it will need balls of steel.
Very good points - can I add that as well as proving it wasn't you, you also need to have demonstrated that you have done everything possible to help identify the driver. Otherwise the CPS will simply drop the speeding ("OK, we accept it wasn't you"Have you noticed that if you nominate another driver, you can get done for 6-10 points and 250 quid upwards unless you have a bloody Xerox copy of the other driver's insurance?
Have you noticed if you fail to nominate a driver, you can get ( now increased ) 6 points and as big a fine as the courts decide?
I have heard the insurance one is a bit of a red herring and rarely used, but going from NIP of speeding to failing to nominate is both risky and potentially very expensive - not least compared to the 3 and 60.
Simply, all this means is that if you cannot remember the driver, you will still need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt you cannot identify him/her. This defence is often used without problem by..so sad...the police, and famous or rich people. The latter do, of course, have fancy lawyers to back them up.
In typical British style, because many police and famous people were/are using this defence and getting off, the law was changed so that the masses only were punished more instead. The police and the famous still get off. Last I heard of was cops ( in Yorkshire?? ) where of 105 gatsoed.....0 were done, despite proof 30 or more were not on emergency calls.
If you, as a hard working taxpayer on an average income, decide to go the route of ' do not know the driver', you have to be damn sure you have your case in order.
You will need credit cards to prove ( perhaps) you were elsewhere, CCTV of you elsewhere, letters from witnesses...the whole works!
You can go the court and win, but it will need balls of steel.
and do you for Failure to Supply. You have a legal obligation to do everything in your power to help the police trace the driver of *your* car - although I don't know the wording precisely...any lawyers here?jdening said:
You have a legal obligation to do everything in your power to help the police trace the driver of *your* car - although I don't know the wording precisely...any lawyers here?
IANAL, but..The obligations of s.172 RTA 1988 vary and are dependant whether the recipient of a s.172 request is the 'person keeping the vehicle' or a 'person other than keeper'.
If a driver of a vehicle at a particular time and place cannot be identified, then it is likely that the recipient of the s.172 request will be summoned to court.
A PKV would be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Magistrates, that they exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to identify the driver and why, despite their best efforts, the driver's identity remains unknown. If the Magistrates concur that reasonable diligence has been exercised, then the defendant should not be convicted.
There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes reasonable diligence, suffice to say it is anything and everything which could be reasonably expected of a person - checking credit card bills / receipts, mobile phone records, diaries, garage CCTV, discussing with family, friends or colleagues etc etc..
The responsibilities placed upon a non-PKV are far less onerous - a non-PKV is required only to provide information which is in their power to give ie they are not subject to the same reasonable diligence test as that of a PKV.
For instance, if this information consisted of nothing more than 'I was not the keeper at the time but persons x, y & z had access to the keys' then so be it..
In court and once non-keepership of a vehicle had been established, the prosecution would be required to prove that the defendant had additional information which was in their power give and that they had failed to give it in order to secure a conviction.
Section 172 RTA 1988 said:
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
.
.
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
Note that the reaonable diligence test provided by Paragraph (4) only applies to Section 2(a) - the person keeping the vehicle.(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
.
.
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
Also, have a read of Mohindra v DPP
HTH
Edited by SS2. on Friday 11th January 09:12
jondude said:
Have you noticed that if you nominate another driver, you can get done for 6-10 points and 250 quid upwards unless you have a bloody Xerox copy of the other driver's insurance?
If you are convicted of causing or permitting someone to drive whilst uninsured then the penalty is commensurate with the act of driving whilst uninsured itself - 6-8 points or a discretionary ban, fine of up to £5,000 max.The moral is not to permit anyone to drive unless you are 100% convinced that they are insured to do so.
jondude said:
Have you noticed if you fail to nominate a driver, you can get ( now increased ) 6 points and as big a fine as the courts decide?
Up to a maximum of £1,000.jondude said:
You will need credit cards to prove ( perhaps) you were elsewhere, CCTV of you elsewhere, letters from witnesses...the whole works!
Nothing in statute provides that you are required to prove that you were elsewhere when defending a charge of failing to provide driver details.Indeed, the fact that you may have been elsewhere at the time of an alleged offence is largely irrelevant to such a charge - refer to my previous post regarding the obligations of keeper and person other than keeper, above.
Edited by SS2. on Friday 11th January 10:03
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff