Just got an NIP - didn't even see a flash :-(

[JohnL]

Bah, humbug, nasty surprise in the post yesterday morning.

They say I was doing 52 in a 40. If it's where I think it is, it's immediately after a 70 drops to a 40, half a mile or so of perfect visibility before any buildings. Safety, right.

However, I'm not even sure it's there as the location details aren't clear, so the first step I reckon is to write to them asking for clarification of the location.

I also think - but I'll have to check - that in the location I think it probably is, there is no big 40mph sign, only repeaters - if so, is the ticket valid?

Any other ideas on dealing with this?

They say in the NIP that they won't send out photos but I can go to see them at such and such an address. Are they allowed to make it difficult like this (which is undoubtedly their intention), or can I insist that they send the pics?

[gh0st]

It was probably a laser van thats why you didnt see it.

And to make things worse they dont have to provide evidence until you get to court. Are you prepared to call their bluff on the basis that they may not have good photo evidence?

[streaky]

Check that the limit signage complies with the law. If not ...

[jeffreyarcher]

JohnL said:

However, I'm not even sure it's there as the location details aren't clear, so the first step I reckon is to write to them asking for clarification of the location.

Wait till the 14 days are up, in case they issue you a new correctly specified NIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Young v Day (DC) Divisional Court c.1959

(1959) 123 J.P. 317

Summary: The Divisional Court refused to set aside a decision by the justices that a notice of intended prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 was insufficiently particular where it stated the place of the offence of dangerous driving as "the Hothfield to Bethersden Road," which was a minor road four miles long. (Pope v. Clarke [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1060 followed).

--------------------------------------------------------------

Pope v Clarke, (DC) Divisional Court, c.1953

Abstract: There is a distinction between the construction to be placed on a statute where the provisions are mandatory and where they are merely directory; thus, the object of the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 which requires a notice of intended prosecution to be served on the defendant, is to bring to the defendant's mind while events are still fresh in his memory the fact that he is going to be prosecuted, so that inaccuracies in the notice served are immaterial if they are not such as to mislead the defendant. A notice of intended prosecution was sent to the defendant under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 in which the time of the alleged offence with which the defendant was going to be charged was incorrectly stated. The justices considered that this mistake invalidated the notice and dismissed the charge.
Summary: Held, there was no evidence that the defendant was misled; accordingly, the justices must proceed to hear the case. (Venn v Morgan [1949] 2 All E.R. 562 applied; and dicta of Lord Coleridge C.J. in Woodward v Sarsons (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 733, 746 applied).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JohnL]

Thanks guys.

Jeffrey you may be on to something - 14 days are already up so I'd better get writing!

The big 40 signs are unfortuantely there, although not very visible against a bridge, further back than I'd thought. That means that the 40mph limit zone starts with over 1 mile of dual carriageway before it drops to single ...

[jeffreyarcher]

JohnL said:

The big 40 signs are unfortuantely there, although not very visible against a bridge, further back than I'd thought. That means that the 40mph limit zone starts with over 1 mile of dual carriageway before it drops to single ...

If it's a 40 MPH limit, it requires repeater signs. THe distances given in that section are not mandatory, but they must be there and they must be 'regular'.

[JohnL]

I don't f**kin' believe it! Another NIP, and I'd barely got the letter out the door responding to the first one.

This time, I was apparently doing 83mph on a quiet dual carriageway in clear visibility (it was 10:30 last Saturday, in Fife). Oh, my guilty conscience .

I can really see how prosecuting me for this is going to improve road safety. The main effect is going to be increasing profits for speed trap detector manufacturers 'cos I'm going to get one.

The previous two times I've been charged with speeding were in 1995 and 1999. Both times I thought, well, I was being pretty stupid and in fact my speed was inappropriately high - so take it and learn a lesson. My response then was generally to pay more attantion while driving. My response now is to buy a detector.

I don't accept that I have been driving unsafely these times, and I resent having to spring £300-£400 to give myself a reasonable chance of keeping my licence - another month of safe and responsible driving like this and I'm walking

>> Edited by JohnL on Friday 12th March 11:25

[telecat]

Is that the road to Glenrothes?? If it is then the Van likes to sit behind a sign near a Lay-by. I'm aware of it as I got done on the other side and spotted it a couple of weeks later "lurking" on the other side.

[JohnL]

That's it. If you know the road you'll know just how "bad" the visibility is, and how "busy" it gets on a Saturday morning. Real deathtrap, that road .

[telecat]

Road is very straight visibility to the Horizon. When caught I had pulled down my speed to check it out But thought it was a Motorway Contractors vehicle. Very Nice! Mind I did see the guardrails off and a dent in the trees just before the hiding place of the Van. Accident or Did he brake too hard when he spotted the Van??

[nigeldunne64]

JohnL, Sorry to see your news. I am a newbie here but a regular on other anti-scamera sites. Have you done anything with your second NIP yet?
If not why not pop over to www.pepipoo.com
You should find plenty of advice in the fightback forums, particularly cameras and judicial process.
I have tried to pm you but for some reason this site doesn't seem to allow me to stay logged on.

[streaky]

Clearly a hardened criminal! Good luck with your defence(s) - Streaky

[JohnL]

The second one is from "videographic evidence". Anyone know if I can demand to see it? They made no mention of that as an option on the letter.

[jeffreyarcher]

JohnL said:

The second one is from "videographic evidence". Anyone know if I can demand to see it? They made no mention of that as an option on the letter.

It would be highly unusual if they let you see the video before a 'not guilty' plea is entered. They will usually give you a couple of stills from the video at the NIP stage if you say that you want them to 'assist you in identifying the driver as you are unsure of who it was'.