67mph in a (temporary) 50mph limit
Discussion
Afternoon gents,
The girlfriend recently received an "intention to prosecute" letter for doing 67mph in in a temporary 50mph limit on a 4 lane A road that is ordinarily a national speed limit. The reason for the temporary 50mph is roadworks. Not that it makes a difference in the eyes of the law etc, but this temporary limit has been in place for many months and I have never seen any sign of any work actually taking place. It would seem she was caught by plod with a radar gun.
Just posting to see what the likely punishment is? A bit of Googling suggests the rules have changed and fines can be linked to your salary? How many points is this offence likely to attract? Up until this happened she had a clean licence.
Cheers for any info
The girlfriend recently received an "intention to prosecute" letter for doing 67mph in in a temporary 50mph limit on a 4 lane A road that is ordinarily a national speed limit. The reason for the temporary 50mph is roadworks. Not that it makes a difference in the eyes of the law etc, but this temporary limit has been in place for many months and I have never seen any sign of any work actually taking place. It would seem she was caught by plod with a radar gun.
Just posting to see what the likely punishment is? A bit of Googling suggests the rules have changed and fines can be linked to your salary? How many points is this offence likely to attract? Up until this happened she had a clean licence.
Cheers for any info
Toilet Duck said:
A bit of Googling suggests the rules have changed and fines can be linked to your salary?
They haven't changed. One of the bands for fines issued at court changed to a different percentage of weekly income. That was all.Toilet Duck said:
How many points is this offence likely to attract?
She's well within the guidelines for 3pt/£100 FPN. She was a bit too quick to qualify for the tea and biccies option.Yes the important thing is for her to return the "request for driver's details" within the 28 days allowed. Failure to do so will see her face a more serious charge which involves a court visit together with a hefty fine, six points and considerably increased insurance premiums.
When she receives the offer of a fixed penalty she should accept it by sending in the £100 and her licence. Some people forget to submit their licence and this results in the offer being withdrawn. They then face court action where they will be sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. This would cost considerably more than £100 and, for 67 in a 50, at least four points.
When she receives the offer of a fixed penalty she should accept it by sending in the £100 and her licence. Some people forget to submit their licence and this results in the offer being withdrawn. They then face court action where they will be sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. This would cost considerably more than £100 and, for 67 in a 50, at least four points.
If she is the registered keeper and she fails to send in the driver details she may end up getting prosecuted fro speeding and failing to supply the driver details. 9 points and 2 fines isn't attractive.
Sending in the details is likely to lead to an offer of fixed penalty of 3 points and £100 fine.
Sending in the details is likely to lead to an offer of fixed penalty of 3 points and £100 fine.
ghe13rte said:
If she is the registered keeper and she fails to send in the driver details she may end up getting prosecuted fro speeding and failing to supply the driver details. 9 points and 2 fines isn't attractive.
Sending in the details is likely to lead to an offer of fixed penalty of 3 points and £100 fine.
Ignore this crap (well the top part)Sending in the details is likely to lead to an offer of fixed penalty of 3 points and £100 fine.
It long been held as an abuse of process to charge and convict for both "Failing to Supply" & "Speeding"
That said - a "Failure to Supply" conviction is not good for insurance rates - you would much rather not get that one so do return the S172 form in time.
Sean
NugentS said:
ghe13rte said:
If she is the registered keeper and she fails to send in the driver details she may end up getting prosecuted fro speeding and failing to supply the driver details. 9 points and 2 fines isn't attractive.
Sending in the details is likely to lead to an offer of fixed penalty of 3 points and £100 fine.
Ignore this crap (well the top part)Sending in the details is likely to lead to an offer of fixed penalty of 3 points and £100 fine.
It long been held as an abuse of process to charge and convict for both "Failing to Supply" & "Speeding"
That said - a "Failure to Supply" conviction is not good for insurance rates - you would much rather not get that one so do return the S172 form in time.
Sean
Before this chap: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/driver...
sent in his fake photograph in his appeal he was convicted of failing to supply the driver's name and speeding.
Abuse of process? How can it be? All the prosecution are doing is charging 2 offences and hearing them together in the same court. Have you evidence of it being found to be an abuse of process, I see it occur regularly with no finding of an abuse.
ghe13rte said:
If she is the registered keeper and she fails to send in the driver details she may end up getting prosecuted fro speeding and failing to supply the driver details. 9 points and 2 fines isn't attractive.
No she won't. If she fails to provide the driver's details nobody can be prosecuted for speeding as there is no evidence as to who was driving. The only way she can be convicted of both offences is if she submits her details as the driver but does so outside the 28 day window allowed. She would thus be guilty of the "Failing to Provide" offence (by responding late) and can be then prosecuted for speeding using her admission of being the driver as evidence.Well I Never said:
ghe13rte said:
If she is the registered keeper and she fails to send in the driver details she may end up getting prosecuted fro speeding and failing to supply the driver details. 9 points and 2 fines isn't attractive.
No she won't. If she fails to provide the driver's details nobody can be prosecuted for speeding as there is no evidence as to who was driving. The only way she can be convicted of both offences is if she submits her details as the driver but does so outside the 28 day window allowed. She would thus be guilty of the "Failing to Provide" offence (by responding late) and can be then prosecuted for speeding using her admission of being the driver as evidence.A court can assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the keeper is the driver.
ghe13rte said:
Wrong.
A court can assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the keeper is the driver.
Can they? Perhaps you'd like to point us to some authority for that or to some verified examples. If that was indeed the case there would be no need for Section 172 notices to be served. It could just be assumed that the keeper was driving and leave it to him to produce "evidence to the contrary". Save a lot of faffing about. Mind you, I don't know how Messrs Hertz and Avis (to name but two) would feel about it.A court can assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the keeper is the driver.
Well I Never said:
ghe13rte said:
Wrong.
A court can assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the keeper is the driver.
Can they? Perhaps you'd like to point us to some authority for that or to some verified examples. If that was indeed the case there would be no need for Section 172 notices to be served. It could just be assumed that the keeper was driving and leave it to him to produce "evidence to the contrary". Save a lot of faffing about. Mind you, I don't know how Messrs Hertz and Avis (to name but two) would feel about it.A court can assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the keeper is the driver.
ghe13rte said:
Elliott v Loake (1983) Crim LR 36, Co/589/82
Transcript - http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Elliott%20v%20Loake%...And six years before the legislation in question here?
s172 of RTA88 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
s168 of RTA72 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/20/secti...
Very different.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Sunday 16th September 22:03
Toilet Duck said:
Afternoon gents,
The girlfriend recently received an "intention to prosecute" letter for doing 67mph in in a temporary 50mph limit on a 4 lane A road that is ordinarily a national speed limit. The reason for the temporary 50mph is roadworks. Not that it makes a difference in the eyes of the law etc, but this temporary limit has been in place for many months and I have never seen any sign of any work actually taking place. It would seem she was caught by plod with a radar gun.
Just posting to see what the likely punishment is? A bit of Googling suggests the rules have changed and fines can be linked to your salary? How many points is this offence likely to attract? Up until this happened she had a clean licence.
Cheers for any info
Google is not your friend here. Income based fines are only applicable if court proceedings are commenced. Avoid court proceedings by paying a £100 fixed penalty and carefully following instructions about submission of your driving licence for a 3 point endorsement. The girlfriend recently received an "intention to prosecute" letter for doing 67mph in in a temporary 50mph limit on a 4 lane A road that is ordinarily a national speed limit. The reason for the temporary 50mph is roadworks. Not that it makes a difference in the eyes of the law etc, but this temporary limit has been in place for many months and I have never seen any sign of any work actually taking place. It would seem she was caught by plod with a radar gun.
Just posting to see what the likely punishment is? A bit of Googling suggests the rules have changed and fines can be linked to your salary? How many points is this offence likely to attract? Up until this happened she had a clean licence.
Cheers for any info
TooMany2cvs said:
Transcript - http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Elliott%20v%20Loake%...
And six years before the legislation in question here?
s172 of RTA88 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
s168 of RTA72 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/20/secti...
Very different.
Yes very different indeed.And six years before the legislation in question here?
s172 of RTA88 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
s168 of RTA72 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/20/secti...
Very different.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Sunday 16th September 22:03
When a court makes assumptions they have to be “reasonable”. It is not reasonable to assume that the keeper of a vehicle (whether he is the Registered Keeper or “the person keeping the vehicle” – who may or may not be one and the same) was necessarily the person driving at the time of an alleged offence. Many vehicles are driven by people other than the keeper. It is not at all unusual. In the case cited there was considerable evidence (albeit most of it circumstantial) to support the contention that the keeper was indeed the person driving at the time of the incident. It was not merely an unsubstantiated routine assumption by the court.
There is no way a speeding allegation would succeed to conviction simply on the basis that it should be assumed that the keeper of the vehicle was the person driving at the time. The prosecution must prove who was driving and normally the only way to do so when the driver was not stopped at the time is by way of a Section 172 declaration.
However, we digress considerably because none of this is likely to apply in the OP’s case.
)Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff