RE: Don't Sign that Form
Monday 3rd March 2003
Don't Sign that Form
Loophole could cause chaos for camera convictions
Safespeed.org.uk has been following the progress of a case in which a man had a speeding prosecution thrown out because he didn't sign the form identifying the driver.
The legal loophole seems to be that you are obliged to identify the driver when presented with a form, but you aren't required to sign the form. Bizarrely though, the form is inadmissable without a signature.
Check out the full story here: www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html
Discussion
S
t I have just sent two Notice of prosecusion forms back signed by me, as my missus was driving my car and managed to get two speeding tickets by GATSO camera's within seven minutes of each other. She will now get two NOP forms as the "named" driver and will be asked to fill in that she was driving..but will the fact I have signed the previous forms declaring her as the driver count against her in court?? Advise needed here.
I feel pissed off as one of the tickets was for 72mph in a 60 and I saw the speedo reading below 70 on a straight wide bypass with national speed limit signs. These signs should be scrapped, as "national speed limit" is different depending on the road and it's surroundings. Safety is not the issue here, road revenue for the police is.
t I have just sent two Notice of prosecusion forms back signed by me, as my missus was driving my car and managed to get two speeding tickets by GATSO camera's within seven minutes of each other. She will now get two NOP forms as the "named" driver and will be asked to fill in that she was driving..but will the fact I have signed the previous forms declaring her as the driver count against her in court?? Advise needed here. I feel pissed off as one of the tickets was for 72mph in a 60 and I saw the speedo reading below 70 on a straight wide bypass with national speed limit signs. These signs should be scrapped, as "national speed limit" is different depending on the road and it's surroundings. Safety is not the issue here, road revenue for the police is.
Prancing, I don't think so. I think the next stage is the offer of fixed penalty or the choice of court. Two tickets within 7 minutes hmmm.... How far apart are the locations? If more that a few miles you may be able to bring uncertainty into it, if one of the clocks was out, even if just one mile apart both clocked at 60 plus and took seven minutes to travel one mile = average about 9 mph. Over to you...
Well the first camera was a single carriageway the second camera was a dual carriageway with central barrier, the missus was doing 42mph in a 30 limit although she did not see the camera because White van man undertook us obscuring it from our view. Hopefully he got nicked aswell. It is a good job I wasn't driving or I would have been going 142mph 
The road in question is the Wendover bypass A413 behind the station and the second stretch in Aylesbury.
MOTORISTS.... GUILTY until proved innocent.
The road in question is the Wendover bypass A413 behind the station and the second stretch in Aylesbury. MOTORISTS.... GUILTY until proved innocent.
Yep, a mobile van just after the second bridge (from london). I told the missus to slow down as she was driving the "Horse" and the Van had Police on the back with a camera in front. I glanced across to see her speed and the needle was below 70 mph....I know she should have slowed down but not being use to a 5.5 litre V12 and six manual gears it probably felt like we were only doing 40 mph, as you know the road it is perfect for the "hoofing past the lorry" technique. I thought she had got away with this. Now you know.
Maybe it's true..women do go blind behind the wheel.
Now she wants a Sports car of her own
>> Edited by Prancing on Monday 3rd March 15:02
Maybe it's true..women do go blind behind the wheel.
Now she wants a Sports car of her own
>> Edited by Prancing on Monday 3rd March 15:02
A Ferrari at 70mph. Would probably stop quicker than a people carrier at 50mph. Plus the Ferrari driver is more likely to be looking where he/she is going. I'm sure they enjoyed that one.
Nasty location for a trap, they build a nice, wide, fast piece of road where 60mph does not feel like 60mph. I know there has been the odd accident along there caused by bad overtaking so that's probably the excuse they'd use if you complain about locating the Tallivan on the bypass. I think it would have been better if they'd sat on the road entering Wendover from Beaconsfield direction - drops to a 30 quite early - should get a lot of speeders there.
Hang on, what am I saying. Burn all Tallivans. Sorry, momentary brain failure there.
T/.
Edited 'cos I can't spell Ferrari.
>> Edited by trefor on Monday 3rd March 16:17
Nasty location for a trap, they build a nice, wide, fast piece of road where 60mph does not feel like 60mph. I know there has been the odd accident along there caused by bad overtaking so that's probably the excuse they'd use if you complain about locating the Tallivan on the bypass. I think it would have been better if they'd sat on the road entering Wendover from Beaconsfield direction - drops to a 30 quite early - should get a lot of speeders there.
Hang on, what am I saying. Burn all Tallivans. Sorry, momentary brain failure there.
T/.
Edited 'cos I can't spell Ferrari.
>> Edited by trefor on Monday 3rd March 16:17
Forgive me if I'm wrong but you might want to follow up on this: Gatso cameras work on the same principal as the doppler effect. If you were undertaken/overtaken by a van near the camera it is quite possible that the camera reported the speed of the larger object NOT your speed. If Im right this would mean that the allegations would be thrown out in court.!!!
Prancing said: Well the first camera was a single carriageway the second camera was a dual carriageway with central barrier, the missus was doing 42mph in a 30 limit although she did not see the camera because White van man undertook us obscuring it from our view. Hopefully he got nicked aswell. It is a good job I wasn't driving or I would have been going 142mph
MOTORISTS.... GUILTY until proved innocent.
Going to stick my neck out here.
Prancing, you're not going to like this, but if your wife was caught speeding in two places then what's your objection? Why shouldn't she be prosecuted twice? She's broken the law. The fact that you claim she wasn't used to driving the "Horse" makes it even worse, in my opinion. If that somehow handicapped her ability to drive then FFS she shouldn't have been driving.
These forums are full of indignant people who are grumpy at being caught speeding (as I have in the past), but you can only blame yourselves. (I blame myself for my ticket.) Why try to deny that you (or your wife) were caught speeding? You know, "It's a fair cop?" Caught twice within a space of seven minutes is just unlucky, but you can't deny that your wife was breaking the law.
Try accepting the responsibility for driving within the law, and the penalty if you don't.
(See? I told you you wouldn't like this!
I'm not connected with road administration, by the way. I'm just an enthusiastic driver who hasn't been caught for a few years. When I *am* caught, though, I'll try to accept the punishment and not blame the government, the police, white van man on the inside, the too-powerful car etc.etc.etc.)
Prancing, you're not going to like this, but if your wife was caught speeding in two places then what's your objection? Why shouldn't she be prosecuted twice? She's broken the law. The fact that you claim she wasn't used to driving the "Horse" makes it even worse, in my opinion. If that somehow handicapped her ability to drive then FFS she shouldn't have been driving.
These forums are full of indignant people who are grumpy at being caught speeding (as I have in the past), but you can only blame yourselves. (I blame myself for my ticket.) Why try to deny that you (or your wife) were caught speeding? You know, "It's a fair cop?" Caught twice within a space of seven minutes is just unlucky, but you can't deny that your wife was breaking the law.
Try accepting the responsibility for driving within the law, and the penalty if you don't.
(See? I told you you wouldn't like this!
I'm not connected with road administration, by the way. I'm just an enthusiastic driver who hasn't been caught for a few years. When I *am* caught, though, I'll try to accept the punishment and not blame the government, the police, white van man on the inside, the too-powerful car etc.etc.etc.)
sublimatica said: Going to stick my neck out here.
Prancing, you're not going to like this, but if your wife was caught speeding in two places then what's your objection? Why shouldn't she be prosecuted twice? She's broken the law. The fact that you claim she wasn't used to driving the "Horse" makes it even worse, in my opinion. If that somehow handicapped her ability to drive then FFS she shouldn't have been driving.
These forums are full of indignant people who are grumpy at being caught speeding (as I have in the past), but you can only blame yourselves. (I blame myself for my ticket.) Why try to deny that you (or your wife) were caught speeding? You know, "It's a fair cop?" Caught twice within a space of seven minutes is just unlucky, but you can't deny that your wife was breaking the law.
Try accepting the responsibility for driving within the law, and the penalty if you don't.
(See? I told you you wouldn't like this!
Yeah, deltaf, my post might have sounded pious. I'm not at all. I go too fast sometimes, just like most of us do, but I'm lucky not to have been caught for a few years. My point is that when I *am* pulled (as I surely will be at some point) I'll try to accept what comes as part of the deal. If my prosecution is an injustice then I'll probably try to argue the toss, but if I was genuinely speeding then I'll try to show humility and take the rap.
From what Prancing says, he told his wife to slow down yet she was still caught twice doing more than 10mph above the limits. Maybe those moments were the only two occasions in their journey on which she was speeding, which would make her impending prosecutions unbelievably unlucky, but the possibilty exists that she was breaking the law for much of that journey. So what's the problem with being caught?
From what Prancing says, he told his wife to slow down yet she was still caught twice doing more than 10mph above the limits. Maybe those moments were the only two occasions in their journey on which she was speeding, which would make her impending prosecutions unbelievably unlucky, but the possibilty exists that she was breaking the law for much of that journey. So what's the problem with being caught?
Surely if you are caught twice on the same stretch of road, it is one offence???
For Example,
If you were speeding down a motorway and you drove for say 30 miles, and then you got pulled over, it would be one offence.
If you were speeding on an A road with 2 cameras, say 1 mile apart and you got nabbed by both of them, why should you get 2 NIPs and 6 points instead of just 3, when you have only committed one offence?
If she got caught twice, in 7 minutes, surely it is twice for the same offence?
For Example,
If you were speeding down a motorway and you drove for say 30 miles, and then you got pulled over, it would be one offence.
If you were speeding on an A road with 2 cameras, say 1 mile apart and you got nabbed by both of them, why should you get 2 NIPs and 6 points instead of just 3, when you have only committed one offence?
If she got caught twice, in 7 minutes, surely it is twice for the same offence?
Totally agree with this.
A mate of mine took the wrong junction off the M4 on his way to a job interview. Was understandably in a bit of a rush to get back on the right track, so hoofed it up the dual carriageway, round the next roundabout and back to the m-way.
Kind copper lasered him on the way up the dual carriageway (from a bridge), moved all his kit and got him again on the way back!
Mate lost his license as a result (luckily didn't affect the job - he got that), but I'd have been livid. A traffic car would have pulled you once and then you'd have done the rest of your journey paranoid and within the limit.
A mate of mine took the wrong junction off the M4 on his way to a job interview. Was understandably in a bit of a rush to get back on the right track, so hoofed it up the dual carriageway, round the next roundabout and back to the m-way.
Kind copper lasered him on the way up the dual carriageway (from a bridge), moved all his kit and got him again on the way back!
Mate lost his license as a result (luckily didn't affect the job - he got that), but I'd have been livid. A traffic car would have pulled you once and then you'd have done the rest of your journey paranoid and within the limit.
sublimatica said: Yeah, deltaf, my post might have sounded pious. I'm not at all. I go too fast sometimes, just like most of us do, but I'm lucky not to have been caught for a few years. My point is that when I *am* pulled (as I surely will be at some point) I'll try to accept what comes as part of the deal. If my prosecution is an injustice then I'll probably try to argue the toss, but if I was genuinely speeding then I'll try to show humility and take the rap.
From what Prancing says, he told his wife to slow down yet she was still caught twice doing more than 10mph above the limits. Maybe those moments were the only two occasions in their journey on which she was speeding, which would make her impending prosecutions unbelievably unlucky, but the possibilty exists that she was breaking the law for much of that journey. So what's the problem with being caught?
fair comment, but I thought he was pissed off because the speedo was reading under 70mph (speedo's usually overread at high speeds) and he was being undertaken. The van should have been the fastest of the two vehicles and it is possible that the van should have got the ticket
I would hope the van driver got a ticket too. We'll never know.
If Prancing's speedo is underreading at those sorts of speeds then he should be bloody grateful that he hasn't been caught inadvertently before, not gnashing his teeth at the perceived injustice this time.
Thank your lucky stars, Prancing, that it was your wife who took part in this speedo-calibration exercise, and not you! You still get to enjoy the Horse for the next five years without a dent in your insurance budget, while your wife has to drive the Fiesta.
If Prancing's speedo is underreading at those sorts of speeds then he should be bloody grateful that he hasn't been caught inadvertently before, not gnashing his teeth at the perceived injustice this time.
Thank your lucky stars, Prancing, that it was your wife who took part in this speedo-calibration exercise, and not you!
You still get to enjoy the Horse for the next five years without a dent in your insurance budget, while your wife has to drive the Fiesta.Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff