Going over solid white line ... your word Vs his ?
Discussion
I've got a friend who's 22 and is training to be a motor sport mechanic. He's spent the last 3 years restoring my old GT6 mark 2 1970, from a pile of bits that's been off the road for 18 years into a lovely machine, and he's spent an utter fortune in the process (like >£20k). The car's been back on the road a couple of weeks now, and he's happy as Larry.
Well, he was until this last weekend. He was out in Derbyshire with his Mum in the passenger seat and a mate in an MX5 following behind. He goes round a bend which has double solid white lines down the centre, doing about 40mph in a 50mph zone, and 1/4 of a mile later gets pulled up by a copper stood at the side of the road.
The copper says that he put two wheels over the double solid white lines, and duly does the lad, and his mate behind him in the MX5, 3 points and a fine each. Now, Richard (for that's his name) is gutted and utterly maintains that he did NOT go over the while lines ... bearing in mind the fact that he's got his Mum in the passenger seat, and the fact that the GT6 has track suspension which is hard, so he FEELS cats eyes, plus the car's only little and handles like a Westfield so it doesn't exactly need to take up much of the road ... I must say I've got to believe him. But the copper would have none of it, and is doing him all the same.
Now, this is more than just 3 points ... .I really feel for the kid because as I say he's 22 and the car is on classic car insurance ... he's already rung round all the classic car insurers and they all say the same thing, they wont insure him with 3 points, not until he's 25. So if this stands, he'll either had to put the newly restored car that's his life love up on blocks for 3 years, or pay for "normal" insurance (silly money, £3000-4000 or so)
He wants to fight this (naturally, he's indignant coz he knows he's done nothing wrong) but he doesn't know the best way of going about this. I would imagine it's literally just a case of the coppers word against his ? What's the best thing he can do ?
Any help very much appreciated !!
Cheers
Nev
Well, he was until this last weekend. He was out in Derbyshire with his Mum in the passenger seat and a mate in an MX5 following behind. He goes round a bend which has double solid white lines down the centre, doing about 40mph in a 50mph zone, and 1/4 of a mile later gets pulled up by a copper stood at the side of the road.
The copper says that he put two wheels over the double solid white lines, and duly does the lad, and his mate behind him in the MX5, 3 points and a fine each. Now, Richard (for that's his name) is gutted and utterly maintains that he did NOT go over the while lines ... bearing in mind the fact that he's got his Mum in the passenger seat, and the fact that the GT6 has track suspension which is hard, so he FEELS cats eyes, plus the car's only little and handles like a Westfield so it doesn't exactly need to take up much of the road ... I must say I've got to believe him. But the copper would have none of it, and is doing him all the same.
Now, this is more than just 3 points ... .I really feel for the kid because as I say he's 22 and the car is on classic car insurance ... he's already rung round all the classic car insurers and they all say the same thing, they wont insure him with 3 points, not until he's 25. So if this stands, he'll either had to put the newly restored car that's his life love up on blocks for 3 years, or pay for "normal" insurance (silly money, £3000-4000 or so)
He wants to fight this (naturally, he's indignant coz he knows he's done nothing wrong) but he doesn't know the best way of going about this. I would imagine it's literally just a case of the coppers word against his ? What's the best thing he can do ?
Any help very much appreciated !!
Cheers
Nev
Bear in mind you are working on hearsay....
Also you just have to straddle (one wheel over) a line to commit the offence.
Now Richard has the option he either accepts that he did it and pay up ditto mate MX5 or elects hearing at Magistrates Court and pleads Not Guilty.
For the Prosecution: (On oath)
No 1. BiB who saw it. (Passed info to mate down road?)
No 2. BiB stopping.
For the defence:
No 1 Richards Mum.(on oath)
No 2 MX5 Mate.(On oath)
No 3 Richard himself.(On oath or statement from dock)
The onus on the Prosecution is to prove beyond any reasonable doubt.
The choice is his.
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Saturday 3rd July 13:19
Also you just have to straddle (one wheel over) a line to commit the offence.
Now Richard has the option he either accepts that he did it and pay up ditto mate MX5 or elects hearing at Magistrates Court and pleads Not Guilty.
For the Prosecution: (On oath)
No 1. BiB who saw it. (Passed info to mate down road?)
No 2. BiB stopping.
For the defence:
No 1 Richards Mum.(on oath)
No 2 MX5 Mate.(On oath)
No 3 Richard himself.(On oath or statement from dock)
The onus on the Prosecution is to prove beyond any reasonable doubt.
The choice is his.
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Saturday 3rd July 13:19
DVD : thanks for the reply. Anyone know of any precidents / examples of this sort of thing, i.e. if it did just come down to a bunch of (on oath) his and family's word Vs prosecution's word, which side does the magistrate normally come down on ? And if the prosecution has to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" is the coppers word on the matter "proof" enough ?
supraman2954 said:
What IS this country coming to? 3 points and a fine, possible through the courts, just for straying over a line?
Pathetic!
You're completely right, what an absolute pedantic prat the policeman is! (Assuming all the details are correct)
The fact that all you need to do is straddle the white line with one wheel and you have commited an offence is; in itself, complete bollocks.
Nev - if it does go to court under this charge then the worst he's going to get will still be the 3 points. He'll get a larger fine though.
Do the police have any evidence other than the Policeman's eyes? (Camera in following car etc.).
Sounds really mean and petty to me - esp. if he was not even overtaking.
Personally I'd take it to court, if only to get this numpty Policeman off the street and let the judge see what a silly person he is (hopefully).
Do the police have any evidence other than the Policeman's eyes? (Camera in following car etc.).
Sounds really mean and petty to me - esp. if he was not even overtaking.
Personally I'd take it to court, if only to get this numpty Policeman off the street and let the judge see what a silly person he is (hopefully).
Tref, there's no evidence (apparently) other than the coppers say so. The copper had his speed gun sat on his bike, so Richard thinks that he wanted to catch him for that, and when he couldn't, went for this as a 2nd best.
Spoke to Richard today funny enough, he's definately going to take it to court and try and argue the toss.
Spoke to Richard today funny enough, he's definately going to take it to court and try and argue the toss.
This strikes me as having parallels with www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=0&t=73751
In this instance the defendent's insistence that he did not stray into the hard shoulder and the fact that a second police witness statment could not corroborate the first meant that D was cleared of the charge.
It might be worth arguing a case about road/weather conditions, policeman's distance from the incident etc etc
>> Edited by edc on Sunday 11th July 22:41
In this instance the defendent's insistence that he did not stray into the hard shoulder and the fact that a second police witness statment could not corroborate the first meant that D was cleared of the charge.
It might be worth arguing a case about road/weather conditions, policeman's distance from the incident etc etc
>> Edited by edc on Sunday 11th July 22:41
Deester said:
What IS this country coming to? 3 points and a fine, possible through the courts, just for straying over a line?
Pathetic!
You're completely right, what an absolute pedantic prat the policeman is! (Assuming all the details are correct)
The fact that all you need to do is straddle the white line with one wheel and you have commited an offence is; in itself, complete bollocks.
Well said. To me the double white line system ranks with the speed limit regime as being another generally unreliable road safety measure.
I see lots of situations where the double white line would prevent me from overtaking, and sometimes I disregard it so long as there is no risk to safety.
By the same token it appears to offer me a chance to overtake in some places where I can not see a safe means of doing so.
Generally speaking I use my own judgement, even if it does contravene the law. I prefer to rely on my evaluation of the situation 'on site' rather than what somebody else decided was appropriate perhaps many years earlier.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
To illustrate just how valuable the courts think Police evidence is, here's a story for you...
My mate stopped a motorcycle driven by a lad carrying his girlfriend on the back with no helmet. Bloke has short dark hair and girlie med length dyed blonde hair.
Ticket is given out and document offence arise as a result of the producer. Bloke takes ther case to court argueing that he was in fact the pillion and his g/f was driving.
Guess who the magistrates believed? (2 witnesses vs. 1 after all)
And if you ever get stopped by Steve and he appears to have a case of the
ems you'll know why 
My mate stopped a motorcycle driven by a lad carrying his girlfriend on the back with no helmet. Bloke has short dark hair and girlie med length dyed blonde hair.
Ticket is given out and document offence arise as a result of the producer. Bloke takes ther case to court argueing that he was in fact the pillion and his g/f was driving.
Guess who the magistrates believed? (2 witnesses vs. 1 after all)
And if you ever get stopped by Steve and he appears to have a case of the
ems you'll know why Well, after having watched Jeremy Clarkson yesterday driving the überMerc, he'S obviously going to lose his license as he overtook (clearly visible) over a right-turning lane.......
how much more harassment do we have to put up with when murderers, kiddyfiddlers, politicians, chavs and all other criminals go free?????
how much more harassment do we have to put up with when murderers, kiddyfiddlers, politicians, chavs and all other criminals go free?????
If the cop was on his bike with the speed-gun then he probably caught the whole thing on a camera. If he did then the driver is banged-to-rights, otherwise you could try to claim that he is supressing (or has deleted) the video because it shows the car was not over the white lines. So the question is did he have a camera?
JMGS4 said:I thought it had broken lines around it. If so, there's no restriction (AFAIK) - Streaky (waits to be told differently)
Well, after having watched Jeremy Clarkson yesterday driving the überMerc, he'S obviously going to lose his license as he overtook (clearly visible) over a right-turning lane.
streaky said:
JMGS4 said:
Well, after having watched Jeremy Clarkson yesterday driving the überMerc, he'S obviously going to lose his license as he overtook (clearly visible) over a right-turning lane.
I thought it had broken lines around it. If so, there's no restriction (AFAIK) - Streaky (waits to be told differently)
It was over in a flash (and the arrow was clearly visible) and I may be wrong but the guy's a knut for not getting that 3 seconds edited out....more lentilista ammo IMHO.....
however in all advanced driving courses that I've been on one should never enter a turnlane when not turning) except in emergencies...
PS doesn't the "ladder" forming the turn lane have a solid line around it? beginning and end i.e. from both directions? not being in UK at the mo means I can't check it, but IMHO this is always the case (certainly is here on the continent)
>> Edited by JMGS4 on Monday 12th July 09:05
Rus Wood said:
If the cop was on his bike with the speed-gun then he probably caught the whole thing on a camera. If he did then the driver is banged-to-rights, otherwise you could try to claim that he is supressing (or has deleted) the video because it shows the car was not over the white lines. So the question is did he have a camera?
Not many bikes are fitted with the aformentioned equipment
supraman2954 said:
What IS this country coming to? 3 points and a fine, possible through the courts, just for straying over a line?
Pathetic!
Hi Supraman...
The problem is...the solid white line should be treated like a brick wall....Even hardened speeders etc usually have an unwritten rule not to contravene solid white lines..
People coming the other way, quite rightly feel that their side of the road will be devoid of any oncoming vehicles due to the solid white line. Motorcyclist sit 3/4 way out in their lane and wouldn't expect a vehicle coming towards them to cross the solid lines.
The lines will be put there for safety reasons only. There's no money generation or Scamera stuff here....just solid white lines due to either a bend, hidden dip, crest of a hill etc...
It's the only bit of the RTA1988 that I don't think anybody could argue against.
Street
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff