Dangerous driving for excess speed

[anonymous-user]

ATM said:

Finally got a letter through for this just 2 days short of 6 months since it happened. The charges are Careless and Excess speed.

Do some cases get processed by a special 'make 'em think they've got away with it' department?

[Derek Smith]

ATM said:

Finally got a letter through for this just 2 days short of 6 months since it happened. The charges are Careless and Excess speed.

The careless might well be the undertake.

A number of forces charge careless for passing on the nearside because magistrates courts seem to accept it. I know of no challenge to this. If there is no decided case then it can be challenged if the only evidence of careless is passing on the nearside.

I'm with the others on this; get a brief. It'll cost but then so will a ban. The speeding seems cut and dried.

[giantdefy]

How do you intend to plead, the speeding appears to be a slam dunk and, to be fair, so does the careless. If you are going guilty, IMO, a solicitor is just a further cost on what will be a costly day and provide little benefit over you turning up, suited, booted and very contrite.

[ATM]

ATM said:

No

I had experienced some agro with the driver of this car earlier. He had brake tested me. I was keeping my distance. As I saw a clear area in lane 1 and he didn't move over I did and went past. This was at maybe executed at 70 - 80 as we had only just left a round about with lights in red and he was not traveling fast. I was then in some clear road and wanted to stretch out some distance from this plonker so there would be no more problems. So I accelerated and then slowed down. This is when the Police caught up with me.

Is the speeding a slam dunk?

Their letter says between 110 and 120. It does not mention video or any form of electronic gizmo so are they guessing.

Remember i passed a car on the inside and for a time i was therefore out of sight of the police car as it was still caught up behind these cars. Then there is a long bend so the police car wouldn't have been able to see me until after this bend. I was then travelling at a more sensible speed when they could see me but yes there would have been a distance between me and the police car. Is this distance enough for them to guess my speed?

[Jim1556]

Message or search for AGTLaw on here. Very experienced motoring solicitor by all accounts...

[jmsgld]

Instruct a specialist solicitor. As previously mentioned AGT Law is often helpful on these forums.

You will get contradicting advice and opinions on a motoring forum, a lot of which will be wrong.

Magistrates court can be a lottery. Good luck.

[The Mad Monk]

Where are all the smug git answers?

[anonymous-user]

ATM said:

No

I had experienced some agro with the driver of this car earlier. He had brake tested me. I was keeping my distance. As I saw a clear area in lane 1 and he didn't move over I did and went past. This was at maybe executed at 70 - 80 as we had only just left a round about with lights in red and he was not traveling fast. I was then in some clear road and wanted to stretch out some distance from this plonker so there would be no more problems. So I accelerated and then slowed down. This is when the Police caught up with me.

For some reason I have the impression that there are two sides to this story.

[anonymous-user]

PS : hire this dude -

http://www.counsel.direct/

[Magic919]

Jim1556 said:

Message or search for AGTLaw on here. Very experienced motoring solicitor by all accounts...

Cough, barrister.

[Jim1556]

Magic919 said:

Cough, barrister.

Whoops! Apologies AGTLaw...

[anonymous-user]

I have met AGTLaw and he is a fine bloke and an expert motoring lawyer. He was a solicitor but is now a barrister who does direct access work (this means that in most cases he can be instructed without first instructing a solicitor). Unlike most bazzers, he does pretty much 100% motoring law. If he can't get you off he will at least put forward the most effective mitigation that the circumstances permit. Unlike some well known motoring lawyers, he is not a spiv or a chancer and will not run wky arguments.

[cossy400]

Breadvan72 said:

ATM said:

No

I had experienced some agro with the driver of this car earlier. He had brake tested me. I was keeping my distance. As I saw a clear area in lane 1 and he didn't move over I did and went past. This was at maybe executed at 70 - 80 as we had only just left a round about with lights in red and he was not traveling fast. I was then in some clear road and wanted to stretch out some distance from this plonker so there would be no more problems. So I accelerated and then slowed down. This is when the Police caught up with me.

For some reason I have the impression that there are two sides to this story.

How is there anymore to the story?

hes admitted grief with a another driver and then admitted clearing off out the way?

[anonymous-user]

ging84 said:

The government set laws with clear maximum penalties for speeding.
Authorities seems to be perfectly entitled to side step these maximum penalties by classifying arbitrary terms like grossly excess speed as dangerous driving so they can send people to prison.

That's a lot of tinfoil but, hey, it is Sunday.

[anonymous-user]

cossy400 said:

Breadvan72 said:

ATM said:

No

I had experienced some agro with the driver of this car earlier. He had brake tested me. I was keeping my distance. As I saw a clear area in lane 1 and he didn't move over I did and went past. This was at maybe executed at 70 - 80 as we had only just left a round about with lights in red and he was not traveling fast. I was then in some clear road and wanted to stretch out some distance from this plonker so there would be no more problems. So I accelerated and then slowed down. This is when the Police caught up with me.

For some reason I have the impression that there are two sides to this story.

How is there anymore to the story?

hes admitted grief with a another driver and then admitted clearing off out the way?

The OP paints himself as the hapless victim of another driver's bad behaviour. I suspect that it may have taken two to Tango.

[ATM]

Breadvan72 said:

ATM said:

No

I had experienced some agro with the driver of this car earlier. He had brake tested me. I was keeping my distance. As I saw a clear area in lane 1 and he didn't move over I did and went past. This was at maybe executed at 70 - 80 as we had only just left a round about with lights in red and he was not traveling fast. I was then in some clear road and wanted to stretch out some distance from this plonker so there would be no more problems. So I accelerated and then slowed down. This is when the Police caught up with me.

For some reason I have the impression that there are two sides to this story.

There probably are. Whenever people take it upon themselves to brake test cars behind them, swerve across both lanes to prevent undertaking and generally try their hardest to annoy the driver behind they are probably doing it to prove some irrelevant point of view. The truth is they are driving dangerously while trying to prove their point.

It seems the evidence from the police doesnt mention any of this so I suspect they didn't see it. They just saw me put an end to it by undertaking on the inside.

If you slam into the back of another car on a dual carriageway I'd suspect this would be deemed to be the fault of the driver behind. It is this stupidity which allows these people to start brake testing drivers with impunity. I did find myself considering what would happen if i did hit this car from behind but as he had a big dual cab pickup thing and i had a low sports car i thought it's an outcome i dont particular won't to explore.

Now once in front of him i could have started brake testing him. But thats how these things escalate. I chose flight instead of fight.

[mickmcpaddy]

If only the police/cps tried to stick it to granny muggers and the like as they do with motorists instead of dishing out cautions left right and cente.

[The Mad Monk]

ATM said:

It is this stupidity which allows these people to start brake testing drivers with impunity.

And of course, the other driver did this completely out of the blue, for absolutely no possible rhyme or reason.

[Dr Jekyll]

If you slam into the back of another car on a dual carriageway I'd suspect this would be deemed to be the fault of the driver behind.


[/quote]

Well yes
[quote=ATM]

It is this stupidity which allows these people to start brake testing drivers with impunity.
[/quote]

Would you prefer it if people could tailgate with impunity? Drive so you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

[vonhosen]

mickmcpaddy said:

If only the police/cps tried to stick it to granny muggers and the like as they do with motorists instead of dishing out cautions left right and cente.

If somebody mugs a granny in front of them they do. There are just a lot more people who drive like a in front of them than try to mug a granny.