Discussion
Hi Guys and Gals, I am new to the site, so I guess I am getting the drinks in (Virtual bar that is).
I got a NIP arrived today, said I was doing 36 mph in a 30 zone, in Blackpool, it was a static Gatso.
Now the things is, it was on 05/09/04 and they didn't send it out to me till 28/09/04 (23 days later) isn't there something about must be within 14 days?
I was on a motorcycle I had bought 2 days before and had only posted the log book the day before, it was tax'd, mot'd and insured.
I thought I was only doing 30, the other thing is my bike is a Suzuki GSXR 1100 and on the clocks the diff between 30 mph & 36Mph is less then 1/4 inch.
Whats the plan now ?
1.Hands up to it.
2.Throw it away.
3.send em a nice letter saying what I just told you ?
4.tell them they should have contacted me within 14 days.
I need your advice peeps please.
I am also a moderator on a motorcycle forum and have asked the same question there, I will let both forums know the outcome (if I get off with it).
So comments and advice please, and help yourselves to the crips
I got a NIP arrived today, said I was doing 36 mph in a 30 zone, in Blackpool, it was a static Gatso.
Now the things is, it was on 05/09/04 and they didn't send it out to me till 28/09/04 (23 days later) isn't there something about must be within 14 days?
I was on a motorcycle I had bought 2 days before and had only posted the log book the day before, it was tax'd, mot'd and insured.
I thought I was only doing 30, the other thing is my bike is a Suzuki GSXR 1100 and on the clocks the diff between 30 mph & 36Mph is less then 1/4 inch.
Whats the plan now ?
1.Hands up to it.
2.Throw it away.
3.send em a nice letter saying what I just told you ?
4.tell them they should have contacted me within 14 days.
I need your advice peeps please.
I am also a moderator on a motorcycle forum and have asked the same question there, I will let both forums know the outcome (if I get off with it).
So comments and advice please, and help yourselves to the crips
I think if the sent it to the previous keeper within 14 days then they are allowed extra days
However all is not lost read up about PACE and other possible defences on www.pepipoo.co.uk
However all is not lost read up about PACE and other possible defences on www.pepipoo.co.uk
Welcome aboard 
Disclaimer: *i'm very pissed*
You could request that they send you a photograph to help identify the driver as you let your mate borrow your clothes and your bike and go out for a spin on that day and you don't know who it was that triggered the camera..
How does that work with bikers..what with dark visors and such?
Disclaimer: *i'm very pissed*
You could request that they send you a photograph to help identify the driver as you let your mate borrow your clothes and your bike and go out for a spin on that day and you don't know who it was that triggered the camera..
How does that work with bikers..what with dark visors and such?
It looks Stuntman that when the SCP checked DVLA records that you were not recordeded as the Registered Keeper so they sent it to him. Looks as if he replied and they have now sent it to you, the new keeper. They complied with the law if they sent it to Reg Keeper in 14 days. The fact that you received it out of time will be discounted as they sent to old RK and that they have shown due diligence on now serving on you even out of time.
Looks like a grin and bear it job?
DVD
Looks like a grin and bear it job?
DVD
As previously stated you have been served the NIP in a properly proper manner. However, also previously stated was to requested the photographic evidence. If this does not reveal the identity of the driver then refuse to fill in the driver details as requested under s172 of the road traffic act as it as now become a violation of human rights through the ECJ.
Got to take issue with you again Cen re the human Rights infringement (Weh v Austria [2004]). The decision of the Court was HR was NOT infringed.
Better still let PH's decide by reading
www.tinyurl.com/445uy
Verdict please (Where is Jeffrey Archer)
By not signing they could be faced with a massive fine and points as outlined By Streetcop.
The bit you quoted last time where rights were infringed was in the Guiness Tax case where the person had already been charged after which they tried to go fishing on the same charge - not allowed.
Also as a law student then if the decision had gone the other way that was against Section 103 Motor
Vehicles Act of Austria and not RTA of UK, a different piece of legislation -validity?. Further if this was the case can the ECHR dictate to the rest of EEC to comply with the law or is that only ECJ?. Nothing seems to have circulated here yet?
DVD
Better still let PH's decide by reading
www.tinyurl.com/445uy
Verdict please (Where is Jeffrey Archer)
By not signing they could be faced with a massive fine and points as outlined By Streetcop.
The bit you quoted last time where rights were infringed was in the Guiness Tax case where the person had already been charged after which they tried to go fishing on the same charge - not allowed.
Also as a law student then if the decision had gone the other way that was against Section 103 Motor
Vehicles Act of Austria and not RTA of UK, a different piece of legislation -validity?. Further if this was the case can the ECHR dictate to the rest of EEC to comply with the law or is that only ECJ?. Nothing seems to have circulated here yet?
DVD
I have just read through the case records and think that both Cen and DVD are wrong!
My reasons:
Cen is (probably) wrong because the conclusion was that his right to silence was not breached.
DVD is (probably) wrong because this case revolved around the fact that the applicant was not the driver but had given insufficient details of the alledged actual driver (whether true or not). The applicant was not prosecuted for the speeding offence.
It is my belief that had the applicant actually been the driver the outcome would have been in his favour, that is the three dissenting judges views would have been joined by the other judges, therefore his rights would have been breached.
In itself this case is not conclusive evidence for either side because of the specific details.
BTW I teach some aspects of law to budding accountants, however, it is company and contract law, not criminal. Hopefully Ihave assessed the case with a reasonably clear view.
Back to DVD and Cen.
My reasons:
Cen is (probably) wrong because the conclusion was that his right to silence was not breached.
DVD is (probably) wrong because this case revolved around the fact that the applicant was not the driver but had given insufficient details of the alledged actual driver (whether true or not). The applicant was not prosecuted for the speeding offence.
It is my belief that had the applicant actually been the driver the outcome would have been in his favour, that is the three dissenting judges views would have been joined by the other judges, therefore his rights would have been breached.
In itself this case is not conclusive evidence for either side because of the specific details.
BTW I teach some aspects of law to budding accountants, however, it is company and contract law, not criminal. Hopefully Ihave assessed the case with a reasonably clear view.
Back to DVD and Cen.
kevinday said:
It is my belief that had the applicant actually been the driver the outcome would have been in his favour, that is the three dissenting judges views would have been joined by the other judges, therefore his rights would have been breached.
Bang on - Cen knows full well the outcome of Weh v Austria and is working on the reasoning of the judges. They are basically saying "in this case the rights weren't breached but had the circumstances been like this we would have had a different view.
The pending cases (eg. Idris Francis) are asking this without any peripheral problems and it is looking quite good.
Gareth
if you don't comply with 172...you'll get points and a fine far heavier than the speeding one...
Don't get dragged into the human rights twoddle....there has been no test case yet..and I can't see one in the near future...
If you want to be a Martyr and try on...go ahead...but keep a few hundred £££ on the side for the verdict..
Street
ps: Perhaps "cen" will give you the money if you lose?
Don't get dragged into the human rights twoddle....there has been no test case yet..and I can't see one in the near future...
If you want to be a Martyr and try on...go ahead...but keep a few hundred £££ on the side for the verdict..
Street
ps: Perhaps "cen" will give you the money if you lose?
STUNTMAN2000 said:
Hi Guys and Gals, I am new to the site, so I guess I am getting the drinks in (Virtual bar that is).
I got a NIP arrived today, said I was doing 36 mph in a 30 zone, in Blackpool, it was a static Gatso.
Bad luck!
But read through the blurb properly - - they revised their policy recently because Lancs folk showed their anger in local press and I gather lots of protest letters were sent to the powers that be....as wrong people were getting invites and death rate was still increasing.....
Anyway - result was more reasoned "penalty" system.... 35mph - caution and 36-37mph in 30 mph - Speed Course offered as alternative to points.
You should go for this if it is offered.....three of reps at my firm have been on it (under the 35 mph cut off
) - they said it was OK - and surprisingly pleasant.....they came away with "Hazard Perception Video" and they have received some goodies recently - some doo-dah for the glove compartment and a fluorescent jacket and a tyre tread measure....and a key ring..... Check it out!
Thanks Wildcat, I spoke to them on the phone this morning and they told me I would be offered the speed awareness course, if I admitted to the offence.
It's £85 and lasts 6 hours, in classroom and on the road combined. I can also do it in the car or on the bike.
So I am gona go for that option.
The downside is,( I read somewere ) if you fail the course you still get done 3 points and the fine.
It's £85 and lasts 6 hours, in classroom and on the road combined. I can also do it in the car or on the bike.
So I am gona go for that option.
The downside is,( I read somewere ) if you fail the course you still get done 3 points and the fine.
STUNTMAN2000 said:
Thanks Wildcat, I spoke to them on the phone this morning and they told me I would be offered the speed awareness course, if I admitted to the offence.
It's £85 and lasts 6 hours, in classroom and on the road combined. I can also do it in the car or on the bike.
So I am gona go for that option.
The downside is,( I read somewere ) if you fail the course you still get done 3 points and the fine.
Our reps (all 3 - two at 34mph last summer and one at 35mph) said the only way you fail this is if you sass back at the teacher, use your Handy in class, etc. Or if you do not turn up on time.... they all went to the one in Leyland - and drove around some country roads around Leyland and Chorley. They are IAM already - and said they drove past a school, parked cars and ADI chap asked questions on observation as they were driving.
They said you are expected to contribute by entering into discussions - usually about hazard perception. Read the HC again before you go as well.
Earn yourself some Browny points - they actually teach COAST in great detail. My reps showed me their notes from this course, and I was gobsmacked that this was case - as Papa taught me C.O.A.S.T many years ago...and really ace them with this and tell them you were only the numpty who went and throttled up at the Gatso "unintentionally" - that will go down well too.
Concentrate, Observe, Anticipate allow Space and Time - they will ask you to expand on this in the discussion according to our company reps. Their notes are kept on personnel file as well - company hot on this sort of thing as reps are required to have IAM before we let them have company car -
STUNTMAN2000 said:
Cheers again pal, What is COAST ?
Bound to be something obvious that I forgot and is going to make me look thick, but I have to ask big grin
Tis in earlier post here - but any excuse to give this again
C - oncentration
O - bservation
A - nticipation
S - pace
T -ime
Further elements which stand behind these letters are dotted throughout "RoadCraft" and page 51 of Paul Ripley's Book on "Expert Driving" - which is Mr R's "Driving Plan" is also worth a read as all these form part of "COAST methodology."
Dwight VanDriver said:
Wildcat
There was a brief reference to the Lancs scheme in Police review in June this year.
Set my mind at rest please. Do I take it that successful completion of the Course then the licence remains virginal? No points on it.
DVD
Our guys are on databank for 3 years. This means if they get copped again at "marginal" threshold - they have to take the rap - fine and points. They cannot do another course in other words until the three years from date of "offence" are up!
Does not affect insurance as nothing to declare - but probably wise to let them know you have had "refresher course" just in case - but our guys were told "no obligation to do so - as case closed"
The three guys quite enjoyed the course - truth be known! They said the people running the lessons were polite, friendly and understanding. They certainly did not report any negative ticking offs for being "done for speeding!"
>>>>>>>
[1] Bang on - Cen knows full well the outcome of Weh v Austria and is working on the reasoning of the judges. They are basically saying "in this case the rights weren't breached but had the circumstances been like this we would have had a different view.
[2]The pending cases (eg. Idris Francis) are asking this without any peripheral problems and it is looking quite good.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[1] I would submit that until such time as ECHR deliberate and pronounced judgement on that particular fact this case has no authority. If I recall correctly in the case of DPP v Broomfield 2002 reference was made in the deliberation that in the opinion of M'Lord 172 forms had to be signed but as the case was about a judgement as to whether a phone call giving details was admissable it was argued that as the case dealt with the later point the first did not apply.
[2] Again I understood that Mr Francis, because of the exceptional high cost to take his case to ECHR, he disengaged. Is it back on?
DVD
[1] Bang on - Cen knows full well the outcome of Weh v Austria and is working on the reasoning of the judges. They are basically saying "in this case the rights weren't breached but had the circumstances been like this we would have had a different view.
[2]The pending cases (eg. Idris Francis) are asking this without any peripheral problems and it is looking quite good.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[1] I would submit that until such time as ECHR deliberate and pronounced judgement on that particular fact this case has no authority. If I recall correctly in the case of DPP v Broomfield 2002 reference was made in the deliberation that in the opinion of M'Lord 172 forms had to be signed but as the case was about a judgement as to whether a phone call giving details was admissable it was argued that as the case dealt with the later point the first did not apply.
[2] Again I understood that Mr Francis, because of the exceptional high cost to take his case to ECHR, he disengaged. Is it back on?
DVD
Streetman, DVD you are both incorrect. I have stated previously from the conclusions of Weh v Austria (ECHR April 2003)
Remember section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is a criminal offence therefore read the following.
The Court concluded with references to Heaney and McGuinness Paragraph 41, Funke P. 20, 39 and Quinn v Ireland, no.36887/97, 43-46 which states that the use of compulsion is only permitted in civil cases, it also follows from the Court’s case Law that the privilege against self discrimination does not per se prohibit the use of compulsory powers to obtain information outside the context of criminal proceedings against the person concerned. In other words, compulsory powers may be permitted in SOME civil cases but certainly not in Criminal cases.
Note the wording certainly not in Criminal cases.
I have also got a communication from the CPS that they are withdrawing a charge of s172 against someone that I am defending after submitting the argument of Weh.
Remember section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is a criminal offence therefore read the following.
The Court concluded with references to Heaney and McGuinness Paragraph 41, Funke P. 20, 39 and Quinn v Ireland, no.36887/97, 43-46 which states that the use of compulsion is only permitted in civil cases, it also follows from the Court’s case Law that the privilege against self discrimination does not per se prohibit the use of compulsory powers to obtain information outside the context of criminal proceedings against the person concerned. In other words, compulsory powers may be permitted in SOME civil cases but certainly not in Criminal cases.
Note the wording certainly not in Criminal cases.
I have also got a communication from the CPS that they are withdrawing a charge of s172 against someone that I am defending after submitting the argument of Weh.
STUNTMAN2000 - If you do visit sunny Blackpool again, wave if you see traffic car...
Watch out for the cameras, they're everywhere. It seems like every time I'm at work, a new one sprouts up! Certainly keeps me on my toes...
WildCat is spot on about the Speed Awareness course - I now have nothing else to add..
Watch out for the cameras, they're everywhere. It seems like every time I'm at work, a new one sprouts up! Certainly keeps me on my toes...
WildCat is spot on about the Speed Awareness course - I now have nothing else to add..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff