flashed doing 80 in a 40
Discussion
Girlfriend's friend has been caught by a camera doing 80 in a temporary 40 limit. It was in roadworks on the M5, somewhere near Taunton, at 2am. She claims she didn't see the signs, there were no workforce about, the motorway was empty and all 3 lanes open. She phoned to pay the fine and was told that she had to go to court. What is the likely outcome?
A big fine & a shortish ban she shouldn't get points if she's banned 
Unfortunately she has admitted the offence by ringing up so she can't say she wasn't the driver. Why do people have to own up so quickly without trying to find a way out or in hercase talking to a solicitor? I just can't believe how stupid they are!
These unmanned temporary restrictions are a bloody pain in the arse. The restriction ought to be removed if the road is clear and nobody is working, but it's too much trouble plus it's a nice little earner.
I was caught outside Coventry a couple of years ago 82 in temp 40. No work going on three lanes clear. I binned the NIP and wrote and told them couldn't remember who was driving - worked for me. So far...
Get an experienced solicitor asap.
>> Edited by outrider on Sunday 12th June 09:42
Unfortunately she has admitted the offence by ringing up so she can't say she wasn't the driver. Why do people have to own up so quickly without trying to find a way out or in hercase talking to a solicitor? I just can't believe how stupid they are! These unmanned temporary restrictions are a bloody pain in the arse. The restriction ought to be removed if the road is clear and nobody is working, but it's too much trouble plus it's a nice little earner.
I was caught outside Coventry a couple of years ago 82 in temp 40. No work going on three lanes clear. I binned the NIP and wrote and told them couldn't remember who was driving - worked for me. So far...
Get an experienced solicitor asap.
>> Edited by outrider on Sunday 12th June 09:42
Have to agree with outrider. Taunton Deane magistrates total hard b....ds. They tried to ban me for 6 months for doing 74 in a 50. Get a solicitor p.d.q. Got the name of an excellent guy in Wrington. He got his own bruv off doing 115 on the M5 on a new licence with 3 points on it. Cost a few notes but worth it
I was going through these 'roadworks' one evening at about 8pm. There was of course no works activity or workers around the whole works area. Traffic was very light and the few cars that were about were trying to keep to the 40mph limit which was mind boringly tedious. A marked Police patrol car came along doing about 55mph , no blues on. It was interesting to watch the other drivers, some followed the Police car at his speed others, including myself remained at 40.
In your case I would hope, forlornly perhaps, that the time and lack of works activity will be taken into account and no NIP will be sent out.
I would advise you to go to court and plead your case. It may have helped if you had been doing under 70 but as you were doing 80 it is unlikely you will be let off completely.
In your case I would hope, forlornly perhaps, that the time and lack of works activity will be taken into account and no NIP will be sent out.
I would advise you to go to court and plead your case. It may have helped if you had been doing under 70 but as you were doing 80 it is unlikely you will be let off completely.
Just for your info, there hasn't been a 40 limit on the roadworks at Taunton. There are two other sets of roadworks in Avon & zummersets patch. One is between junction 18-19 on the M4, the other is at the cribbs causeway junction. Both have 40Mph limits on them.
The roadworks that used to between J25-26 on the M5 had a 50 limit.
Phil
The roadworks that used to between J25-26 on the M5 had a 50 limit.
Phil
zetec_s6 said:
Yes, she's already received the NIP.
At 80mph in a 40mph zone, she will almost certainly receive a ban. That's double the speed limit. I sympathise with her plight with regards to the temporary nature of the roadworks on the road in question.
If she has any desire not to be banned she must not, under any circumstances, fill out the s.172 form (which will be attached to the NOIP) nominating the driver. Once she has done that and submitted it, the CPS can use it as evidence of the driver, and ban her accordingly. If, on the other hand, she declines to fill out the form nominating the driver then the police will have no evidence of who was driving the car, therefore no conviction for speeding.
The way current legislation works is that the police rely on people telling them who was driving. The response is then used to convict them. So... if you don't tell them who was driving, they can't convict anyone from speeding. She may, however, be prosecuted under s.172 for 'failing to provide', but this carries only a 3 point penalty (plus a couple of hundred quid fine). If she can bear that, I would consider it the best option.
.....and not forgetting the fact that she could be disqualified for failing to name under Section 146 Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
If the road works have been completed and not merely suspended during the silent hours then there is an argument that the speed restriction signs are unlawful as Direction 36, Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 state that signs erected in connection with road works shall not be retained after works completed. I seem to recall case down at Luton where 30 or 40 sign left out after works completed and motorist reported. Got off because of the above.
DVD
If the road works have been completed and not merely suspended during the silent hours then there is an argument that the speed restriction signs are unlawful as Direction 36, Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 state that signs erected in connection with road works shall not be retained after works completed. I seem to recall case down at Luton where 30 or 40 sign left out after works completed and motorist reported. Got off because of the above.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
.....and not forgetting the fact that she could be disqualified for failing to name under Section 146 Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
Beedin' eck. I hadn't seen that one before.
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00006--q.htm#146
146. - (1) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence committed after 31st December 1997 may, instead of or in addition to dealing with him in any other way, order him to be disqualified, for such period as it thinks fit, for holding or obtaining a driving licence.
I haven't heard of these powers being invoked. I'm assuming it would only be used for more serious offences, hence the reason I've not heard of it. Know you of anyone who has fallen foul of it?
Dwight VanDriver said:
Where have you been DM?
They used this about 18 months ago 'darn sarf' against the old codger on foot that warned drivers of a speed check ahead approaching a car boot. Fined for obstructing the Plods and 6 months driving disqualification.
Drew several posts on here.
DVD
Of course. I remember now.
It seemed awfully harsh as I remember. After all, the guy was only doing what normal road signs are supposed to, i.e. alerting the road users.
In terms of normal drivers being done over by s.146, I haven't heard it mentioned before. The government were quite crafty in getting that one in via the back door.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff