What can I expect?
Discussion
Received a NIP and 'please confirm details' for the following:
1) crossing a solid double white line
2) 95 in a 60 (A-road)
At the moment it does not say how they measured the 95, it just says that I was observed by an officer.
I assume I will be invited to court, or is it going to be fixed penalties?
Assuming you are convicted on both counts...
You can expect a fine and 3 points for crossing double white lines (endorseable offence TS20) and a big fine and/or ban and 3 to 6 points for the speeding offence, depending on circumstances, mitigation etc.
That's a minimum of 6 points, giving you 12 and a 6-month ban under "totting". Start getting in some bus timetables.
If you can plead exceptional hardship in mitigation you might get the ban reduced or removed. See other threads in this forum and www.pepipoo.com for discussions on that subject.
The speeding offence itself is ban territory, so don't get too hopeful.
You can expect a fine and 3 points for crossing double white lines (endorseable offence TS20) and a big fine and/or ban and 3 to 6 points for the speeding offence, depending on circumstances, mitigation etc.
That's a minimum of 6 points, giving you 12 and a 6-month ban under "totting". Start getting in some bus timetables.
If you can plead exceptional hardship in mitigation you might get the ban reduced or removed. See other threads in this forum and www.pepipoo.com for discussions on that subject.
The speeding offence itself is ban territory, so don't get too hopeful.
(unless you are a prem. league fotballer / manager 
)I know of at least one previous case where you can be proved not guilty on both counts.
You need to speak to the right person. Mail me if you want to know any more.
If it is the case that the officer has merely seen you cross a double white line to say overtake someone (maybe him!) his assessment of you speed was probably merely a guess which was added to make it worth while doing the paperwork to prosecute.
My first point of call would be with the solicitor I can tell you about, then would be to ask that you can be shown any statements or other information regarding the allogation so that it could help jog your memory. Then you will know what you are up against. You should get back a statement or two to work out what has gone on, unless you remember the incident?
You need to speak to the right person. Mail me if you want to know any more.
If it is the case that the officer has merely seen you cross a double white line to say overtake someone (maybe him!) his assessment of you speed was probably merely a guess which was added to make it worth while doing the paperwork to prosecute.
My first point of call would be with the solicitor I can tell you about, then would be to ask that you can be shown any statements or other information regarding the allogation so that it could help jog your memory. Then you will know what you are up against. You should get back a statement or two to work out what has gone on, unless you remember the incident?
135sport said:
Am I looking at a ban?
I already have 6 pts (SP60) on the M11.
Is it really an SP60? See
www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=202412&f=10&h=0
135sport said:
Received a NIP and 'please confirm details' for the following:
1) crossing a solid double white line
Sorry - had to ask - what were you doing crossing the solid white line?? Were you attempting to overtake or did you drop both the phone and the PS2 control at the same time? lol
I'll give you the bad news shall i ?
19 yr old apprentice of mine was observed by a TrafPol crossing double whites and hitting 80 in a 40.
The result?
12 month instant ban, nominal fine and 200 hours community service.
They really made an example out of him, you might have more luck.
19 yr old apprentice of mine was observed by a TrafPol crossing double whites and hitting 80 in a 40.
The result?
12 month instant ban, nominal fine and 200 hours community service.
They really made an example out of him, you might have more luck.
jazzyjeff said:
Received a NIP and 'please confirm details' for the following:
1) crossing a solid double white line
Sorry - had to ask - what were you doing crossing the solid white line?? Were you attempting to overtake or did you drop both the phone and the PS2 control at the same time? lol
Neither. As one is turned off in the car and I don't even know what the other one is!
I was trying to put some distance between myself and a motorbike, that had been on my tail literally 2-3 metres form the car with his headlight filling my mirror.
The bike caught me up in 40 limit, which I was obeying, at approx 06.00 in the morning.
Exiting the 40 limit the bike is still on my tail headlight blazing. At this point the road becomes unlit and is out in the countryside. No other traffic, so if the bike really wants to press on can go past me. He does not.
We then catch up a slow moving truck, doing about 30 into the solid white zone. At this time my nervousness has heightened, as most bikes take one quick look up the road and their gone. Not this one, still right on my tail.
So I make the decision to put the truck between us, hence overtake. But considering the truck is doing about 30 it did not require great effort (i.e. speed) to get past him.
Within less than a mile the bike is back behind, filling my mirrors. We enter another 40 limit which I obey. Still an empty road and still he does not go past. At this time I am looking for somewhere to pull over, but this is a rural area with a dozen houses, I know the village shop is still closed, so made the decision to continue, as there is a major junction about 2 miles up the road.
40 limit becomes 50, I obey, bike is still there.
50 becomes 60, so again in an effort to put some distance I speed up. This is were the allegation of 95 comes in, but I have received no proof of how this was determined.
Approaching the major junction (roundabout) after about 1 mile I have already eased off back to NSL.
I take the second exit onto dual carriageway and still the bike follows me. For the next 3.5 miles to the next junction he makes no effort to pass even though there is plenty of opportunity to do so.
Approaching the next junction I am about to leave the dual carriageway and head for the town lights (as I cannot reach my phone) but he turns off also. So I carry on and continue my journey to work.
I know you are all going to jump up and down and say why cross the line, why speed up etc, etc.
But form the moment the bike closed right up on me I could not make out if there were two people on the bike or not, I could not see any markings. Even in the partially illuminated 40 zones he was so close I could not make out his silhouette fully.
For the same person to report me for both accounts, the officer had to have been on the bike.
But what I don't understand is:
1) why did he start to follow me in that manner when I was obeying a 40 limit
2) why after the first alleged offence did he allow me to continue, when there was opportunity to stop me and issue the ticket
3) and again why continue to follow me for several miles without taking action after the second alleged offence
Generally his manner of driving, right from the moment he first caught me up got me suspicios. I have had several occasions over the years where cars have 'followed' me and I have deliberatley taken an alternative route to try and determine if it is coincidence or not. In a rural unlit area, with not much else around me I got nervous.
Well if you're right about the copper being on the bike - which seems fairly likely - he may well not have been on a Police bike and may not have been in uniform. Otherwise as you suggest you would expect him to pull you there and then. If he was on his own bike then his speedo won't be calibrated (and bike speedos are notoriously inaccurate - often overreading by a significant percentage)so on the speed issue it's his word against yours.
If it goes to trial you will get the witness statements and all this will become clear. In the meantime see a solicitor because the procedural aspects are often key i.e. if the police don't follow them it can often invalidate the prosecution.
If it goes to trial you will get the witness statements and all this will become clear. In the meantime see a solicitor because the procedural aspects are often key i.e. if the police don't follow them it can often invalidate the prosecution.
if your already on 6 points then if I was in your shoes, id ignore the nip, andhope they either cease their paperchase (which is failry unlikely), and if you hear anymore after a couple more nips, hope its a summons for failure to supply.
Cost benifit analysis suggests that replying to the nips when you have 6 points means you will get shafted in court and banned on the 2 alleged points.
I think Lunarscope went down the failure to disclose route and still got shafted, especially on the fine, but its a chance you take. In your case its worth the risk, as unless you have great mitigation your looking at a totting job and a fair old fine anyway.
So keep your mouth shut and sit tight.
>> Edited by princeperch on Wednesday 26th October 11:26
Cost benifit analysis suggests that replying to the nips when you have 6 points means you will get shafted in court and banned on the 2 alleged points.
I think Lunarscope went down the failure to disclose route and still got shafted, especially on the fine, but its a chance you take. In your case its worth the risk, as unless you have great mitigation your looking at a totting job and a fair old fine anyway.
So keep your mouth shut and sit tight.
>> Edited by princeperch on Wednesday 26th October 11:26
I think to be quite honest you have a good case here.
With a good solicitor, the case will be very difficult to prove. This is especially true if the rider was on his own bike.
The fact that how close the bike was following was actually the cause of the problem, is more than ironic, it is actually an important point.
I would ask for the evidence to be sent, and have a talk about it with a good solicitor. There is one I know, where the way he works, just from what you have told me there are at least three 'get outs' which would have the whole case thrown out.
With a good solicitor, the case will be very difficult to prove. This is especially true if the rider was on his own bike.
The fact that how close the bike was following was actually the cause of the problem, is more than ironic, it is actually an important point.
I would ask for the evidence to be sent, and have a talk about it with a good solicitor. There is one I know, where the way he works, just from what you have told me there are at least three 'get outs' which would have the whole case thrown out.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff