97 in a 70 - citation mentions dangerous!??
Discussion
Evening everyone,
Long story short:
A9 outside of Inverness, December.
Followed by undercover police on a dual carriageway, machine inside their car states 97 in a 70. Police were polite and respectful, as was I.
Citation comes through in the post today with good conditions noted, light traffic and good state of road repair. Nothing nasty.
The thing that scares me is the following on the form:
"The charge(s) against you are that you were driving xxxxx car DANGEROUSLY on XXX road contrary to section 2 as mentioned"
Then underneath that, it says "alternatively" and goes on to state:
"You were driving xxxxx car at a speed of 97mph contrary to sections 88 and B9"
I can type the whole lot out if you like but you most likely get the idea - the top charge mentions the word DANGEROUS but has no mention of speed, the paragraph below that on the citation doesn't mention dangerous but DOES mention speed.
I don't understand what they mean by 'alternatively'. I have a summons but also have the option to plead by letter.
Do I need a solicitor? My licence is clean at the moment but understand that dangerous driving is bad.
There was no mention of dangerous driving at the scene, we had a polite discussion about how I was pressing on but they thought my standard of driving was good, although 97 was way too fast.
Any advice to save me having a bloody breakdown?
Long story short:
A9 outside of Inverness, December.
Followed by undercover police on a dual carriageway, machine inside their car states 97 in a 70. Police were polite and respectful, as was I.
Citation comes through in the post today with good conditions noted, light traffic and good state of road repair. Nothing nasty.
The thing that scares me is the following on the form:
"The charge(s) against you are that you were driving xxxxx car DANGEROUSLY on XXX road contrary to section 2 as mentioned"
Then underneath that, it says "alternatively" and goes on to state:
"You were driving xxxxx car at a speed of 97mph contrary to sections 88 and B9"
I can type the whole lot out if you like but you most likely get the idea - the top charge mentions the word DANGEROUS but has no mention of speed, the paragraph below that on the citation doesn't mention dangerous but DOES mention speed.
I don't understand what they mean by 'alternatively'. I have a summons but also have the option to plead by letter.
Do I need a solicitor? My licence is clean at the moment but understand that dangerous driving is bad.
There was no mention of dangerous driving at the scene, we had a polite discussion about how I was pressing on but they thought my standard of driving was good, although 97 was way too fast.
Any advice to save me having a bloody breakdown?
wack said:
You'll probably be getting a summons as 97 is too fast for a fixed penalty so it could be a short ban or 4-6 points
http://www.ukmotorists.com/speeding%20fines.asp
Hey. See above, I have a summons etc, I just don't understand the charges!http://www.ukmotorists.com/speeding%20fines.asp
Dr Jekyll said:
It could be that you can plead guilty to speeding, or try and fight it and get charged with dangerous. A ban for speeding is bad enough but better than prison and a criminal record.
This is how I'm reading it, I'm just trying to be sure, appreciated that I'm not alone in my logic..That's my question really, is it one, is it both?
If dangerous was the initial charge though my ears would have pricked up scene-side and I definitely would have realised.
They even said at the time they wouldn't expect it to go any further than 4 points and a few hundred quid fine, the conversation turned to cars after that!
Perhaps I'm getting my knickers in a twist over nothing, but I seen the Section 2 violation and started to have palpitations.
Any other advice welcome (aside from not speeding, I've learned that much).
If dangerous was the initial charge though my ears would have pricked up scene-side and I definitely would have realised.
They even said at the time they wouldn't expect it to go any further than 4 points and a few hundred quid fine, the conversation turned to cars after that!
Perhaps I'm getting my knickers in a twist over nothing, but I seen the Section 2 violation and started to have palpitations.
Any other advice welcome (aside from not speeding, I've learned that much).
desolate said:
I got done in Scotland and although I didn't get done for dangerous the police were very nice and it was a decent chat.
They said they would put me down at 101 instead of the 118 they recorded.
I ended up getting charged at 118.
118, Jesus. You would have caught a cold with that, no?They said they would put me down at 101 instead of the 118 they recorded.
I ended up getting charged at 118.
Ok folks, thanks for all the responses - the whole issue seems to have sparked an interesting conversation.
A quick update:
Sought legal advice today from a good few solicitors who specialise in motoring law, namely, Scottish motoring law given its differences.
I mentioned the two options (?) stated on my complaint from the court, the first one was dangerous driving, the 'alternative' was just simple speeding. I'm told that the primary allegation is dangerous driving - the alternative is a back up for them to fall on if they can't pin dangerous.
I read the summary of evidence to all the people I spoke to today, and not one of them can fathom why they have tried to go for dangerous over just speeding.
I have been told, however that Dumfries and Inverness dislike speeding. It's not unheard of for some to have a dangerous charge bolted on by the fiscal upon processing.
So I'm fighting dangerous driving for 97 in a 70, on a fine night, on an empty road, with a nearly new car. No swerving around, no silly talk used against me as evidence.
I've been strongly advised not to plead guilty, and I'm now going to have to endure around 7 months of waiting and letters and ultimately a visit home to Inverness to face court.
People I've spoken to say that it's a really harsh allegation considering the evidence, which I'll get to see in full during the course of events.
So, what I thought was simple speeding suddenly has me fighting for my career/livelihood.
I'll keep the thread updated as I did search before creating this and found nothing, so it may prove as a useful reference to someone who may end up in the same position.
Fingers crossed folks!
A quick update:
Sought legal advice today from a good few solicitors who specialise in motoring law, namely, Scottish motoring law given its differences.
I mentioned the two options (?) stated on my complaint from the court, the first one was dangerous driving, the 'alternative' was just simple speeding. I'm told that the primary allegation is dangerous driving - the alternative is a back up for them to fall on if they can't pin dangerous.
I read the summary of evidence to all the people I spoke to today, and not one of them can fathom why they have tried to go for dangerous over just speeding.
I have been told, however that Dumfries and Inverness dislike speeding. It's not unheard of for some to have a dangerous charge bolted on by the fiscal upon processing.
So I'm fighting dangerous driving for 97 in a 70, on a fine night, on an empty road, with a nearly new car. No swerving around, no silly talk used against me as evidence.
I've been strongly advised not to plead guilty, and I'm now going to have to endure around 7 months of waiting and letters and ultimately a visit home to Inverness to face court.
People I've spoken to say that it's a really harsh allegation considering the evidence, which I'll get to see in full during the course of events.
So, what I thought was simple speeding suddenly has me fighting for my career/livelihood.
I'll keep the thread updated as I did search before creating this and found nothing, so it may prove as a useful reference to someone who may end up in the same position.
Fingers crossed folks!
.Short update: court dates.
Intermediate diet: June
Trial diet: July
Odd flight times and days in court means 5 days of annual leave down the tubes. (I know, boohoo etc etc)
Brief plead not guilty on my behalf, waiting for evidence to come through before anything else is said.
I'll keep the thread updated, however vaguely - until it's all said and done, may be of use to someone.
Intermediate diet: June
Trial diet: July
Odd flight times and days in court means 5 days of annual leave down the tubes. (I know, boohoo etc etc)
Brief plead not guilty on my behalf, waiting for evidence to come through before anything else is said.
I'll keep the thread updated, however vaguely - until it's all said and done, may be of use to someone.
For those above, I'll post a redacted copy of the summary of evidence, but not whilst the case is live - just for my own safety more than anything else as I'm not sure about the power of the public domain etc etc..
To clarify though, after hours of research online I understand why they are going for dangerous just for the speed alone. I didn't get it at first but apparently it's quite a common theme.
Just to re-iterate to anyone who thinks there may have been any aggravating factors, there wasn't, summary of evidence is just clear cut "follwed mr X, used machine thingy and speed was Y, pulled over when supposed to, cautioned in car and no comments were made etc etc." Light traffic, dark road, roads damp and in good repair, 1030 at night, light-hearted chat with cops after the formalities were done.
Like the gent said above, just don't speed in Scotland and you'll be fine!
More info as and when.
To clarify though, after hours of research online I understand why they are going for dangerous just for the speed alone. I didn't get it at first but apparently it's quite a common theme.
Just to re-iterate to anyone who thinks there may have been any aggravating factors, there wasn't, summary of evidence is just clear cut "follwed mr X, used machine thingy and speed was Y, pulled over when supposed to, cautioned in car and no comments were made etc etc." Light traffic, dark road, roads damp and in good repair, 1030 at night, light-hearted chat with cops after the formalities were done.
Like the gent said above, just don't speed in Scotland and you'll be fine!
More info as and when.
Small update:
Evidence (or disclosure) documents received from the crown today consisting of.... a 'Certificate of accuracy' for the Puma SE-6 points accumulation machine.
That's it.
Have spoken to solicitor, and course of action agreed. I'll be silent now until it's all over due to internet being far reaching etc etc.
Will give full update upon completion to give others an idea of the process in Scotland, if nothing else.
Happy St Paddy's day!
Evidence (or disclosure) documents received from the crown today consisting of.... a 'Certificate of accuracy' for the Puma SE-6 points accumulation machine.
That's it.
Have spoken to solicitor, and course of action agreed. I'll be silent now until it's all over due to internet being far reaching etc etc.
Will give full update upon completion to give others an idea of the process in Scotland, if nothing else.
Happy St Paddy's day!
TL;DR: 5 points & £300 fine for Careless Driving at 94mph (reduced from 97mph & Dangerous Driving)
OK. Court was done and out of the way yesterday – my solicitor managed to have the case brought forward from July to 24th April.
I left the above at receiving the ‘Calibration Certificate’ (which was no more than a piece of paper signed by the two officers saying the device was calibrated, and not an actual Certificate of Calibration) that turned out to be nonsense.
On the basis of nothing major outside of the speed that pushed my charge into Dangerous Driving, the solicitor negotiated a reduced plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving at 94mph. I was advised to take this option on the basis that if I tried to fight it, I could end up with the wrong Sheriff on the wrong day and get hammered.
So, this was the road we took and my accelerated case was heard yesterday...
Court:
I’d never set foot in a courtroom in my life. The waiting area had a 95% populous of scum, and I was well and truly out of place in the full suit/tie etc.When my case was called, the charge was read, my circumstances explained by the solicitor verbally with information I supplied to him beforehand (normal working bloke, nice job in London, 3 kids, only driver in family) and the judge very quickly gave me 5 points and £400 fine reduced to £300 for an early guilty plea.
I expected and budgeted for the fine to be a lot more.
The judge said nothing untoward to me aside from the charge and the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes.
Today I feel re-born. This has been hanging over me for months and will not be something I repeat again. I drove back home from Inverness yesterday with a different head on my shoulders. Whether the system has beaten me into submission or not, I'll be driving a LOT slower and within the boundaries of the law from now on.
The amount of stress this put me and the family through was quite excruciating, and although it could have been a lot worse, I'm glad this is over.
Cost:
- Solicitor: £2,500
- Flights booked for intermediate and trial diets (non-refundable and now lost): £280
- Fine: £300
- And of course my own time to travel yesterday.
Total: £3,080 (without my time)
If caught, in short:
1. Get a solicitor
2. Tell the truth
3. FFS wear a suit in court, I was told that this did make a difference as the court was full of idiots before
me on the day and it was refreshing to see someone who offered respect to the court.
I’ll stick to mountain bikes now.
Kindest regards to the PHers that offered advice outside of the forums.
OK. Court was done and out of the way yesterday – my solicitor managed to have the case brought forward from July to 24th April.
I left the above at receiving the ‘Calibration Certificate’ (which was no more than a piece of paper signed by the two officers saying the device was calibrated, and not an actual Certificate of Calibration) that turned out to be nonsense.
On the basis of nothing major outside of the speed that pushed my charge into Dangerous Driving, the solicitor negotiated a reduced plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving at 94mph. I was advised to take this option on the basis that if I tried to fight it, I could end up with the wrong Sheriff on the wrong day and get hammered.
So, this was the road we took and my accelerated case was heard yesterday...
Court:
I’d never set foot in a courtroom in my life. The waiting area had a 95% populous of scum, and I was well and truly out of place in the full suit/tie etc.When my case was called, the charge was read, my circumstances explained by the solicitor verbally with information I supplied to him beforehand (normal working bloke, nice job in London, 3 kids, only driver in family) and the judge very quickly gave me 5 points and £400 fine reduced to £300 for an early guilty plea.
I expected and budgeted for the fine to be a lot more.
The judge said nothing untoward to me aside from the charge and the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes.
Today I feel re-born. This has been hanging over me for months and will not be something I repeat again. I drove back home from Inverness yesterday with a different head on my shoulders. Whether the system has beaten me into submission or not, I'll be driving a LOT slower and within the boundaries of the law from now on.
The amount of stress this put me and the family through was quite excruciating, and although it could have been a lot worse, I'm glad this is over.
Cost:
- Solicitor: £2,500
- Flights booked for intermediate and trial diets (non-refundable and now lost): £280
- Fine: £300
- And of course my own time to travel yesterday.
Total: £3,080 (without my time)
If caught, in short:
1. Get a solicitor
2. Tell the truth
3. FFS wear a suit in court, I was told that this did make a difference as the court was full of idiots before
me on the day and it was refreshing to see someone who offered respect to the court.
I’ll stick to mountain bikes now.
Kindest regards to the PHers that offered advice outside of the forums.
CoolHands said:
still a load of s
t for something which is quite clearly not dangerous. I'd have been inclined to have fought the bds as if the charge was dangerous and that got thrown out you wouldn't have got done for careless, I presume. Instead you negotiated your way into careless, a nice easy win for them as they didn't have to prove anything.
I was saying the same to the lady, it's almost inevitable that a defendant will take what's offered in the hope of ending it early. If I had the time and the spuds to carry on with the stress of having it looming, I would have taken it to trial. Easier said now it's over, but it crossed my mind at one point to do that.t for something which is quite clearly not dangerous. I'd have been inclined to have fought the bds as if the charge was dangerous and that got thrown out you wouldn't have got done for careless, I presume. Instead you negotiated your way into careless, a nice easy win for them as they didn't have to prove anything.What gets me is that the two officers, who were absolutely cool and polite roadside, never mentioned dangerous, careless or anything. As far as we were all concerned my driving was to a 'good standard' as quoted by them, as I had performed a couple of overtakes about 10 miles back from where I got caught.. He talked about this in the back of the car and said he didn't have a problem with my manoeuvres whatsoever, it's just that I put the foot down a bit too heavy when I did speed up on a downhill section so they put the machine on me.
That's not on, if they were going to say it was dangerous, I should have been told roadside, or at least given an off the cuff warning that PF could upgrade it to dangerous due to excessive speed - I would have had more respect for the system if it was administered fairly and transparently. All the way through the case I never disputed my speed, I was willing to hold my hands up to that the whole time.
Hindisghts always 20/20.
4040vision said:
This has all been discussed before but it appears that the Scots have the view that a differential of +30mph or more between traffic proceeding at the lawful maximum is a dangerous act by the driver of the faster vehicle. That view is likely to be held by most reasonable and well-adjusted people.
While it may be said that the motorways are the safest types of roads they are made less safe by drivers who choose to exceed the limit by large amounts.
How can it be a justifiable or reasonable act to decide that it is OK to ignore the traffic regulations "because it is or in a driver's opinion it's a safe environment"?
The penalty in the case in this thread seems reasonable but I don't agree that the speed should have been reduced from the measured 97mph to a notional 94mph; there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present. The prosecutor has made the offer of a reduced speed to get the guilty plea; it's easier for the case to be dealt with that way but doesn't represent the measurement in any way...well it does, its 3mph less than the measured speed.
The speed was reduced by 3mph to take into account the margin of human error present whilst operating the Puma SE/6 device. Seemed reasonable and fair to me upon investigation into how the machine is operated (i.e. by humans pushing buttons at perceived intervals).While it may be said that the motorways are the safest types of roads they are made less safe by drivers who choose to exceed the limit by large amounts.
How can it be a justifiable or reasonable act to decide that it is OK to ignore the traffic regulations "because it is or in a driver's opinion it's a safe environment"?
The penalty in the case in this thread seems reasonable but I don't agree that the speed should have been reduced from the measured 97mph to a notional 94mph; there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present. The prosecutor has made the offer of a reduced speed to get the guilty plea; it's easier for the case to be dealt with that way but doesn't represent the measurement in any way...well it does, its 3mph less than the measured speed.
4040vision said:
I will just repeat what I said before; "there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present".
It isn't reasonable to suggest that there is an error that is large enough to induce a 3mph error. The device is Home Office Type Approved and when tested didn't show errors of that magnitude or it would have failed that Approval test because that error is too large; hence unreasonable.
The evidence and justification is that humans used it. They push buttons at defined points in the road. The device has a calibration schedule. The speedos on the car also have a calibration schedule. If devices didn't need calibrated, they would be deemed to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time, or, totally inaccurate.It isn't reasonable to suggest that there is an error that is large enough to induce a 3mph error. The device is Home Office Type Approved and when tested didn't show errors of that magnitude or it would have failed that Approval test because that error is too large; hence unreasonable.
Home office approval it may have, but this is irrelevant to the accuracy of the device. The inaccuracy comes from the people using it.
ETA: I know what your getting at, but human inaccuracy is inevitable. If it was a laser gun or some other worldly device then fair enough, but even then..
Edited by WaspsNest on Wednesday 26th April 20:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff