Summons for "without due care and attention"

[3nduro]

Advice time for the legal folks or anyone with experience

So the summons came through with the details of a motorcycle office from last year ->

"drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road without due care and attention"

Inner London offence, riding on a pavement to jump a q... and taken from a cyclist who kindly sent the evidence to metpol from his helmet camera.

Don't really want to get into the nuts n bolts of the offence (dm if you really are that bothered)

Court hearing is in a month ...but I have a few options and wanted to ask:-

1) plead guilty by post ...(avoids me taking time off work ...contractor so time is money) ...

a) mitigating circumstances .....in the blank space can I say that I totally regret this stupid act and beg leniency and have double humble pie. ... I have a clean licence and this is the first time I have ever done something like this and was late for work blah blah
any other things that people have used ?

b) just leave the text for an apology ..leave the late for work stuff .. (I am always late for work)

or

2) get a lawyer and get representation ?

I dont really want to take time off work and dont really want to pay for a lawyer ...I know I am going to get a fine/points .....but interested to hear thoughts of whether I should or not.

and any directions to recommended legal beagles

Yours a (very) late 40's enduro rider , with an IAM green badge that should know better to use trials skills when they arent legal.

[3nduro]

silentbrown said:

Have a read here:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item...

You'll know what the camera shows better than anyone else...

I'd go for guilty by post. I'd guess the best outcome of 'lawyering up' and turning up in person would be to reduce a potential six points down to three?

thanks for the steer ... so guilty by post ...in "mitigating circumstances" ... that is where I stick in the grovelling apology to everyone apart from the cycle nazi do gooder ?

[3nduro]

mitzy said:

I expected better from you

you and fleegle have ridden with me long enough to know I love a cheeky one ... but with all these dashcam's ..helmet cams ............that train is looking better each day....sniff sniff

Edited by 3nduro on Monday 20th March 13:13

[3nduro]

Tango13 said:

Maybe the OP should read up on 'Absolute Privilege' whilst under oath, go with a 'not guilty' and get the cyclist on the stand for a bit of Q & A

Well his name does appear on the pack I got from the old bill when I asked for the evidence but tempted to roll over .. and do guilty by post asap.

[3nduro]

Wedg1e said:

"Due care and attention"... were you taking care not to hit anyone and thus paying attention to what was going on around you? Case thrown out, in my book
Reckless? Maybe.
Dangerous? Define danger. Were any kittens, newts, trees or one-armed lesbian black single parents with ADHD and dyslexia at risk of getting nudged? I suspect not.
:

My fault for doing trials and thinking nothing of tickling along a narrow kerb and use a bit of pavement ..most of us on here that it wasnt a sensible move but wasnt dangerous per se

My fear is its just that the magistrate will probably never have any idea of the low speed control we ACTUALLY have .... all they see is PRAM vs MOTORBIKE ....

[3nduro]

Fleegle said:

Do you hate cyclists that bit more now?

only public spirited ones

[3nduro]

redback911 said:

Gone are the days of cheeky wheelies to cheer up the morning commuters.

Yeah going to have to reign/rain those right in now when this DCA sticks ....ah well that is what enduro is for I suppose ...but I thought a nice controlled wheelie was actually public spirited and raised a cheer from many a waiting van at the humpback bridge on the way to mitcham :-)

[3nduro]

silentbrown said:

rein!

ffs ... all i need .. the spellin nazi's /nazis' ... oh no .. get the apostrophe police on me now :-)

Edited by 3nduro on Tuesday 21st March 12:47

[3nduro]

Fleegle said:

You can't full air on that?

air jumps are only suitable for tabletops (i.e speed tables) at my age and on my bike ... but the humpback bridge is perfect to have the front pawing the air ...and you get a good view of any possible babylon

[3nduro]

moanthebairns said:

I assume you have requested the footage that has been submitted as evidence for the case of HRH v you, to judge just how bad this is in reflection. It could be that he only has a smidgen of it. What happens might not be whats on tape.

Yeah I have the whole thing on video from the perspective of the cyclist. It shows me clearly riding past him (on the pavement) for about 25m-40m ..... then you see the woman with the pram walk by him looking chilled like she sees stuff like that everyday. ..she does live 4 mins from elephant & castle tho !

[3nduro]

Glasgowrob said:

id be tempted to lawyer up and go to trial and see if the cyclist feels so civic minded when put under your lawyer or if he folds and doesn't turn up.

Sensible hat on says lawyer up check all your dates nip etc for s loophole then guilty plea lawyer to please and mitigate and take your lumps

any advice on legal beagles that I could have a chat to ?

will give these folks a ring ...

http://www.whitedalton.co.uk/motorbike-blog/contac...

[3nduro]

Fleegle said:

T you are a sweetie .... .are you re-using all the old posts that were sent to you when you were facing porridge at your summons :-)

[3nduro]

silentbrown said:

Speak to AGTLaw. He's very active in SP&L.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?h=0...

Oh, and I'd do this before you start posting youtube links...

Edited by silentbrown on Wednesday 22 March 09:19

Chatting to him today ... also when I read through the pack in the "key evidence" bit there is this random line "the defendant undertook a police car , which was travelling at the speed limit of 50 mph and travelling in lane 3 of 3" ..

now the whole area is a 30 limit so that line is not evidenced and 100% wrong.

Edited by 3nduro on Wednesday 22 March 10:23

[3nduro]

mgv8 said:

I don't get this:
The rider does something wrong, and admits it.
Cyclist calls him on it.
Some of you say the Cyclists is in the wrong? But if it was a cop that would be OK?

I do sometimes do something wrong, if you catch me then that is on me. I would not cry like a girl and blame the 3rd party.

(note the original poster is NOT doing this)

I guess my point is that historically I had to look out for old bill, yellow cameras, traffic cameras etc .....with the advent of dashcamera's and helmet cameras anyone anywhere can potentially shop us so you are always under threat of moderation in this world. That is my lesson. It doesn't mean I will start using my helmet camera evidence against car drivers with mobiles ... especially when I can take the train cos its potentially less hassle than all this guff.

[3nduro]

3nduro said:

Chatting to him today ... also when I read through the pack in the "key evidence" bit there is this random line "the defendant undertook a police car , which was travelling at the speed limit of 50 mph and travelling in lane 3 of 3" ..

now the whole area is a 30 limit so that line is not evidenced and 100% wrong.

Edited by 3nduro on Wednesday 22 March 10:23

spoke to these people whitedalton/motordefence .. they do £60 for 20mins on the phone ... but then pleading guilty at court is £750 + vat fixed fee ...not guilty is £160 per hour + vat and a chunk of hours ....

[3nduro]

moanthebairns said:

Do you have a few points or do you need a clean licence?

clean licence currently ... not bothered about a few points as most of my energetic riding is done off road or on track so driving/riding on road is commuting or driving a van about.

[3nduro]

Gavia said:

Court doesn't work like that. He's been charged with an offence, if the tape shows that then he's guilty.

The tape shows me guilty to happy to plead that ...BUT in the middle of the key evidence bit there is a big fat error.

“The defendant undertook a police car, which was travelling at the speed limit of 50mph and travelling in lane 3 of 3”

That statement is total rubbish as a) there isnt 3 lanes b) there is no evidence of the police car and c) the whole of inner london is a max 30 limit so the 50mph bit is nonsense.

I think the key evidence has some random line in it from another case tbh ...

So I want to please "guilty BUT" ....the court needs to know that is wrong whilst I admit to the main headline

[3nduro]

road_rager said:

Hardly crime of the century, what a waste of court time :-(

totally agree .. and happy to plead guilty by post ... but the 50mph sentance sticks in the throat .. and terrified that the magistrate would read that as gospel if unchallenged.

[3nduro]

so you think ring them now ... and get them to remove that from the key evidence .. to allow me to plead guilty by post with more ease.

keen to avoid court (wasting time and money etc etc)

[3nduro]

moanthebairns said:

This is new, you hadn't mentioned that before. You said it was just a case of getting caught riding on pavement.

You need to now get a solicitor, he will easily get this removed if it isn't part of the charge or will tell you how to play it.

Well it was only when I looked through the whole pack I read this bit (see attachment)