Speeding

[Jamie_G]

A friend of mine :wink:
received a letter in the post yesterday saying that he had been snapped at 52MPH in a 40 however he doesn't recall who was driving and none of the insured persons recall being snapped or hitting that scary speed although if they were to hazard a guess it would have been a mobile van parked on the side of a certain dual carriage way. All of the insured persons have a clean licence and have been asked to confirm who was driving at the time. It states that there is video evidence.

What should my friend do as this seems unjust and certainly out of character in terms of speed achieved?


Migration info. Legacy thread was 90740

 

[nic_]

Can they send you the evidence?

Migration info. Legacy thread was 90744

 

[Jamie_G]

It states on the letter that they are not obliged to issue evidence however my friend can apply for that through the court. Sounds a bit scary. I remember someone talking about office training / callibration reports. I can't remember whether that was to do with speeding gun though and not a van????


Migration info. Legacy thread was 90756

 

[Dave]

See No3 And the person in No4 is not me






Loopholes? - as at July 14th 2006


From time to time someone will discover a potential loophole that can assist you with a speeding case. These loopholes are often shaggy dog stories - with no basis in fact. Sometimes a loophole may exist and be useable for a few months until a higher court clarifies the matter and closes the loophole. We have summarised the four main loopholes below. Two are currently unusable (pending a judgement from the European Court) but the other two can often produce a favourable result.


Loophole #1 - Section 172 conflicts with PACE
The main loophole that people have been exploiting is the Section 172 loophole. This loophole was exploiting an apparent conflict between the PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) rules where you must be cautioned first and the process of receiving a Notice of Intended Prosecution from a Gatso (or similar scamera) where you don't get cautioned and just receive paperwork through the post. This loophole has for now been closed following a ruling by the High Court in the case of Francis -v- DPP. This is being taken to the European courts but it is unlikely to get a hearing this year.

Loophole #2 - Conflicts with European Human Rights Laws
Some people were also attempting to use European human rights legislation to make a case for not being forced to incriminate yourself by filling out paperwork effectively saying that you were breaking the law by speeding. A ruling has also closed this one off, although some Speed Trap Bible members are still getting cases dropped by threatening to use this defence. This is also being taken to the European Court and a ruling is expected on 27th September 2006.

Loophole #3 - I can't remember who was driving at the time

This loophole/defence has had much publicity as a number of senior police officers have used it successfully. They argued that they could not remember who was driving and the cases were dropped. From the experience of dealing with vast numbers of email requests for help - just writing back and saying you can't remember will not work. You will need to show in great detail why you can't recall who was driving and what steps you have taken to try and work out who was driving. In many cases this will work and the case will be dropped, but in some regions it will not and the Police/CPS will continue to chase you to name the driver. If you continue to show in detail why you cannot be sure of who was driving in many cases they will give up and drop it. In other cases you may end up having to go to court to show all of the reasons and research you have done to try and identify the driver.

Loophole #4 - It wasn't me driving at 173mph ….
Many of you may have read about this case of a driver being stopped on the M25 after being clocked at 173mph in his Porsche Turbo. After clocking the car at 173mph the Police briefly lost sight of it before the car slowed down and they were able to pull over the driver and took his name, address and credit card details to identify him. When it came to court he was found not guilty on a technicality. In summary the Police couldn't prove that he was the driver as they had lost sight of the car briefly and they had not taken any photo identification at the time they stopped him. This is a very technical loophole/defence and you will need excellent legal assistance to try and use it.


Migration info. Legacy thread was 90758

 

[Jamie_G]

I suppose they can quash that in an instant if they have video footage hence why my friend might want advice also on whether their are any technical loopholes in the context of was their device set up correctly??


Migration info. Legacy thread was 90763

 

[SeanD]

Similar thing happend to a colleague of mine. He was pretty sure it was not him or any of the insured drivers to the extent he decided to try the "I do not know who was driving" type defence. The CPS decided to take him to court and he won as it really was not him driving on that day (although local to where he lives near Bristol). It was a ringer. As it happend if it had been him he would have got off anyway as they had put the wrong time on the summons so it would have been rejected on a technicality.

Migration info. Legacy thread was 90939

 

[poon]

Go to this site

www.pepipoo.com

Migration info. Legacy thread was 90961

 

[Carrera4S]

Ignore it! I received a NIP for an alledged offence on 28th April and have repeated ignored the reminder, the second reminder, the final reminder and the final, final reminder. After these it went all quiet. So I reckon that I should be clear as I'm past the 6 months needed to prosecute.....I hope :wink:

Migration info. Legacy thread was 91011

 

[Gastro]

Quote: Originally posted by damianc4s on 17 November 2006
Ignore it! I received a NIP for an alledged offence on 28th April and have repeated ignored the reminder, the second reminder, the final reminder and the final, final reminder. After these it went all quiet. So I reckon that I should be clear as I'm past the 6 months needed to prosecute.....I hope :wink:

I do hope you are joking Damian..........
You will receive a court summons as sure as day !

Migration info. Legacy thread was 91026

 

[Andrew Healey]

If its a fixed penalty the registered owner of the vehicle has to receive Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days of the offence with the 1st day starting the day after the offence occured. I got off with doing 93 on an 'A' road in Warickshire cos of this and received a letter of apology from Warickshire police.

Just sweating out another from Lancs police from M66 for doing over 90...when Monday comes they are too late.....


Migration info. Legacy thread was 91027

 

[Carrera4S]

Quote: Originally posted by Gastro on 17 November 2006

Quote: Originally posted by damianc4s on 17 November 2006Ignore it! I received a NIP for an alledged offence on 28th April and have repeated ignored the reminder, the second reminder, the final reminder and the final, final reminder. After these it went all quiet. So I reckon that I should be clear as I'm past the 6 months needed to prosecute.....I hope :wink:

I do hope you are joking Damian..........
You will receive a court summons as sure as day !

No joke! I'm serious!

Migration info. Legacy thread was 91028

 

[Gastro]

Yikes.......

Hope you are leaving the country by then !


Migration info. Legacy thread was 91029

 

[Carrera4S]

Quote: Originally posted by Gastro on 17 November 2006

Yikes.......

Hope you are leaving the country by then !

Not for a while.

Have a read on the 6 month rule:

6 month rule

My NIP date was 5th May, offence 28th April.

Migration info. Legacy thread was 91032

 

[alan sweeney]

hi,

By all accounts it is 3 points and if clean licence no change in Insurance cost in my experience.

The mobile units usually hang about iat the bottom of hills and one naturally speeds up. 52 in 40 not too difficult if it is the last 10 meters before the national speed limit as that is were they tend to entrap people!

Alan.


Migration info. Legacy thread was 91252

 

[Tiptronic]

Gastro,

re Damien,

I have a friend who has avoided 12 points over the last 5 years using this method,

the trick is never to ignore anything you have to sign for,

they are too busy attending to the ones who do reply by the look of it.


Migration info. Legacy thread was 91254