PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Will I lose my licence?, 3 speeding fines in one weekend with 3 points already!
Jampickle
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 13:16
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,640



All Lincolnshire A1

last Friday - 80mph... Ok so i have 3 points already, that's ok ish.
TODAY I opened the mail as I knew it was from them again and 2 more from Sunday coming back from London - 82 and 85!! At 13.02 and 13.05... All in the same area. I'm so upset... Does this mean i will in fact lose my licence?

I know I shouldn't have been speeding but can't do anything about that now. There were horrendous jams and when they were cleared we just all drove faster - stupid I know sad.gif

Banning?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 13:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Pete D
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 13:42
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,747
Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Member No.: 11,456



In what speed limits. One of them may allow for an SAC with no points and you drive like a Nun for a three years. Pete D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 13:43
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,790
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



You should be offered a course for one of them.

As for the 2 minutes apart from each other, did you slow down in between ? If not it's one offence as the crime isn't passing a camera it's exceeding the limit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gedblanker
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:41
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 1 Apr 2014
Member No.: 69,818



QUOTE (henrik777 @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:43) *
You should be offered a course for one of them.

As for the 2 minutes apart from each other, did you slow down in between ? If not it's one offence as the crime isn't passing a camera it's exceeding the limit.

That's nonsense. It's being over the limit and getting detected that matters and this seems to be a case of being detected twice.

The police may treat it as one prosecution for the two detections, then again, they may not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BaggieBoy
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:44
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,211
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
From: North Hampshire
Member No.: 5,183



Can we assume you have had a full licence more than two years?

This post has been edited by BaggieBoy: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:47
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,382
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (gedblanker @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (henrik777 @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:43) *
You should be offered a course for one of them.

As for the 2 minutes apart from each other, did you slow down in between ? If not it's one offence as the crime isn't passing a camera it's exceeding the limit.

That's nonsense. It's being over the limit and getting detected that matters and this seems to be a case of being detected twice.

The police may treat it as one prosecution for the two detections, then again, they may not.

I'm sure you can back that up with case law or similar, well actually I'm sure you can't and are spouting opinion as fact.

If a police car followed you for 6 miles, taking 5 minutes could he do you for an extra offence every time he blinked?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrh3369
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 15:17
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,189
Joined: 8 Feb 2011
From: Gloucestershire
Member No.: 44,109



I would ask for the two to be considered as one continuous offence, as has been asked have you attended a speed awareness course within the last 3 years? Best outcome 1 SAC and 1 cofp £100 & 3 points, worst case scenario 9 pts and a totting ban for 6 months. More info required.

This post has been edited by mrh3369: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 15:18


--------------------
Edited as my IPhone thinks it knows best and changes my posts…
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 15:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,382
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I agree, I strongly believe that is a single offence.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gedblanker
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 18:30
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 1 Apr 2014
Member No.: 69,818



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 15:47) *
QUOTE (gedblanker @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (henrik777 @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:43) *
You should be offered a course for one of them.

As for the 2 minutes apart from each other, did you slow down in between ? If not it's one offence as the crime isn't passing a camera it's exceeding the limit.

That's nonsense. It's being over the limit and getting detected that matters and this seems to be a case of being detected twice.

The police may treat it as one prosecution for the two detections, then again, they may not.

I'm sure you can back that up with case law or similar, well actually I'm sure you can't and are spouting opinion as fact.

If a police car followed you for 6 miles, taking 5 minutes could he do you for an extra offence every time he blinked?

The examples you have given are nonsense too. I have issued many tickets for offences detected on the same road on the same journey and where the detections were a few minutes apart.
I suppose you will now give all of the decisions you have made that have cancelled tickets in similar circumstances or are you simply expressing an empty supposition?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 18:46
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,632
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (gedblanker @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 19:30) *
I have issued many tickets for offences detected on the same road on the same journey and where the detections were a few minutes apart.


Are you a police officer?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 19:01
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,382
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Issuing a 'ticket' (NIP, COFP, or bus?) doesn't make it right.......or is it guilty until proven innocent in SCP offices?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 19:03


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gedblanker
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 20:09
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 1 Apr 2014
Member No.: 69,818



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 20:01) *
Issuing a 'ticket' (NIP, COFP, or bus?) doesn't make it right.......or is it guilty until proven innocent in SCP offices?

What it is though is reality and what you have opined is fantasy at best.

To best assist the OP he should be given more than just your opinion as you have given an opinion in a way that would make it seem certain that the two tickets will be considered as one and can only be considered that way. That isn't correct. While some police officers and Central Ticket Office decision makers will consider making this into one penalty for the two detections others will not. What you need to realise is your opinion is based upon not being involved in the process whereas mine is from having been involved in that process. The OP can now make his mind up and with a little luck he will receive one penalty for the two detections; what is certainly not the case is that he definitely will as you seem to be remarking.

If I was the decision maker I would examine the circumstances of both detections and would either issue either none, one or 2 prosecutions for the two detections. What I certainly would not do is make it one because you said so.

...and by-the-way; that routine does not constitute guilty until proven innocent.

This post has been edited by gedblanker: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 20:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 20:43
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,632
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



You seem to have omitted to answer my question.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 21:21
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,382
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (gedblanker @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 21:09) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 20:01) *
Issuing a 'ticket' (NIP, COFP, or bus?) doesn't make it right.......or is it guilty until proven innocent in SCP offices?

What it is though is reality and what you have opined is fantasy at best.

To best assist the OP he should be given more than just your opinion as you have given an opinion in a way that would make it seem certain that the two tickets will be considered as one and can only be considered that way. That isn't correct. While some police officers and Central Ticket Office decision makers will consider making this into one penalty for the two detections others will not. What you need to realise is your opinion is based upon not being involved in the process whereas mine is from having been involved in that process. The OP can now make his mind up and with a little luck he will receive one penalty for the two detections; what is certainly not the case is that he definitely will as you seem to be remarking.

If I was the decision maker I would examine the circumstances of both detections and would either issue either none, one or 2 prosecutions for the two detections. What I certainly would not do is make it one because you said so.

...and by-the-way; that routine does not constitute guilty until proven innocent.

I have suggested why you are talking claptrap, you didn't answer mine or SP's questions and haven't justified why at all, ergo I'll take that as unqualified and unresearched opinion.

What if the operator took 4 readings at 3 second intervals, would that be 4 'tickets'? (Though of course when it comes to speeding nothing is actually a ticket, that all have real names) and a totting ban?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 21:22


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 21:38
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,632
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



What is more likely is that he's not a police officer and therefore issues a COFP only in the administrative sense. A better way of describing it would be issues after being instructed to do so by a police officer. Only a constable can decide to issue a COFP.

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 21:39


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
metalmick
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 21:43
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 604
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,271



yep come on , youve written reams and somehow failed to notice the relevant and pertinent questions from SP and Rookie
M
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 21:56
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,382
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



SP, that was my assumption, I was just waiting for it from the horses mouth.....as you say unless he is a police officer he isn't issuing in the manner understood by the law, and post, let's be honest, are churned out by a computer with no human taking reall responsibility at all.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Fri, 4 Jul 2014 - 08:49
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



It pains me to do so but gedblanker is correct. The proximity of detections in time will not automatically mean they are a single offence. So I'm afraid Simon is, in his own words, talking claptrap.
There is 3 or 4 minutes (depending on how they round up the timings to full minutes) between the 2, and at over 80 mph that is a lot of miles. It is true that they may be dealt with as 1 or 2 offences. It would be for a court to decide if 2 summons was appropriate.
And I have been a decision maker and enforcer and can definitively tell you that there are no absolutes in making such decisions.

It would be nice however if gedblanker would nail his colours to the mast about his actual occupation. You see operators rarely perform the administration functions of issuing anything, and decision makers in SCP's will not be current practitioners.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 4 Jul 2014 - 10:04
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,382
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



SD I was referring to the 2 detections being 2 offences being claptrap (they could be 4 seconds apart!), if you read what is quoted above the use of the word!


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Fri, 4 Jul 2014 - 10:19
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



The trouble is that on this occasion I think gedblanker has more accurately represented the situation than you.
As the op has chosen not to give us the full we have no idea which way it will go.

This post has been edited by sgtdixie: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 - 10:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 26th May 2019 - 06:17
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.