NIP but I think it was the car undertaking me, Like Shaggy would say, it wasn't me |
NIP but I think it was the car undertaking me, Like Shaggy would say, it wasn't me |
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 - 18:13
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 4 Apr 2009 Member No.: 27,555 |
Hi, I hope I can get some advice with this. I've received a Notice of Intended Persecution about an alleged speeding offense on 9th Oct (I got the letter a few days ago so within the 14 days). It claims I was doing 57mph in a 50 zone.
The thing is I remember it very clearly. The place where it happened is a dual carriage way going up hill, at the top of the hill it flattens out and there is a bridge where a camera van sometimes sits. I first saw this a few months ago and it is there every couple of weeks or so. I'm always cautious of it and keep an eye out for it, so when it is there I see the top of the van before there is line of sight of the little black window. Anyway... I was driving along in the fast lane and passing a couple of slow cars, behind me there was a white Nissan Duke, as I passed the cars I came up the hill and saw the top of the van and eased off as I checked my speed (which was fine). The white Juke closed up behind and I suspected he would undercut me, sure enough he changed lane (hence why I hadn't gone into the slow lane). As I was at the top of the hill so in line of sight of the van I was watching my speed which was 46/47 (digital speedo), the Juke undertook me and got past so the back of his car was level with the front of mine, he then slammed the brakes on when he saw the van. I thought nothing of it. So then I get the NIP letter... Now I'm confident I was not speeding and can remember watching my speed and him undertaking at what I would estimate would be around the 57mph clocked. The reason I remember so well is because I thought he was going to get a ticket. What I think has happened is that the radar has picked up the Juke traveling at 57mpg but it's been attributed to me, perhaps because I was in the overtaking lane? First of all how likely is it that an error like this could happen, I've heard of errors with the cameras before. Secondly I've read you can do an informal appeal (the option of going to court and facing a £1000 is too much to risk) but forces do not have to accept this and could just ignore it. What is the likelihood of them looking into it and will the have photos (if it takes two photos they will show the Juke undertaking me). If anyone has experience or advice on how to go about this I'd appreciate it very much. My plan is to be as informative as possible and not with an argumentative tone, I'm hoping the fact i can identify the make, model and colour of the other car this may help. The force is Northumbria Thanks |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 - 18:13
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 - 19:12
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,723 Joined: 3 Apr 2006 From: North Hampshire Member No.: 5,183 |
They most likely "pinged" you as soon as you crested the hill, and before you eased off.
There is no informal appeal process, a force may drop a prosecution if they think they may have messed up but many will just allow it to go to court anyway. The camera cannot have an error as in this case it will almost certainly be a video camera that is merely recording the session, the speed will have been measured by a LASER device which is operated correctly is likely to have recorded the speed accurately. You could ask for photographs (i.e. stills) to "help with the identification of the driver" which will hopefully show which vehicle was targeted. You must however, name the driver within 28 days else you would commit a much more serious offence of failing to name, 6 points and large fine/costs. 57 in 50 would qualify for a speed awareness course, as long as you haven't attended one in the last 3 years and the offence wasn't in Scotland. And while you are here, what happened with your previous case. You never came back with information/result. Previous case. |
|
|
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 - 21:00
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 4 Apr 2009 Member No.: 27,555 |
Hi ,thanks for replying. I've seen a few things about informal appeals around, don't know how factual they are though: https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/being-charged-wi...a-A76047D76548/
Good spot on the last case, I was actually going to mention that I haven't been caught speeding since 2009! Well that one I requested the pictures, which they duly sent. A picture of me clear as day driving along. I did a speed awareness course. Hopefully I'll be back for a refresher course rather than a fine and points. |
|
|
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 - 22:55
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 622 Joined: 20 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,668 |
Hi ,thanks for replying. I've seen a few things about informal appeals around, don't know how factual they are though: https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/being-charged-wi...a-A76047D76548/ Good spot on the last case, I was actually going to mention that I haven't been caught speeding since 2009! Well that one I requested the pictures, which they duly sent. A picture of me clear as day driving along. I did a speed awareness course. Hopefully I'll be back for a refresher course rather than a fine and points. The link you provided is a bit odd, it says you must reply to the S172 with the drivers details then says At the trial, the prosecution must prove every element of the offence, including that: You were the driver of the vehicle at the time and place in question |
|
|
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 - 22:56
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The link you provided is a bit odd, it says you must reply to the S172 with the drivers details then says At the trial, the prosecution must prove every element of the offence, including that: You were the driver of the vehicle at the time and place in question Which is correct. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 26 Oct 2018 - 07:42
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,900 Joined: 2 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,040 |
The link you provided is a bit odd, it says you must reply to the S172 with the drivers details then says At the trial, the prosecution must prove every element of the offence, including that: You were the driver of the vehicle at the time and place in question Which is correct. The actual point presumambly being that with the S172 complied with proving the driver is trivial given the prior admission. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 10:28 |