PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

480 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

Logician
Posted on: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 15:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


He cannot appeal as such, what he can do is reject this fixed penalty and ask for the allegation to be heard in court. Then it is up to the prosecution to prove he committed the offence which appears to be ignoring the lane closure sign on a motorway. If they cannot convince the court that he committed the offence, then he is clear and gets no points and pays nothing. If they do convince the court he committed the offence then he will still get the 3 points but have to pay very much more than £100 in the form of a fine related to his income, plus costs.

Given that the offence may well have been picked up by a camera, if there is a picture of his car committing the offence, the court will be unlikely to acquit him. The effect is, if he really believes he did not commit the offence he should go to court, if he did commit it or is not sure, accepting the fixed penalty is likely to be the least painful way forward.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1515056 · Replies: 12 · Views: 1,373

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 18:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (no harm-no foul @ Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 18:46) *
Should I contact one of your recommended solicitors?


No. Follow the advice to wait to see what the police do, which will probably to put the parties in touch and leave it for the insurance companies to sort out.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1514553 · Replies: 6 · Views: 970

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 14:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 07:49) *
RWI £800, Band C offence and no guilty plea, nominal fine £1200.....


Guidance is that the fine for a first time offender pleading not guilty should not exceed 75% of the maximum whatever the income. To get up to £1000 fine, the offender would need a considerable number of previous offences and/or tick the aggravating features boxes.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1514461 · Replies: 11 · Views: 2,341

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 14:31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


As post #3, if you pleaded guilty but did not ask for a Newton hearing, probably wisely without any solid evidence, you accepted your speed was 50mph. That is too fast for a course, and being right at the top of the 4 to 6 points range, 5 points in fact was lenient. Whether the fine was harsh depends on what you put on the means form, but the figure of £408 suggests that you did not complete a means form, in which case your income would have been taken as the national average of £440. A band B fine would be £440, less a 33% discount for your guilty plea, plus 10% surcharge, plus £85 costs comes to £407 and a rounding difference of £1 would produce £408.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1514455 · Replies: 6 · Views: 922

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 12:00


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 23:05) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 22:17) *
The fact that special authority is required from the DfT when roundels are used on their own as repeaters, as for example in the New Forest, perhaps indicates that they are not regarded as adequate guidance even for that limited purpose in normal circumstances.
We've had a similar point being made in the PCN forum, and I'm not sure it's very compelling. It suggests that a special authorisation from the SoS is somehow "less good" than a general authorisation under the current iteration of TSRGD. IMO it hardly matters if a sign is authorised by special or general authorisation, if it's authorised under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 then it's a lawful traffic sign and that's that. Again with due reference to sp, I don't see any reason why a court would not take a painted and authorised road marking into account when determining whether a speed limit is correctly conveyed, it clearly seems to be relevant to the issues the court needs to determine.


I am not at all sure that "that's that". In Coombes one of the questions identified by the Crown Court for decision by the High Court was:

(5) Did the "30" roundels painted onto the road surface at the beginning of the restricted stretch of road constitute "signs" for the purposes of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and, if so, did that mean that the defence provided by s.85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 was not available to the Defendant (now Appellant)?

The defence case was:

18. Mr Cranfield recognises that the roundels cannot be said to have been in any way obscured. However, he points out that under the Directions, the relevant authority merely has a discretion to use the roundels in conjunction with the mandatory roadside signs. It follows, he submits, that they are irrelevant to the defence under s 85(4).

The prosecution case was:

In the present case the roundels had been lawfully placed in conjunction with the roadside signs. While it may have been difficult for the Appellant to see one of the roadside signs the Crown Court found that he should have seen the other roadside sign and there was no obstruction at all of the roundels painted on the road surface. Thus there were at least three signs which complied with the directions, and in those circumstances the appellant could not rely on s 85(4).

The conclusion of the court on this and other questions was "These questions do not call for answer on the facts of this case."

The main finding of the High Court in allowing the appeal was:

  1. In the present case the Crown Court found, in effect, that had the appellant been travelling at 40 m.p.h. as he approached the signs at the start of the relevant stretch, then if he had not had local knowledge he would not have had time to reduce his speed below 30 m.p.h. when he entered the relevant stretch. This seems to me to be an assessment by the court of the cumulative effect of the roadside signs and roundels. The court made no explicit finding as to the precise location where the appellant had been recorded as travelling over the speed limit. Nor is there a finding that this location was any substantial distance from the start of the relevant stretch. In these unusual circumstances it seems to me impossible to do anything other than to conclude that in the appellant's case the requirement I have described was not met.



  1. It follows that in my view the appeal must be allowed. It is unnecessary to determine whether it would be sufficient for a defendant to say in respect of one only of the roadside signs that it did not "indicate" the limit in the sense that I have described. Nor is it necessary to determine whether it would be sufficient that such a failure arose for reasons that might not reasonably be expected.



It therefore seems that the question of the effect of roundels has been raised but not fully resolved. The High Court did not overturn the fining of the Crown Court that one visible sign and the roundels together were not sufficient to convey adequate warning in this particular case but were not helped by the absence of any information about the exact position on the road that Mr Coombes was in when his speed was measured.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1514409 · Replies: 36 · Views: 4,922

Logician
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 11:12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


Either a ban or points, never both.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1514031 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,100

Logician
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 10:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


You are lucky to be allowed to have another chance to put forward an exceptional hardship argument. An SGO is presumably a court order giving you custody of your granddaughter? Losing your job as such is not exceptional hardship, but the consequences might be. You need to show that your wife and granddaughter would suffer if you lose your job. Would you be in danger of losing your home? Would you still be able to provide for them if you were out of work? Could your granddaughter be taken to hospital by other means such as public transport? Could her parent(s) come to her for contact?

You need to work on presenting your case fully, remembering that hardship to others counts for more than to yourself.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1514014 · Replies: 32 · Views: 4,140

Logician
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 10:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


From what you write, there seems no obvious defence. For over 51 in a 30 limit, the guideline is disqualification of 7 to 56 days, or 6 points. Given that you were only just over 51, any disqualification should be not much more than 7 days, but 6 points is the most likely outcome, in my view. The fine, after a guilty plea, will be equivalent to a week's net income, plus a surcharge of 10% (Min £32) and £85 costs.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1514009 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,100

Logician
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 10:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


This needs to be in the council section.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1513995 · Replies: 11 · Views: 446

Logician
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 10:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE
First of all i have been driving for about 20 years with no points ever been on my licence


You can mention that to show that you are not an habitual speeder, this was a very uncharacteristic moment of madness etc. but it will not count for a lot.

What were the circumstances? A camera in an industrial area seems unlikely as does a police presence in normal circumstances. Was this at some sort of car meet or cruise?

I hope this was not in Scotland, where a dangerous driving charge would be quite likely for that excess speed.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513993 · Replies: 21 · Views: 2,109

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 22:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


10% + 2 mph is the level at which enforcement starts, not the highest speed before it does. This is frequently misquoted and the RAC quite often publish mistaken legal advice and will then refuse to correct it. A course can be offered up to 42mph in a 30 mph limit.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513922 · Replies: 1 · Views: 390

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 21:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE
What's 48mph in a 30mph zone likely to attract in Scotland? Fixed penalty, or can I expect to need to buy shoe polish and iron my shirt for a visit in front of their honours?


Certainly FP territory in E&W, probably also in Scotland
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513921 · Replies: 5 · Views: 363

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 21:50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


My ancient copy of Wilkinson's is occasionally useful for such things!
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513916 · Replies: 45 · Views: 2,414

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 17:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


It makes no difference that the EH argument only succeeded in reducing rather than removing the disqualification entirely, see RTOA1988 s35(4)©
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513852 · Replies: 45 · Views: 2,414

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 17:09


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


Probably the Met but it was arguments over the responsibility that prevented the Western section cameras being used for years. How reliable is your info about a 10% + 3 enforcement? Normal enforcement starts at 10% + 2, but can be set higher to cut down on numbers, going to +3 sounds hardly worthwhile.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1513843 · Replies: 17 · Views: 1,237

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 17:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


There are never different limits for different lanes, so your case would be a bit weak in court but I very much doubt you will hear anything and if you did the police might be persuaded to drop it as the newer HADECS3 cameras take a picture of the overhead signs as well as the vehicle. The proviso is that the old variable speed section to the West has the old cameras, but they never used to be used, not sure of the current situation.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1513840 · Replies: 17 · Views: 1,237

Logician
Posted on: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 23:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 16:16) *
Totting ban is six months for the first time.


In most cases if an EH is accepted, there is no disqualification, but it is open to the court to disqualify for a shorter period. Obviously the result to aim for is no disqualification but it might be worth having a discussion with your employers about what their attitude would be if you were disqualified for a lesser period than 6 months.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513496 · Replies: 35 · Views: 3,427

Logician
Posted on: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 18:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (em73 @ Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 19:00) *
QUOTE (pcman1985 @ Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 18:56) *
QUOTE
Hi, Thanks for your reply! This is what i initially thought, but i looked online and theyre all saying 88 in a 70 is 4-6 points or driving ban between 7-28 days?
That would be only if you decided to take it to court, which you surely won't.
Oh i see, so ill definitely just get offered 2x 3 points + £100 fines? Even if it was 88mph in a 70? And with my previous history?


No reason why not, previous history is not a consideration unless 3 points would take you to 12 or over and in a 70 limit, a fixed penalty is offered up to 95.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513288 · Replies: 10 · Views: 736

Logician
Posted on: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 16:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


21 days is correct, and you have the confirmation so all is good.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513256 · Replies: 21 · Views: 3,878

Logician
Posted on: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 16:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


No need to take photos, just keep your own record of when you drive the car.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513253 · Replies: 14 · Views: 480

Logician
Posted on: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 16:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (Longers36 @ Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 17:19) *
The police officers must have been some way back from me as I didn’t see them in my mirrors and they didn’t stop me til I got a distance down the road after the traffic lights. I did go through on amber but would have had to brake sharply with my son in the car at the time so went through.


The red light offence occurs if any part of the vehicle goes through on the red, so even if you went past the lights on the amber, they might have gone red by the time the rear of your vehicle went through. The Highway Code states:

AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident

You have the problem that in court the officers are likely to say that in their opinion you could have stopped safely, even if they accept you went through on amber not red, which itself is unlikely.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513250 · Replies: 5 · Views: 434

Logician
Posted on: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 16:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


The driver with 20 years experience should be aware of Rule 124 of the Highway Code:

The presence of street lights generally means that there is a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit unless otherwise specified.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513244 · Replies: 11 · Views: 452

Logician
Posted on: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 16:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


A red light offence will just be 3 points, but there is little point going to court in the forlorn hope that the court will believe you and not two police officers, the fine and costs will be more than £100. Unless you can produce witnesses that you went though on the green or can show that from where they were the two officers could not have seen you, your best bet is just to accept the fixed penalty.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513235 · Replies: 5 · Views: 434

Logician
Posted on: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 16:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE
I was reading the thread about the surveyor and similar scenario, would it be worth him signing up for advance driving course to demonstrate he was trying to resolve his speeding 'issues'.


This is sometimes suggested but is unlikely to influence a court in my view. Exceptional hardship is the issue here, so with no dependents what he needs is more a situation in which his employer would suffer, having to provide him with alternative transport like someone to drive him or recruit and train a replacement. If he is one of a number of people who do a similar job and there is a turnover of staff, his employer could presumably cope well without him. It depends on his particular circumstances but as New Judge says, he needs to do some preparation work beforehand, look into the local jobs market, rule out his employer finding something local to do. it is no use just thinking it will be sufficient to say he will lose his job.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513229 · Replies: 45 · Views: 2,414

Logician
Posted on: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 11:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


An offence we have never known prosecuted, but if it was it would only merit a small fine, no points. He should tell it the way it is, and in future remember to change both the licence and logbook, also of course insurance. There is a lot of bureaucratic work involved in running a car and it needs to be kept on top of.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1513123 · Replies: 5 · Views: 1,151

480 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 22nd September 2019 - 17:10
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.