[NIP Wizard] 86 in a 50 Options

[PhilMcRevis20183...]

NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - March 2018
Date of the NIP: - 3 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 4 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A610 Eastwood By-Pass, Kimberly, Nottingham
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - Didn't see any manned camera, cannot remember exceeding limit but it is quite likely I did, as everyone does on this but of road

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.
  
  You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 16:52:20 +0000

[Advertisement]

[Logician]

Do you have any questions? This will go to court where the likely sentence is a period of disqualification, or 6 points if you are lucky. Fine of 150% of net weekly income reduced by 33% for a guilty plea.

[PhilMcRevis20183...]

No questions as I can't remember that day, was rushing to get to an appointment. Just wanting opinions as to what the likely outcome is likely to be.

[Jlc]

The likely outcome is covered above but that excess can only be dealt with at court and you may well need to attend should they want to consider a ban.

[The Rookie]

I agree there is a lot of speeding on that road, but not 86!

[PhilMcRevis20183...]

Well 86 isn't that bad considering that a few years back that stretch of dual carriageway (which they usually use cameras on) used to be a national speed limit road and is fairly straight at that point. Doing 50 feels incredibly slow when your rushing for an appointment. I'm not denying or making excuses that I wasn't speeding, clearly I was, i was just asking for likely outcomes. Is it definitely a court appearance?

[BaggieBoy]

Is it definitely a court appearance?

As has been stated twice before, absolutely.

[Jlc]

Is it definitely a court appearance?

Yes, and any ban (which is odds on) is immediate so don't expect to drive home.

Well 86 isn't that bad...

I wouldn't suggest saying that to the bench. It's 72% over the limit.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 19:45

[notmeatloaf]

The bit the bench will always have in their mind is not that the speed is safe in itself, but that you have a huge speed differential with anyone actually doing the speed limit with predictable consequences if there is a collision.

It's why, aside from exceptional circumstances (NOT running late for an appointment), it's normally best to fall on your sword and be apologetic if you are pleading guilty in person or in writing. Although magistrates tend to stick fairly closely to the sentencing guidelines you need them on your side if you are hoping for six points, or hoping for a ban. You can try and lead them towards what you want, e.g. "I appreciate at this speed there will be a number of points on my licence and they will serve as a constant reminder to obey speed limits over the coming years", or similar.

That's not to say I'm not sympathetic, we've all been there rushing with a heavy right foot but the time for licking your wounds isn't in court.



This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 21:31

[andy_foster]

The law requires you to name the driver. Failure to do so would be a separate offence, which carries 6 points (endorsement code MS90 - which might be costly when you renew your insurance). However, if you do not name the driver, it would be all but impossible to convict you of the substantive speeding offence.

We cannot advise you to commit a criminal offence, but we can tell you what the likely outcome of doing so would be.

[PhilMcRevis20183...]

Hi Everyone,

I've had a long time to reflect on this, and have since received a letter from the police with a witness statement and a photo showing my car. A few things don't particularly add up though. The picture shows a negative speed, as the picture is from behind the car. This suggests it wasn't someone in a van - although its possible, it would usually mean they would either have had to remove the camera from the van, or turned the van around to point against oncoming traffic. The model of camera i think from memory was the LCI 2020 ultralite. (i can confirm details later when i have it in front of me - i'm at work at the moment). There is 2 copies of a slightly different witness statement, not made by the camera operator, but by a chief of something or other, and it gives the usual line of forming an opinion before taking the picture. I haven't had any evidence of a calibration of the device, that the operator was trained, or whether or not a video exists. I have 21 days to respond, which is probably about 10 days left. If i decided i wanted to see more evidence, should i plead not guilty and go to court and hope they don't have more? or do i just accept it now, and hopefully save myself from even more stress?

[BaggieBoy]

If i decided i wanted to see more evidence, should i plead not guilty and go to court and hope they don't have more? or do i just accept it now, and hopefully save myself from even more stress?

Not sure about stress, but pleading guilty is the only way save yourself money. If you pled not guilty but are found guilty you will lose the 33% discount on the fine and the costs will be over £600. Unless you have a defence, pleading not guilty would not be recommended.



Sounds like they have more than enough to convict you. Asking for calibration certificates or training records is almost certainly fruitless. There will be a video by the sound of it.

[PhilMcRevis20183...]

That's what I thought, but if there's a slight chance that the device wasn't calibrated correctly etc, how would I know without challenging it? the incentive of the 33% off might not even apply as i'm just as likely to be disqualified right? am i right in thinking that if i'm disqualified i don't get a fine (just costs)? or is there definitely a fine no matter what happens with the additional possibility of a ban as well? In all honesty I would do anything that reduces the likeliness of a ban right now.

[peterguk]

That's what I thought, but if there's a slight chance that the device wasn't calibrated correctly etc, how would I know without challenging it? the incentive of the 33% off might not even apply as i'm just as likely to be disqualified right? am i right in thinking that if i'm disqualified i don't get a fine (just costs)? or is there definitely a fine no matter what happens with the additional possibility of a ban as well? In all honesty I would do anything that reduces the likeliness of a ban right now.

How would you know and be able to prove in court the camera wasn't calibrated?

A lack of calibration cert. would not automatically render the device's measurements inaccurate.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 11:34

[BaggieBoy]

You will get fined regardless of whether it is points or a ban. If you turn up and appear to be on a fishing trip you might annoy the bench. I would say pleading guilty is your best chance of getting points instead of ban.

[PhilMcRevis20183...]

That's what I thought, but if there's a slight chance that the device wasn't calibrated correctly etc, how would I know without challenging it? the incentive of the 33% off might not even apply as i'm just as likely to be disqualified right? am i right in thinking that if i'm disqualified i don't get a fine (just costs)? or is there definitely a fine no matter what happens with the additional possibility of a ban as well? In all honesty I would do anything that reduces the likeliness of a ban right now.

How would you know and be able to prove in court the camera wasn't calibrated?

A lack of calibration cert. would not automatically render the device's measurements inaccurate.

I don't and probably wouldn't - but isn't it the police's job to prove I'm guilty rather than my job to prove I'm innocent?

You will get fined regardless of whether it is points or a ban. If you turn up and appear to be on a fishing trip you might annoy the bench. I would say pleading guilty is your best chance of getting points instead of ban.

I'm heavily leaning towards that way - just wanted to make sure I'm not overlooking something that would show up any holes in their case. I find it odd they are giving me the option to plead guilty without attending court though if there's a chance i'll be banned.

[BaggieBoy]

I find it odd they are giving me the option to plead guilty without attending court though if there's a chance i'll be banned.

It's not odd at all, that's how the system works. It's highly likely if you plead guilty it will be referred to court anyway. No harm in trying as there is nothing lost.

This post has been edited by BaggieBoy: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 11:55

[nosferatu1001]

Yes, and they show the device is type approved, menaing you have to show it is defective (simplistically) .

[Logician]

I have now been contributing to this board for over 8 years and I do not recall a single case where asking for a calibration certificate or training records has been of any assistance to a driver, although posters regularly mention it. As you say, a minus sign in front of the speed means you were going away from the laser when you were zapped. The operator may well have been concentrating on traffic from the opposite direction and swung round when you went past him at 72% over the limit, but he was probably set up to do that, otherwise he would never catch any motorbikes as they have no front number plate. Alternatively he might only be targeting traffic moving away from him and been concealed as you did not see him. It is perfectly in order for him to be concealed. He would certainly have been able to form a prior opinion as you whistled past him.

[notmeatloaf]

There are a few, although normally in conjunction with other factors. As I have said before laser speed measurement requires on incredibly precise synchronisation between the beam and image receiver. If they are even a few dozen picoseconds out it will give significant erroneous speed readings.

Anything like that requires calibration to be sure it is accurate. I'm sure the calibration companies could tell you what percentage come in with incorrect synchronisation, and it wouldn't be 0%.

Because of that the absence of a calibration certificate assists the defence case not least by ruling out S20, but isn't fatal to the prosecution.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 18:29