PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Speeding Nip M74 Scotland
mark1scotland
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 17:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 19 Nov 2010
From: Falkirk
Member No.: 42,242



Got my Nip through a couple of weeks ago, 80mph on M74 motorway near Lockerbie. Just a quick one, does the going unsigned route on the Nip form still work ? I used this method to succesful results around 18 Months or so ago. Thanks in advance Mark.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Advertisement
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 17:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 21:44
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 20:19) *
If/when the PF eventually decide to try their luck they may want to go for a "big fish", 130mph or whatever, on the basis they may get a more sympathetic ear if it's seen as letting off a clearly dangerous motorist.

Or they may decide to go for a 79mph to avoid the inevitably publicity if a 130mph trial collapsed.

If the Scottish authorities ever decide to bite the bullet with the "unsigned" scandal it will be determined by a higher court. Presumably the arbiters in that court will know that the seriousness or otherwise of the index offence is irrelevant to the S172 transgression.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mayhem007
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:14
Post #22


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 1,668
Joined: 9 Nov 2008
From: Doldrums
Member No.: 23,903



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 21:44) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 20:19) *
If/when the PF eventually decide to try their luck they may want to go for a "big fish", 130mph or whatever, on the basis they may get a more sympathetic ear if it's seen as letting off a clearly dangerous motorist.

Or they may decide to go for a 79mph to avoid the inevitably publicity if a 130mph trial collapsed.

If the Scottish authorities ever decide to bite the bullet with the "unsigned" scandal it will be determined by a higher court. Presumably the arbiters in that court will know that the seriousness or otherwise of the index offence is irrelevant to the S172 transgression.


I can't really see how a higher court can over rule the specific requirment for a signature in order to find the OP as guilty for transgressing the Scottish legislation of S172, surely the Sottish parliament would first need to repeal that part of the traffic offence. If they adopted the English S172 then they wouldn't have this problem.

To the OP I wouldn't bother sending back the new request for a signature, you've done your bit.


--------------------
STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING

Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:50
Post #23


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:14) *
I can't really see how a higher court can over rule the specific requirment for a signature in order to find the OP as guilty for transgressing the Scottish legislation of S172, surely the Sottish parliament would first need to repeal that part of the traffic offence. If they adopted the English S172 then they wouldn't have this problem.

I'm not sure what you're getting at; presumably you're aware that s172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 applies to Scotland as well as England and Wales?


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:07
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:50) *
I'm not sure what you're getting at; presumably you're aware that s172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 applies to Scotland as well as England and Wales?


I'm not sure either. I though the legislation was common to both E&W and Scotland and that there are not separate (and different) Sections 172 for E&W and Scotland. I understood it is the precedents set by the English courts (on the issue of unsigned S172 responses) which the Scots refuse to recognise. As such I don't see how the Scottish Parliament has a role to play.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:28
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,825
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:07) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:50) *
I'm not sure what you're getting at; presumably you're aware that s172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 applies to Scotland as well as England and Wales?


I'm not sure either. I though the legislation was common to both E&W and Scotland and that there are not separate (and different) Sections 172 for E&W and Scotland. I understood it is the precedents set by the English courts (on the issue of unsigned S172 responses) which the Scots refuse to recognise. As such I don't see how the Scottish Parliament has a role to play.


English courts don't set precedents in Scots law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:47
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:28) *
English courts don't set precedents in Scots law.


Indeed; the legislation is exactly the same, as can be seen by looking at it with the geographical extent box ticked LINK but a precedent has been set on its interpretation by an English court which is not binding on Scottish courts, although it might have some persuasive effect if the issue ever went to trial.



--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 14:15
Post #27


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:47) *
QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:28) *
English courts don't set precedents in Scots law.


Indeed; the legislation is exactly the same, as can be seen by looking at it with the geographical extent box ticked LINK but a precedent has been set on its interpretation by an English court which is not binding on Scottish courts, although it might have some persuasive effect if the issue ever went to trial.

I suspect the issue isn't that a Scottish court wouldn't have regard to a decision of an English court on identical legislation (albeit a decision that wouldn't be binding on them), but simply that they've not yet been asked to make a ruling on a case before them.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 14:17
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,825
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 14:15) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:47) *
QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:28) *
English courts don't set precedents in Scots law.


Indeed; the legislation is exactly the same, as can be seen by looking at it with the geographical extent box ticked LINK but a precedent has been set on its interpretation by an English court which is not binding on Scottish courts, although it might have some persuasive effect if the issue ever went to trial.

I suspect the issue isn't that a Scottish court wouldn't have regard to a decision of an English court on identical legislation (albeit a decision that wouldn't be binding on them), but simply that they've not yet been asked to make a ruling on a case before them.


Scots courts are not averse to differing either. That's why we get stuff like points discounts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mayhem007
post Mon, 22 Jan 2018 - 16:33
Post #29


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 1,668
Joined: 9 Nov 2008
From: Doldrums
Member No.: 23,903



Thank you for the clarification, traffic law books are getting a bit dusty. Forgot there was a precedent set in the English courts.


--------------------
STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING

Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 22 Jan 2018 - 20:27
Post #30


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:14) *
I can't really see how a higher court can over rule the specific requirment for a signature in order to find the OP as guilty for transgressing the Scottish legislation of S172, surely the Sottish parliament would first need to repeal that part of the traffic offence. If they adopted the English S172 then they wouldn't have this problem.


Ignoring the point already made, I presume you recall how 'creative' the (English) High Court was in interpreting s. 20 RTOA 1988, and how persuasive they found something that wasn't said in the gentleman with the unpronounceable Italian name's case when dismissing case law which contradicted them?


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mayhem007
post Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 16:53
Post #31


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 1,668
Joined: 9 Nov 2008
From: Doldrums
Member No.: 23,903



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 22 Jan 2018 - 20:27) *
QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:14) *
I can't really see how a higher court can over rule the specific requirment for a signature in order to find the OP as guilty for transgressing the Scottish legislation of S172, surely the Sottish parliament would first need to repeal that part of the traffic offence. If they adopted the English S172 then they wouldn't have this problem.


Ignoring the point already made, I presume you recall how 'creative' the (English) High Court was in interpreting s. 20 RTOA 1988, and how persuasive they found something that wasn't said in the gentleman with the unpronounceable Italian name's case when dismissing case law which contradicted them?


Don't remind me. I failed miserably. However I did enjoy our morning coffees.


--------------------
STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING

Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mark1scotland
post Thu, 24 May 2018 - 20:32
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 19 Nov 2010
From: Falkirk
Member No.: 42,242



Well only a few days now till this is time barred & no correspondence in Months. I fully expect a few visits from local cops before then determined to serve a citation on me. Fingers crossed for a quiet few days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mark1scotland
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 20:24
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 19 Nov 2010
From: Falkirk
Member No.: 42,242



Well thats now just over 6 months from date of alleged speeding offence & no citation, this one will now be officially time barred methinks, also looks like the going unsigned route is still working well up in Scotland. I am however surprised they are not trying to close this loophole down yet. Oh well another 3 points saved from my license, as ever thanks for all the help & excellent advice on here yet again guys.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kickaha
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 20:47
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,389
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,126



They still have time to progress the 172 offence AFAIK.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 20:54
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



From your first post any S172 offence would have been committed on or about the 30th December, so you are still a month off a timeout?


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mark1scotland
post Tue, 29 May 2018 - 17:42
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 19 Nov 2010
From: Falkirk
Member No.: 42,242



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 21:54) *
From your first post any S172 offence would have been committed on or about the 30th December, so you are still a month off a timeout?



That would mean them having to take me to court on an S172 offence, in that instance I would fight it to the death. I dare say one day they will tske someone to trial on an S172 & I woyld need to be damn unlucky if it was me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Tue, 29 May 2018 - 18:25
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (mark1scotland @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 18:42) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 21:54) *
From your first post any S172 offence would have been committed on or about the 30th December, so you are still a month off a timeout?



That would mean them having to take me to court on an S172 offence, in that instance I would fight it to the death. I dare say one day they will tske someone to trial on an S172 & I woyld need to be damn unlucky if it was me.


Well they were neve rgoing to take you to court for speeding.


--------------------
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:34
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here