Speeding Nip M74 Scotland |
Speeding Nip M74 Scotland |
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.
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 17:14
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 21:44
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
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. |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:14
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
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. |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:50
Post
#23
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
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 __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:07
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
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. |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:28
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
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. |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:47
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
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. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 14:15
Post
#27
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
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 __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 14:17
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
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. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 - 16:33
Post
#29
|
|
Member 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. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 - 20:27
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
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. |
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 16:53
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Tue, 29 May 2018 - 17:42
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 19 Nov 2010 From: Falkirk Member No.: 42,242 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 29 May 2018 - 18:25
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
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. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:34 |