Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] NIP for 62 in a 30 on a B road - first offence - likelihood of a ban?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
Emmgrem
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Hampshire
Date of the offence: - 10.08.15
Date of the NIP: - 18.08.15
Date you received the NIP: - 19.08.15
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - B2177, SOUTHWICK ROAD, NORTH BOARHUNT, HAMPSHIRE, UNITED KINGDOM
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? -
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 -
I don't remember anything or recall a camera being on the road. The letter says it was a mobile unit. I was doing 62 in a 30, but the road is a busy B road which I would have believed to be national speed limit road. I checked the speed limit signs on Google street view and the road does appear to have a few different speed limits along it. I have never been caught speeding or had any points before.

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
- England

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

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:52:11 +0000
Logician
There is a high probability of a ban, that speed is actually off the scale of the guidelines used by magistrates. You say "the road does appear to have a few different speed limits along it" but what is relevant is whether the limit you exceeded was properly signed. Looking at Streetview it seems likely that it was. You got the NIP in time, so there is no defence there. Unfortunately your previous good driving has little relevance to the sentencing.



Hellfire8
What Logician said. It's Just 2mph over the mags guidelines.

Short ban would be expected I'd imagine.
Emmgrem
So I was caught doing 62mph in a 30mph zone.
The road is a B road which is initially a 60, drops straight to a 30, then goes to 40 and back to 30 just in time for a junction.

The NIP I have been sent states that I was caught on Southwick Rd B2177, but on driving back down that road since the alleged offence, my Satnav tells me that the only bit of the B road which is actually 'Southwick Rd' is at the very end just before a big bend and a junction, where I think it would have been impossible for me to have been doing 62mph! Furthermore there is a sign saying welcome to Wickham, so that part of the road is in a different town to the one on the address given on my NIP.

It may have been possible that I was doing 62 further up the road at the point where it drops straight from a 60 to a 30 (although I never saw a camera first nor last and there are no camera signs), but the address they have down as the location appears to be incorrect. Firstly as it slows to a junction I think it would be impossible to do that speed, and secondly there's nowhere on the road in that section where a mobile speed unit would have had room to park, no lay-bys and winding country roads etc.

Could this be a case to invalidate my NIP? What would the next step be? Request photographs? Or send off to say I'm the driver but then hire a motor lawyer to help me contest those facts in court (once I'd seen the photographs of course). I'm assuming photographs would also explain/prove to you exactly which part of the road you were caught on?
There's actually a Southwick Rd in Denmead/North Boarhunt (where they say I was caught) but it's nowhere near the B road they've put on the address... Could a technicality like that help a lawyer to get the case thrown out??

Really appreciate the help as I don't want to make a wrong move!
peterguk
Linked to this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=100989&hl=

A mod will merge.

Speed limits are set by traffic orders, which are reflected by singage. Do not rely on your sat nav.
NeverMind
Denmead Road looks like a clear 30 limit - and it's pretty straight so I guess you could do 60 on it. If you were so minded ...

Can't find the B127 though.

What's the precise location as stated on the NIP ?


EDIT: Duplicate thread? With incorrect details?

The NIP says North Boarhunt NOT Denmead, that's a different Southwick Road. FFS.

Can't be bothered, I'm out.
Emmgrem
Yes I have posted previously, asking what the likely outcome for a 62 in a 30mph zone would be.. this is a different matter which has only just come to light to do with the difference in location.
But fine if you want to merge - they are separate points though.

Sorry the road is the B2177 which the fine states as North Boarhunt (which I've called Denmead for the purpose of typing this from the top of my head.. I was just using the towns to give names to things, I didn't realise you'd be looking it up, I realise that this has now confused things, but thanks for trying to help).
The part of the B2177 (Southwick Rd) which they state they caught me at, is actually in Wickham not North Boarhunt.

The B2177 is definitely a 60mph road at the point where I turn onto it (there are clear speed limit signs). It then drops straight down to a 30 as you enter North Boarhunt, then to a 40 as you come into Wickham and back to a 30 shortly before the junction. The road is not actually Southwick Rd until it goes to 40mph in Wickham (as far as I can tell from looking at Google maps, my Satnav, and looking up addresses of local businesses on that road which state they are in Wickham, not North Boarhunt).


Also in answer to the above poster, I wasn't relying on my Satnav, I'm just trying to use this (and other means) to ascertain the name of the road at different points - not the speed!
NeverMind
One *case* one *thread* ...

What makes you think it wasn't in the 30mph section of the B2177 / Southwick Road in North Boarhunt that they clocked you?
Logician
HERE is the sign saying North Boarhunt, and just along the road HERE is the 30 limit, with a camera sign, this is Southwick Road, so it seems likely that this is where you were caught.
Emmgrem
Thanks for your replies.

I think it's the fact it's called 'Southwick Rd' on the letter which confused me. As Southwick Rd is technically only the end of the road in Wickham where it comes to the junction and I wasn't speeding at 60mph there.
The part of the road further up in North Boarhunt which is a 30mph is just the B2177 and isn't called Southwick Road.
However, I went back there last night and realised that it drops sharply from 60mph to 30mph as you say, and so this is most likely where they caught me. If I was travelling 62 or nearabouts the speed limit in the 60mph and couldn't brake quickly enough in time to go down to 30mph right at the sign, it's possible they were waiting there and got me. Seems extremely harsh to impose a ban when you put it like that? First of all would I be able to claim any of this in court to get points rather than a ban, especially as it's my first offence?
I'm going to ask for photographs to prove which part of the road they caught me on. If the photographs come back and it was the top part of the road where it drops from 60 to 30, could I not actually plead 'not guilty' and say it wasn't me speeding in Southwick Road... as technically I was on the B2177, not the B2177 Southwick Rd? I know it's a long shot, but it is actually quite confusing considering there's a 30mph in Southwick Rd as well which is a different part of the road! For all they know, I may have turned off down a side road before I even reached Southwick Road, meaning I never even drove on that road at all.

One last question - I've requested the photographs via the email address given on the letter. How long do these take to come through? Am I right in thinking I should wait for the photographs before I send the letter back to confirm I was the driver, providing they send the photos within the 28 days of course?

Thank you again
BaggieBoy
I think pleading not guilty based on the (slightly) incorrect road name could be an expensive mistake. There are no timescales for sending photographs, if they send them at all.
The Rookie
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Thu, 27 Aug 2015 - 14:26) *
If I was travelling 62 or nearabouts the speed limit in the 60mph and couldn't brake quickly enough in time to go down to 30mph right at the sign, it's possible they were waiting there and got me. Seems extremely harsh to impose a ban when you put it like that?

The speed limit starts at the sign (assuming its placed correctly), you have a straight approach to the signs shown on that GSV link of about 200m, easily enough to slow from 62 (if that was actually speed you started off from or where you exceeding the previous limit by more than that?) to 30, a magistrate will probably see that excuse as basically saying 'I'm a rubbish driver who can't use my brakes' or 'I'm a habitual speeder who ignored both limits', in which case I think he'll decide a ban is far from harsh.

Be careful of using 'mitigation' that actually makes it worse!

A better bet is to approach the local highways authority and get the TRO that sets the 30 limit and make sure the signs are in the right place, the Traffic Regulation Order has to be made available on request and many authorities will provide a PDF via email on request.
peterguk
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Thu, 27 Aug 2015 - 14:26) *
If I was travelling 62 or nearabouts the speed limit in the 60mph and couldn't brake quickly enough in time to go down to 30mph right at the sign, it's possible they were waiting there and got me.


If your car is unable to slow down adequately, then get the brakes checked or don't travel so fast.

QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Thu, 27 Aug 2015 - 14:26) *
I've requested the photographs via the email address given on the letter. How long do these take to come through? Am I right in thinking I should wait for the photographs before I send the letter back to confirm I was the driver, providing they send the photos within the 28 days of course?


There is no obligation to send you any photographs, so whether they arrive or not, ensure your reply is sent within the 28 days. Do not wait byong the 28 days and claim you couldn't reply as you hadn't received the photos.
The Rookie
Your responce has to arrive on day 28 (the request arriving on day1 NOT day0 of the 28), so make sure your nomination is with the Police by that date.
Logician

QUOTE
I think it's the fact it's called 'Southwick Rd' on the letter which confused me. As Southwick Rd is technically only the end of the road in Wickham where it comes to the junction and I wasn't speeding at 60m

That is not going to wash for a moment, the NIP says you were caught in North Boarhunt, quite where the road stops being called Southwick Road is very vague from the map, and not indicated on the ground, trying to claim you were confused and therefore disadvantaged is likely to simply irritate the court and has no chance of being believed. Has as been said, saying you had insufficient distance to slow before the 30 limit shows you were either paying insufficient attention, going too fast or driving a defective vehicle. Try getting hold of and checking the TRO, it seems like your only hope.
Pete D
The postal addresses all along that road, right down to the round about are Southwick Road At the round about it becomes Southwick Hill Rd. So there is no confusion as to where you were caught, B2177, SOUTHWICK ROAD, NORTH BOARHUNT. Pete D
Emmgrem
Pete D, are you able to let me know where you checked these postal addresses? Or give me an example so that I am able to check?

Thanks for the advice about the TRO. I've not heard this before so I will look into it.

For those of you saying 'you should have slowed down'... thanks for stating the obvious. Bit late for that. I thought this is supposed to be a forum to help the motorist and be on the side of the motorist, not the speed camera. Doing 62 in a 60 is hardly shocking, and a speed limit going sharply from 60 to a 30 is quite a ridiculous drop in speed, not to mention the fact the speed van/gun must have been waiting right there as they full well know it's going to be hard for people to drop that quickly / unlikely they will completely drop to 30 right at the sign so it's an easy place to make some money out of clocking people. Obviously I wouldn't carry on at 60 speeding right through a village with houses (as it's impossible), but I drive to the speed of the road, not dangerously and I have never had an accident or a scrape. So please don't come on here telling me I should have slowed down or that I'm a bad driver for not being able to brake from 60 to 30 and obey the sign - that's not what I've come on a 'justice for motors' forum for, there's plenty of other places I could go online to find people who are only interested in being judgemental. Didn't think I'd be made to feel bad for speeding on a speeding forum of all places haha!! Never mind, thanks for those of you who are here to actually offer some support.
peterguk
The responses you refer to as unhelpful were offered in a constructive manner.

Claiming you didn't have time to slow down, when thousands of motorists seem to manage it without issue, would see your appearance in court a very short but expensing one.

So better discussed here than in court.

It is common for camera vans to be parked just inside a limit to catch all the drivers that start slowing down at the limit instead of in time for the limit.

BTW, you say you didn't have time to slow down safely. 62 is exceeding the higher limit so you didn't appear to slow down at all, suggesting either you ignored the 30 signs, or didn't see them.
The Rookie
We (well I) were not condemning you driving, we (I) were telling you how a magistrate would view your 'mitigation', and as such advising not to bother with it, as not only was it not a mitigation but actually could be taken as an aggravating factor.

I go through six 60->30 changes a day on my way to work and back, suggesting they are ridiculous and that an interim limit should be implemented is rather silly given that you had plenty of time to see and slow to the 30 limit don't you think? If you were only doing 62 in the 60 you didn't even bother to lift off until you were on top of the 30 sign, on that basis what good would an iterim limit have achieved - you'd just end up breaking two limits not one! Plus the TRO and extra signage all costs money we all have to put into the coffers to pay for, no thanks easier to just learn to drive to the posted limit! Yes this bit is judgmental as it's a bonkers idea of pandering to people.
Spenny
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Fri, 28 Aug 2015 - 10:03) *
Pete D, are you able to let me know where you checked these postal addresses? Or give me an example so that I am able to check?

Thanks for the advice about the TRO. I've not heard this before so I will look into it.

For those of you saying 'you should have slowed down'... thanks for stating the obvious. Bit late for that. I thought this is supposed to be a forum to help the motorist and be on the side of the motorist, not the speed camera. Doing 62 in a 60 is hardly shocking, and a speed limit going sharply from 60 to a 30 is quite a ridiculous drop in speed, not to mention the fact the speed van/gun must have been waiting right there as they full well know it's going to be hard for people to drop that quickly / unlikely they will completely drop to 30 right at the sign so it's an easy place to make some money out of clocking people. Obviously I wouldn't carry on at 60 speeding right through a village with houses (as it's impossible), but I drive to the speed of the road, not dangerously and I have never had an accident or a scrape. So please don't come on here telling me I should have slowed down or that I'm a bad driver for not being able to brake from 60 to 30 and obey the sign - that's not what I've come on a 'justice for motors' forum for, there's plenty of other places I could go online to find people who are only interested in being judgemental. Didn't think I'd be made to feel bad for speeding on a speeding forum of all places haha!! Never mind, thanks for those of you who are here to actually offer some support.

It is always a bit irritating to be told the obvious, (you'll find I am one of the sanctimonious ones on here who will point people towards IAM and RoSPA when I hear the "I couldn't do anything about it" style responses here - happy to chat about it if you want to understand what they are about).

The folk here happily offer advice to minimise and mitigate the impacts of a speeding offence. However, the rules on speeding are pretty strict and clearly set. The loopholes of a decade or more ago have been closed. The other slightly irritating rejoinder you will get here is that this forum is about getting justice, and if someone comes on admitting to driving at over 60 in a 30 then there is an element where there is no injustice in that to be resolved - this forum does not have a position that speed limits should not be implemented or are entrapment.

Put another way, the guys here have checked that there is nothing unusual and unfair about the signs, they have considered that being clocked at over the national speed limit says that you have nothing sensible you can say in court about your speed, they know that in this case there isn't a worthwhile loophole in the "vague locus" argument - it is clear enough approximately where you were caught, and the paperwork appears adequate. Just so you are clear, the TRO is simply to ensure that the signs and the legal framework for the speed limit match up. It is reasonably rare for there to be a problem, but in country limits, sometimes changes evolve and signs get out of step.



My 5p to help in your position is that you plead guilty (unless there is a small chance of the problem with the TRO coming up) and give a postal plea (saying nothing but sorry, moment of foolishness, lesson learnt etc). If they are going to ban you, they will then ask you to attend court (most likely they will do this if there is the possibility of a ban even if points are more likely). Then in court, you say as little as possible, except "sorry, moment of foolishness, no excuses, sorry for wasting the court's time." Look anxious, contrite, accept any more sanctimonious, judgemental comments and you'll probably get the minimum the bench are interested in. No point getting a solicitor, it'll just cost you money that you can put towards an insurance uplift. You probably will either have a stack of points or a short ban - you don't get to choose, but other people here might have a view on how you might influence that. In terms of insurance, both are likely to have some impact, but you may prefer a short ban that you can work around than having a lot of points added to your licence hanging over you for 3 years. Check your insurance to see if they need to be immediately notified of a ban - points usually wait till renewal (but check anyway) - you do not want to risk invalidating your insurance and all the grief that causes in the future.
Pete D
you can use Google to obtain the addresses of the major properties and businesses on that road and loads of other places like Zoopla. Pete D
Emmgrem
Thank you very much for your responses.

How do I go about requesting the Traffic Regulation Order?
The Rookie
Local county council highways department or Highways England if it's a trunk road, it's a public document that must be made available on request.
BaggieBoy
Seeing as it's "B" road, I think the chances of it being a Trunk road are close to zero.
Emmgrem
Hi all,

An update. I got my court date yesterday (very quick compared to how long people on here generally tend to wait).. 8th October. Does pleading guilty by post as opposed to going in on the day and pleading guilty have any difference at all?

I realise that pleading guilty by post usually means it will be adjourned and I'll be called back in, but will this reflect badly on me and give any more chance of them banning me?

8th October isn't that convenient for me as I may be completing on my house purchase that day, so getting a date a month on might be better (does the next date HAVE to be within 1 month, or could they wait like 6 months before giving me the next date?)

Also I've noticed there's lots of forms for you to write mitigating circumstances and state all your outgoings and income to prove your situation if you plead by post... whereas if you go in straight away on the day they won't have seen any of this and had any more time to consider it.

Any advice on which is the best course of action? Obviously I'm looking for a fine and points rather than a ban as the best outcome, simply due to needing my car for work.

Thanks everyone.
Jlc
There's no issue in attempting the postal plea. As already noted they are almost certain to adjourn and request presence but in your circumstances it's probably the easiest way to get a more convenient date.
NewJudge
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Fri, 25 Sep 2015 - 13:08) *
Also I've noticed there's lots of forms for you to write mitigating circumstances and state all your outgoings and income to prove your situation if you plead by post... whereas if you go in straight away on the day they won't have seen any of this and had any more time to consider it.


It makes no difference as far as that aspect goes whether you are there or not. Magistrates do not see the documentation associated with any of their cases until they are "called on". If you are there you will be asked to hand them up soon after you enter the courtroom (or in some courts the usher may take them from you when you check in at reception). If you are not there the documents you have sent in remain with the Court's Legal Advisor who will hand them to the Bench when the case begins. Either way they will have no time to consider them beforehand.
Emmgrem
Thank you very much.

Just to clarify, if I go in on the 8th October will it all be decided on that day and I'll pay the fine and be issued the ban/points etc.? Or will I plead guilty/not guilty and then have to still go back for a second court date to get fined etc? I want to avoid 2 days off work if I can. Leaning towards getting it over and done with on the 8th October if it's correct that I only need to go to court once and it will all be sorted out on that day...

Thanks again
southpaw82
If you plead guilty you should be sentenced there and then. If you plead not guilty then the case will be adjourned for trial at a later date.
Emmgrem
Thank you.

One more question. Do I have to plead by post, or can I enter the plea online as that's it? If I do it online does that mean all I need to do is bring along my mitigating circumstances, financial info and driving license on the day of the hearing?
The forms don't make it very clear. I started filling everything out and then at the back realised it has a plea online option - I don't want to do this and then be penalised for not returning anything by post.
southpaw82
I'm not aware of an online option. If you're going to attend in person you don't have to enter a plea in advance at all.
Emmgrem
I think the online option came into play in April 2015. The plea pack I received is extremely confusing... I have no idea what I need to do.
I want to go to court on the date provided. But obviously I also want to enter an early guilty plea to get the 33% discount. However when I go online to plead (as I'm assuming this is the option to save paper and the time taken to post everything back), it tells me I don't need to attend the court date on the letter as I'm affecting pleading guilty by this method instead.
How do I enter an early guilty plea AND attend court on the date given? There's no point in me pleading guilty by post/online, because my offence will mean they call me back anyway so it's just wasting time.

Any help?
southpaw82
Enter your plea on the day in person.
The Rookie
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Wed, 30 Sep 2015 - 12:13) *
I want to go to court on the date provided. But obviously I also want to enter an early guilty plea to get the 33% discount.

The earliest you can enter a plea is at the first hearing, sending it off earlier has no material effect as it won't be looked at until that hearing. That said I would send the postal plea anyway just in case you have a problem on the day,
Emmgrem
So just to clarify, I'm absolutely fine to just turn up on the day - with case prepared, driving license on me, mitigation letter, financial details form etc. etc. having sent nothing in prior and not having responded to the letter or made a plea??
Last thing I want is to get in more trouble for not responding, but it seems to save a lot of hassle just bringing everything and turning up on the day if it's fine to do this?

Also when you say 'first hearing'.... if they are considering disqualifying and you turn up on the day, will it all be sorted and decided on that day rather than you having to come back for a second hearing after you've made your plea?

Thanks
southpaw82
You're fine to just turn up on the day. If you plead guilty they should sentence you there and then.
Jlc
Just remember that a ban is instant so you can't drive home.
Emmgrem
Completely forgot to update this thread...

So my outcome was a 28 day ban and a £543 fine. 1 magistrate wanted to let me off, the other 2 debated that although they believed my mitigation that I wasnt used to the road and it's a sharp drop from a 60mph to 30mph, they couldn't give me 6 points as it would be like a 'slapped wrist' considering other drivers get the same for doing 42 in a 30. They asked whether they were allowed to give me 9 points as a compromise but the court said either 6 or a ban, so they went with the ban.
I can see how in the confines of the law they had no choice, but I still think that for a first offence the punishment is ridiculously harsh.

In hindsight though I'm glad I got the ban over the 6 points - I've managed to secure lifts to work and it means I won't have to drive around for 3 years scared of getting clocked and done for totting up. However, looks like I'll probably get stung on my insurance since most insurers ask you to declare it for the next 5 years - how speeding once can put you at a higher risk to insure when you've never had an accident before is beyond me, but any excuse to get more money out of people I guess!

Thanks for all the advice everyone. I wouldn't have been able to stand up and represent myself in court if it wasn't for all the information given on this forum. It's scandalous how little they tell you in advance. I also had to travel for 2.5 hours to get to the court I was made to attend, which also seems unnecessary, considering it's all extra cost!
I now have another problem as my fine notice has no account number given on it, and apparently I need to have this number in order to pay the fine - typical! They don't make these things easy for people!
peterguk
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 00:55) *
1 magistrate wanted to let me off


Huh?
Jlc
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 00:55) *
they couldn't give me 6 points as it would be like a 'slapped wrist' considering other drivers get the same for doing 42 in a 30. They asked whether they were allowed to give me 9 points as a compromise but the court said either 6 or a ban, so they went with the ban.

I can see how in the confines of the law they had no choice, but I still think that for a first offence the punishment is ridiculously harsh.

6 points would be perfectly within the guidelines. 42 in a 30 would be 4 points.

9 was never an option for a single offence.

'First offence' doesn't really exist - the guidelines do not recognise such. Remember the speed wasn't marginally over.
The Rookie
I assume the let off comment was not banning you rather than letting you off completely!
Logician
QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 01:05) *
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 00:55) *
1 magistrate wanted to let me off
Huh?


I take that to mean give points rather than disqualify. A very indiscreet bench if it was possible to perceive that from the well.

NewJudge
I have followed this thread with interest and now it is over I think it might help you if I make observations about some of the things you have said (and in some respects reiterating what others have said in replies to the points you have raised). I think this is necessary because throughout, and even now after sentencing, you portray a sense of victimhood which I believe is unjustified. It may help should you ever be unfortunate enough to find yourself in a similar position.

First of all you view of the offence itself was somewhat telling and demonstrates a degree of naivety on your part:

“…and a speed limit going sharply from 60 to a 30 is quite a ridiculous drop in speed,…”

There are instances of this all over the country particularly where single carriageway roads subject to the NSL pass through towns or villages. It is quite normal and should be expected and coped with by a competent driver.

“…but I drive to the speed of the road,…”

But you should drive to the legal speed limit, as this episode clearly demonstrates.

So on to your sentencing. I don’t know how you discovered that “one magistrate wanted to let you off”. Magistrates announce their decisions as a Bench and do not say that their decision was unanimous or 2:1. I assume they made their decision in the courtroom rather than retiring (never good practice in my view for anything other than the most straightforward of decisions) and you may have overheard a few whispers. I also find it surprising that they should ask if they had an option to impose more than six points.

Your contention that the decision was harsh is not supported by the sentencing guidelines. As you probably realise by now, 62 in a 30 is beyond the scale that the sentencing guidelines provide. The sentence for the highest category (up to 60mph) is either 6 points or a ban of between 7 and 56 days. This range of sentence is intended to cover speeds of 51 to 60 mph. So in fact, far from being harsh, your penalty was only half the maximum. Bearing in mind that you were off the scale, travelling at twice the legal limit, and also bearing in mind that points or disqualification periods do not qualify for a discount for a guilty plea in England and Wales, you may well consider that you were treated leniently.

It is unfortunate that you had to travel some distance to court, but cases are normally heard in the area where the offence took place. One of the reasons for this is because Magistrates usually have local knowledge and will sometimes know of particular problems or circumstances associated with, say, a particular stretch of road. In all honesty you were never going to get anywhere with this offence unless there was some deficiency in the signage or order that dictated the limit (which was adequately covered by others).

Lastly it is unfortunate that you were not given an account number to make your payments. It is a simple mistake and a quick call to the court should resolve the matter. Courts are not in the business of “making it easy” for people, but nonetheless mistakes do happen.

I know all this seems judgemental which is not why you raised your question. But you seem to have portrayed a picture of being hard done by throughout and in fact I believe you were treated perfectly fairly and justly having committed a speeding offence at the very top end of the scale.
peterguk
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 12:36) *
Stuff


IMHO, a well written, informative post.
Emmgrem
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 11:08) *
I assume the let off comment was not banning you rather than letting you off completely!


Sorry, yes, I meant 'let me off' a ban
Emmgrem
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 12:36) *
I have followed this thread with interest and now it is over I think it might help you if I make observations about some of the things you have said (and in some respects reiterating what others have said in replies to the points you have raised). I think this is necessary because throughout, and even now after sentencing, you portray a sense of victimhood which I believe is unjustified. It may help should you ever be unfortunate enough to find yourself in a similar position.

First of all you view of the offence itself was somewhat telling and demonstrates a degree of naivety on your part:

“…and a speed limit going sharply from 60 to a 30 is quite a ridiculous drop in speed,…”

There are instances of this all over the country particularly where single carriageway roads subject to the NSL pass through towns or villages. It is quite normal and should be expected and coped with by a competent driver.

“…but I drive to the speed of the road,…”

But you should drive to the legal speed limit, as this episode clearly demonstrates.

So on to your sentencing. I don’t know how you discovered that “one magistrate wanted to let you off”. Magistrates announce their decisions as a Bench and do not say that their decision was unanimous or 2:1. I assume they made their decision in the courtroom rather than retiring (never good practice in my view for anything other than the most straightforward of decisions) and you may have overheard a few whispers. I also find it surprising that they should ask if they had an option to impose more than six points.

Your contention that the decision was harsh is not supported by the sentencing guidelines. As you probably realise by now, 62 in a 30 is beyond the scale that the sentencing guidelines provide. The sentence for the highest category (up to 60mph) is either 6 points or a ban of between 7 and 56 days. This range of sentence is intended to cover speeds of 51 to 60 mph. So in fact, far from being harsh, your penalty was only half the maximum. Bearing in mind that you were off the scale, travelling at twice the legal limit, and also bearing in mind that points or disqualification periods do not qualify for a discount for a guilty plea in England and Wales, you may well consider that you were treated leniently.

It is unfortunate that you had to travel some distance to court, but cases are normally heard in the area where the offence took place. One of the reasons for this is because Magistrates usually have local knowledge and will sometimes know of particular problems or circumstances associated with, say, a particular stretch of road. In all honesty you were never going to get anywhere with this offence unless there was some deficiency in the signage or order that dictated the limit (which was adequately covered by others).

Lastly it is unfortunate that you were not given an account number to make your payments. It is a simple mistake and a quick call to the court should resolve the matter. Courts are not in the business of “making it easy” for people, but nonetheless mistakes do happen.

I know all this seems judgemental which is not why you raised your question. But you seem to have portrayed a picture of being hard done by throughout and in fact I believe you were treated perfectly fairly and justly having committed a speeding offence at the very top end of the scale.



Ok, well thanks for the observation. Yes I do believe I'm hard done by.... though not hard done by within the confines of the law, as you'll note my previous post mentioned. I completely sympathise with the magistrates' decision as they can only go by the guidelines provided to them. However, more broadly than this I just don't believe in speeding penalties or speed cameras altogether - they are just a scam to make money for the government, a waste of police and court time, and not a deterrent. Dangerous driving should be the one to concentrate on. Dangerous drivers may also be speeding at the time, but you can also speed and be completely safe! I know there are a brigade of people who won't agree, but I know that many other people will consider speed cameras a nuisance and be on this forum because of that. I still think there are quite a few judgemental people on this forum providing no help other than 'well, you shouldn't have been speeding then should you! tut tut'... which is clearly no help by the time you turn to a place like this, which is why it surprises me so much.

To address a few of your other points... If I was expecting a 60mph road to drop to a 30mph at any minute every time I went on one, I'd have my foot on the brake the whole time. I still maintain it's not the right way to drop the speed. If they really wanted to make the road safer they could drop it more gradually. But the only reason it's done this way is to catch people out by sitting right on the line where it changes, as they know they'll catch people!

"But you should drive to the legal speed limit, as this episode clearly demonstrates"... again, thanks for that piece of insight, but telling someone that they should really be sticking to the speed limit, after the fact, really is stating the obvious, and again a bit patronising on a forum like this where people have already been speeding! Everyone knows there are speed limits, but if people never broke them there would be no need for forums like this.

Yes the magistrates made their decision in the room, in front of me, and I could hear every part of their argument. This was what I was expecting as many other people on this forum have recounted similar stories. One magistrate wanted to give me 6 points, the other 2 thought it would have to be a ban but they could see my points as they knew the road themselves and agreed that it was a sudden drop in speed limit and on a hill, so they could sympathise with that. They asked for advice on whether to give 9 points, as they weren't sure it was possible and they were told they couldn't. I'm not sure why you're questioning whether all this is true, as I'd hardly make it up for fun!

When you say that points or disqualification don't count for a discount for a guilty plea.... This isn't right. My paperwork mentioned all throughout about the 33% discount for guilty plea, and when my fine was read out in court it took the discount for early guilty plea into account.

The court was no where near where the offence took place. Also some people had to travel 3 hours in the traffic or further from what people were saying in the waiting room. All Hampshire traffic offences now go to one central place in the very north of Hampshire on the border with Surrey, meaning that no matter what type of offence or where it was committed you have to go to the same place.

Another reason I may have come across as 'hard done by' is because I tracked down several other posts where people had done the exact same speed as me recently on here and in all cases they seemed to escape with 6 points and a fine. So in comparison to others, I seem to have faired worse from the sample I saw. However I've already mentioned that I'm OK with the ban instead of the points now. Again, I realise that in the confines of the law the punishment was fair. I don't blame the magistrates as they have to follow the guidelines given. I just think the guidelines don't really do any job except to get money out of the victim. When it's my first offence I'm hardly a dangerous driver who must be kept off the road for 28 days for everyone's safety am I! Also the government are reviewing the charges and fees associated with speeding offences at the moment as they are sometimes more than the fine itself, so this speaks volumes!

BaggieBoy
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 19:05) *
If I was expecting a 60mph road to drop to a 30mph at any minute every time I went on one, I'd have my foot on the brake the whole time.

I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find a NSL to 30 limit change that gives no adequate time to slow down. Limit signs should be visible for up to 100 yards before the change, plenty of time to reduce the speed, you wouldn't even need to brake.
southpaw82
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 19:05) *
When you say that points or disqualification don't count for a discount for a guilty plea.... This isn't right. My paperwork mentioned all throughout about the 33% discount for guilty plea, and when my fine was read out in court it took the discount for early guilty plea into account.

It is right, though you might have misunderstood what was meant. The fine will be discounted for an early guilty plea. The points or ban will not be, unless you're in Scotland.
peterguk
QUOTE (Emmgrem @ Tue, 20 Oct 2015 - 19:05) *
If I was expecting a 60mph road to drop to a 30mph at any minute every time I went on one, I'd have my foot on the brake the whole time.


Good driving involves observation skills. Looking farther ahead than your front bumper. Try a few advanced driver lessons - one of the core areas they work on is observation.
NewJudge
I deliberately made no judgemental remarks until after you had kindly posted the details of the outcome. In fact I made no contributions until I felt I could help you understand the court process (when you were deliberating over whether to appear or plead by post). Sorry you found my contention that you should drive to the speed limit patronising. It was not meant to be; it was simply a response to you saying that you drive to the speed of the road.

However I’ll allow you the last word because since you state that you do just don't believe in speeding penalties or speed cameras altogether there is little I or anyone else can offer to help you feel a little less hard done by if you are unfortunate enough to be caught speeding again.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.