Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Speeding - Six Month Time Limit Query
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
NeverBetter
**** EDIT: The nature of my query has changed; I have received an NIP for exceeding a temporary 40mph limit, going through average speed cameras. However, the only TTRO I can find for the road specifies 50mph. I'm hoping this is a valid reason to challenge the NIP.
**** Original post below:

Hi all

I appreciate there are recent threads similar to this query, I have read them but I'm sure you appreciate I'd like to make 100% sure I have all the info!

After 18 years driving, I today received my first ever NIP (within 14 days of offence); nothing too major (bang on 10%+2 mph of the temporary limit, caught by SPECS cameras), but it's on a route I've driven every day for months and 5 further times since the date of this offence. Obviously I'm worried that I could be looking at further offences and a totting up ban.

Assuming all the info given on the forms is correct and the NIPs are within 14 days, is the best course of action simply to sign each and return individually?

I'm surprised I exceeded the limit at all so would expect any further ones to be 10%-15% over the limit. Therefore I'm hoping to get SAC for this one, and very worst case would be 3 points & £100 for a maximum of five times since (I seriously, seriously doubt this eventuality - I'm just thinking worst possible case). At what point - if any at all - would it be worth engaging a solicitor to check the evidence is correct?

I have not done anything with the paperwork yet.

Advice appreciated (besides, "pay more attention", I've learned that one...)

thanks

NB
peterguk
You can't "check the evidence is correct".

Either you accept the SAC/CoFP (whichever is received), or you take the matter to court where you will be presented with the evidence once you have entered a NG plea.

FWIW, SPECS cameras are 99.9% reliable.

Complete each S.172 as you receive them, and see what comes back. SAC for the first, 3 points for each subsequent one. 12 points is a 6 month ban.
NeverBetter
Thanks for the reply

>You can't "check the evidence is correct".
>FWIW, SPECS cameras are 99.9% reliable.

Ok, that answers the question - I wondered if, for instance, the position of cameras was subject to regulation, or if they needed calibrating like other speed measuring equipment; basically if there were checks I could make to ensure no doubt on the reading(s).

Thanks again.

southpaw82
They are calibrated but you have no right to any evidence unless you go to court.
Bjwwil
You have my every sympathy
NeverBetter
I received an NIP for 46mph in a temporary 40mph limit. The limit itself is within a temporary 50mph limit on a dual carriageway. The TTRO for the road works only specifies the 50mph limit, not a 40mph one. Is this a valid challenge to the prosecution?

thanks
NB
The Rookie
Related to this case http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=101010&hl= ?

One case, one thread please, I've asked a Mod' to merge for you.

Yes if the TRO only creates a 50mph limit then they can't enforce a 40 mph limit, before making a challenge you have to be very certain it is the only usable TRO.
NeverBetter
Thanks Rookie; I wasn't sure about one-case-one-thread as it's two very different questions

Appreciate the response! As far as the only usable TRO, it's the only one I can find on legislation.gov.uk but have requested a copy of the relevant TRO from the council as well.
The Rookie
If it's SPECS I assume a major road, so you need to talk to the relevant Highways Agency not the local council.
uk_mike
There is a significant delay on things going up on Legislation.gov.uk so it's not a reliable source for temporary limits.

As others say you need to check for the TTRO with the relevant traffic authority (Highways England for Trunk roads and motorways, the local council for others).
NeverBetter
Thank you for the advice. I requested the TTRO from Highways England and indeed there is one with the 40mph limit in place, unlike the literally dozens of others on legislation.gov.uk for that site, it refers to the location by a different name hence my previous searches didn't find it!

Korting
If it refers to the location by a different name, how do you know its the one that pertains to the location you were accused of speeding in?
NeverBetter
QUOTE (Michael 194 @ Thu, 3 Sep 2015 - 14:45) *
If it refers to the location by a different name, how do you know its the one that pertains to the location you were accused of speeding in?


It's still very specific about the location, just doesn't use the combination of words I'd been searching on ("A34", "Milton", "Interchange")
The Rookie
As long as it defines the right stretch of road, that is all that matters obviously.
NeverBetter
Hi All

I'm currently going through the process after receiving helpful advice here (my initial thread has disappeared due to it's age I think). Basically, caught for 46 in a 40 through roadworks in my wife's car. The NIP came within 14 days. She named me in the S172, I then received my own S172 and I have now received the CoFP / SAC / Summons choice letter.

The offence was committed at the beginning of August. The letter states the SAC must be taken within four months, which suggests I could book one for the end of that period, not attend, and it would likely then be six months after the date of the offence. Does this mean that if they tried to revert to CoFP, I could plead not guilty and it would go to court (and then fail due to the amount of time since the offence) ?

Alternatively, what if we had both kept naming each other on the S172 notices for six months?

Of course I'm just going to take the SAC, and I'm assuming the process has measures to stop such antics, but I was curious - does anyone know?

thanks
NB
AntonyMMM
The 4 month cut off to complete the SAC is set at that point for a reason - they know they still have time to go through the CoFP process and raise a summons if necessary - chance of a time-out is very slim.

If you repeatedly name each other then one (very possibly both) of you would be prosecuted for the s172 offence ..... not a great idea.
andy_foster
Your original thread, which magically disappeared due to its age, even though the forum software does not do that, is here. However, if you simply browse for your original thread, rather than clicking on your username and selecting threads started by you, you might have to change the viewing options to show threads older than a certain age.

When I went to school, unless we were d*cking around in Fortran, four months was not six months. Similarly if the doctor tells you that you only have two weeks to live, you don't get to choose the two weeks.

Deliberately naming the wrong driver would be perverting the course of public justice and/or perjury. Conspiring with your wife to do so would add conspiracy as well as her committing both offences. Asking us to conspire with you to pervert the course of justice is a very quick way to make yourself unwelcome here (even quicker than repeatedly starting new threads for the same case).

NeverBetter
QUOTE (AntonyMMM @ Sat, 24 Oct 2015 - 18:02) *
The 4 month cut off to complete the SAC is set at that point for a reason - they know they still have time to go through the CoFP process and raise a summons if necessary - chance of a time-out is very slim.

If you repeatedly name each other then one (very possibly both) of you would be prosecuted for the s172 offence ..... not a great idea.


Aaah you're right, it's four months from the date of offence, not date of the offer as I thought!
NeverBetter
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 24 Oct 2015 - 18:02) *
Your original thread, which magically disappeared due to its age, even though the forum software does not do that, is here. However, if you simply browse for your original thread, rather than clicking on your username and selecting threads started by you, you might have to change the viewing options to show threads older than a certain age.


Thanks, I was using the page controls at the top of the list, which for me only offer up to four pages of history.

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 24 Oct 2015 - 18:02) *
When I went to school, unless we were d*cking around in Fortran, four months was not six months. Similarly if the doctor tells you that you only have two weeks to live, you don't get to choose the two weeks.

Deliberately naming the wrong driver would be perverting the course of public justice and/or perjury. Conspiring with your wife to do so would add conspiracy as well as her committing both offences. Asking us to conspire with you to pervert the course of justice is a very quick way to make yourself unwelcome here (even quicker than repeatedly starting new threads for the same case).


See, this level of sanctimony just isn't warranted, is it? I said it's just a thought for discussion, so not related to the case, and I said I've admitted guilt, so clearly not inviting anyone to conspire with me. Why respond like this?

But you have answered the query so thanks for that.
ford poplar
Offering good advice is not sanctimonious, just irritating when OP has not searched for similar threads posing same question. I am guessing the advice provided would be the same - completing the SAC asap (if offered) is the least expensive Penalty you can expect.
StationCat
QUOTE (NeverBetter @ Sat, 24 Oct 2015 - 17:44) *
Alternatively, what if we had both kept naming each other on the S172 notices for six months?

We call this a circular nomination and does not count as a genuine nomination. You would both then end up in court for 'Fail to Furnish'.
southpaw82
QUOTE (NeverBetter @ Sat, 24 Oct 2015 - 18:38) *
clearly not inviting anyone to conspire with me..


You do, here

QUOTE (NeverBetter @ Sat, 24 Oct 2015 - 17:44) *
Alternatively, what if we had both kept naming each other on the S172 notices for six months?


That sort of thing normally gets you kicked off of here, so Andy's response was quite restrained.
JP1978
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 24 Oct 2015 - 22:56) *
QUOTE (NeverBetter @ Sat, 24 Oct 2015 - 18:38) *
clearly not inviting anyone to conspire with me..


You do, here

QUOTE (NeverBetter @ Sat, 24 Oct 2015 - 17:44) *
Alternatively, what if we had both kept naming each other on the S172 notices for six months?


That sort of thing normally gets you kicked off of here, so Andy's response was quite restrained.


The thing is OP - the site itself cannot and will not be seen to encourage people breaking the law. If people were to condone the circular nomination and other time wasting tactics it would find itself in trouble with the law itself and possibly be closed down.



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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.