Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] 74 in a 60 zone, AND Driving Without Due Care and Attention.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
elmay1234
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - July 2008
Date of the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 8 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A134 Thetford Road, Northwold, towards Stoke Ferry
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 - I was on a journey of some 300 miles, and I do not recall any incident. According to Google Maps, the road seems long and straight. I recall that the roads in that area are generally single carriageway.

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: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:39:27 +0100
Gaza
Have they specifically said Speeding & DWDCA? Could the camera have captured you munching a sandwich (or something similar) on that stretch of road? They have successfully prosecuted for offenses other than speeding on the basis of scamera evidence. Mobile phones and a woman putting on her make-up spring to mind.
elmay1234
Thanks for your near-instant response.

Yes, Speeding and DWDCA are both mentioned. Interesting idea that the offence could be munching a sandwich etc, but I can't think what I might have been doing. I didn't eat on the move, didn't use a phone, and I don't wear make-up. I really can't imagine what it might be about.

The NIP states "camera detected", so I am considering asking for the photos. Any thoughts on that? I do not see how I could admit guilt unless/until I know what I am accused of.

By the way I have a 30 year unblemished driving record. Any idea what are the prospects for punishment if I am guilty?

Cheers.
Gaza
QUOTE
I do not see how I could admit guilt unless/until I know what I am accused of.


By naming yourself you are not admitting guilt of an offense. You are confirming that you were the driver of the vehicle photographed/videoed at the location, time and date on the NiP.

You can always ask for photos "to help aid identification of the driver" (don't ask for "evidence" as you are not entitled to it until such times as you receive a summons). The photo they send may well just show the speed and a close-up of the driver. It will be difficult to determine why they are considering DWDCA from a photo unless it shows you stuffing your face with a Big Mac.

You could of course contact them and ask them about the DWDCA allegation. Most probably they will refuse to discuss it with you until you have signed and returned the NiP.
Zed Victor One
Just a thought but do you recall overtaking anyone on this section of road and if so could it have been subject of solid white liines?
elmay1234
Now, thats a thought, Zed.

I wasn't in any particular hurry that day, so the only reason I can think of why I would have been going fast would be if I had been overtaking. The road was long and straight after all. Some sort of solid line issue is at least possible.
Gaza
Looking at Google Maps there does not appear to be any solid double white lines. However, there are a number of sections with throwback arrows leading to cross-hatched centre marksings such as shown here - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=e...mp;t=k&z=19 .

It looks as though they are there to protect minor roads and farm lane entraces and exits. Is it illegal to overtake on these?
southpaw82
Cross hatch centre markings can only be entered/crossed where the driver can see it is safe to do so. They are not an absolute prohibition.
Gaza
QUOTE
Cross hatch centre markings can only be entered/crossed where the driver can see it is safe to do so. They are not an absolute prohibition.


Though that was the case. If the DWDCA is related to this it may be that a vehicle was waiting, or trying, to enter the carriageway and the OP caused them to stop. Pure speculation on my part though.
elmay1234
Thanks very much to all who have taken the time to post here to try to help me with this. Much appreciated. I don't think we're going to get much further though until we have sight of the photos, so I will take Gaza's advice and write to Norfolk Police to ask for photos that "might assist in validating the driver".

I will let you know what turns up, and post censored versions of the pics if I can.

Cheers all.
Zed Victor One
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 - 16:28) *
Cross hatch centre markings can only be entered/crossed where the driver can see it is safe to do so. They are not an absolute prohibition.



southpaw, I understood that if the hatchings are bordered by a broken white line you are as you said entitled to enter them providing it is safe to do so. However if they are bordered by a solid white line you are not entitled to enter them unless under the circumstances outlined for normal solid white lines.
From what I can make out through the green line superimposed on the A.134 on google they appear to be bordered by broken white lines but I'm sure the above applies regarding solid borders.
southpaw82
QUOTE (Zed Victor One @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 - 23:26) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 - 16:28) *
Cross hatch centre markings can only be entered/crossed where the driver can see it is safe to do so. They are not an absolute prohibition.



southpaw, I understood that if the hatchings are bordered by a broken white line you are as you said entitled to enter them providing it is safe to do so. However if they are bordered by a solid white line you are not entitled to enter them unless under the circumstances outlined for normal solid white lines.
From what I can make out through the green line superimposed on the A.134 on google they appear to be bordered by broken white lines but I'm sure the above applies regarding solid borders.


You're quite right. For anyone who cares to look the solid ones are Diagrams 1013.1 and the broken ones 1013.3 in the TSRGD.
GM71
QUOTE (Zed Victor One @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 - 23:26) *
From what I can make out through the green line superimposed on the A.134 on google they appear to be bordered by broken white lines but I'm sure the above applies regarding solid borders.

You can remove the superimposed green line on Google satellite maps by unticking the "Show labels" option that appears when clicking on the "Satellite" button (top right). The markings on that road are definately a hatched area with broken lines either side which means it's legal to cross them if safe to do so.

Another thought is that the OP could possibly be caught on camera with his/her eyes clearly not on the road (i.e. head looking down at the stereo etc.). Getting hold of the photos is the only real way to find out for sure.
cjard
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 - 23:47) *
You're quite right. For anyone who cares to look the solid ones are Diagrams 1013.1 and the broken ones 1013.3 in the TSRGD.


And also 1040.x 1041.x and 1042.x

The general rule can be simplified to "treat a solid line like a brick wall" - don't cross it unless you know the limited scenarios when youre allowed to (i.e. when directed, when overtaking some sub-10mph-road-users, when accessing property over the other side, or to avoid an accident)

The hatched areas in 1031.x but it must always be ensured that when the line nearest the vehicle is solid, that the line remain on the right hand side of the vehicle

I don't recall what the law is when overtaking and the lines go solid while youre still overtaking. I presume you are required to return to your side of the road promptly and remain there
cjard
QUOTE (GM71 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 - 23:58) *
Another thought is that the OP could possibly be caught on camera with his/her eyes clearly not on the road (i.e. head looking down at the stereo etc.). Getting hold of the photos is the only real way to find out for sure.


The test of whether a person is guilty of DWDCA is based on whether a normal, sensible driver would deem that the accused actions fell below the standard of what would be expected of a reasonable and competent driver. As such, a photo showing the driver to be looking down would probably not be a good example of careless driving, but if the photo showed him turned around to smack the screaming kids in the back, or leaning across the car to kiss the person sat in the passenger seat then it might be. If DWDCA is to be asserted from a photo then it would probably need to be a still of an action that an ordniary person would take an appreciable amount of time to complete. A single still, shot just as a person is blinking, couldnt be used to prove whether a perosn was merely blinking, falling asleep or deliberately driving with their eyes shut, for example
elmay1234
Hello again,

I'd appreciate any comments on the following:

I now have images received in response to my my request for images "to help identify the driver", and hopefully they will appear below. It seems the equipment used was an LTI 20/20, and so these are stills taken from a video.

1. The close-up image is taken 24 seconds before the distant one, and seems to have been taken from a different angle. I strongly suspect that the two images were taken by different cameras. If so, is that any problem for the prosecution?

2. The distant image (with speed indication) is taken over the top of what looks like a green stealth vehicle. Some sort of chicken wire fence is visible behind the vehicle, extending to slightly above it. Does anyone know whether an LTI 20/20 is likely to be affected by such a construction?

3. I can't see any evidence of DWDCA from the photos, but it looks like I am about to overtake, and unless the truck was travelling very slowly, I might have crossed the white line to get round him. Does the video actually have to show my tyres over the line to secure a successful prosecution? I ask the question because the vehicle behind me might have obscured exactly where my tyres were by the time I overtook.

4. I have attached a link to a satellite view of where I suspect this happened. The view shows entirely different road markings so I guess these markings are new. Is there any requirement for new road markings to be signed for any period of time after they are changed?





Here is the stretch of road, and I travelling from right to left.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=pe33+9&ll=52.513149,0.636142&spn=0.004936,0.009527&t=k&z=17

Thanks in advance.

Pete D
Those lines do not look like the ones on the aerial image. Were they solid lines around the central boxes. They may have video footage that you did not get back in before the solid lines thus the charge, You could make an appointment and go and few the video but DO NOT SAY ANYTHING. say view it a couple of times, thank them and leave. Post back. Pete D
cappsy
the chicken wire is the back of a flatbed transit van of sumsort so he was obvously sitting on the side of the road on a hill possibly?
The Rookie
It certainly looks like later in the video you may well be seen to be passing the truck on the wrong side of those solid lines.....although you may get back in in time as I would guess from your speed/location you've just passed the first truck.

For info you're clocked at 74, the - sign means going away and the * means you're exceeding the preset prosecution threshold for the site.

As long as the video/laser alignment is correct, I can't see anything in those stills that will give an erroneous reading, althought at 600m the effective impact are of the laser is over 2m across, so there is a lot insode that circle!

Simon



Gaza
It is clear he was tracking you. The first still shows Log 17 and the next one Log 18. I would guess he tried to zap you once but got a speed reading at or below the threshold but when he saw you trying to ovwertake zapped you again to get the 74mph. This and the same ref - 740406 - suggests without any doubt it was the same camera.

I've tried playing around with the distances on Google Maps to try to gauge where he was but I'm hitting a blank. Assuming your though on the location is correct then then their photo places you at about B on this map - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&sadd...mp;t=k&z=17 . 605m is about 0.38 of a mile. Adding that in a straight line puts the scammer at position A. However, it is clear is off the main carriageway but that would put him in the middle of the woods!

I think it is safe to assume the DWDCA is coming from crossing the solid lines. The full session video will probably show this. Your only hope is a clear and unambiguous view is prevented either by the blue or red truck.
cjard
In the 74mph shot, are you coming in after overtaking the nearest truck or are you pulling out to overtake the furthest truck?

Is there anything you know of locally that would help date the google map data in that area? This road does appear different to the google maps, and that's either because the map is old or in the wrong place.. Be nice to double check which

elmay1234
QUOTE (Gaza @ Wed, 20 Aug 2008 - 11:47) *
It is clear he was tracking you. The first still shows Log 17 and the next one Log 18. I would guess he tried to zap you once but got a speed reading at or below the threshold but when he saw you trying to ovwertake zapped you again to get the 74mph. This and the same ref - 740406 - suggests without any doubt it was the same camera.

I've tried playing around with the distances on Google Maps to try to gauge where he was but I'm hitting a blank. Assuming your though on the location is correct then then their photo places you at about B on this map - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&sadd...mp;t=k&z=17 . 605m is about 0.38 of a mile. Adding that in a straight line puts the scammer at position A. However, it is clear is off the main carriageway but that would put him in the middle of the woods!

I think it is safe to assume the DWDCA is coming from crossing the solid lines. The full session video will probably show this. Your only hope is a clear and unambiguous view is prevented either by the blue or red truck.


First of all, thanks very much to all who have responded. Much appreciated.

I see what you mean, Gaza. I can't resolve that either. I am also puzzling over how he could possibly have taken a snap of the right side of my car (near shot) when he was clearly located off the road to the left side.

I live about 100 miles from Thetford, and have never been on that road (A134) before as far as I know. I have no idea about how recent the satellite image is. There are two reasons I think this must be the spot - firstly there are only two right hand bends along the Thetford Road as far as I can make out, and secondly I think I can see the seemingly wooden constructions on the right side of the road in both the satellite image and the distant image. Does anyone local to the area recognise any of this to shed any light?

I still have no recollection of the incident, so I really can't say what I was about to do next. I think the only thing would be to try to make an appointment to go and see the video, and then to go and retrace my steps.

Does anyone see anything wrong with that plan?

Cheers.
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.