Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Caught doing 120 on a 70 limit motorway in Scotland
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Ade B
Hi there, often looked in here.... but now due to events earlier tonight I have to register and start posting.

Caught doing 120 in a 70 limit motorway in Scotland...... on the M74, near Strathclyde park.
They were parked up a slip road for services, and I saw the '120' on the hand held gun.

They said it would be classed as dangerous driving at that speed.
What would I be likely to get in this case?


Are there any ways out? Delays, possible defences, loopholes etc?
Not sure if I'll be able to go to court if I admit guilt either.....?

Undecided if I should fight it somehow or just beg for some lieniency!

Any advice appreciated.
quickboy
Dont know what sort of "defence" you had in mind at that speed. Getting on towards twice the legal limit isn't particularly clever regardless of traffic conditions. You could only hope that the BIB make a procedural error. Otherwise a ban is almost certain. Fill out the NIP wizard and let the experts on here take a look.
Faraway
if you were doing two miles a minute where did they stop you? if it was dark how do they know it was your car they clocked? were you still doing that speed when they did catch you?
Ade B
QUOTE (Faraway @ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 - 11:02) *
if you were doing two miles a minute where did they stop you? if it was dark how do they know it was your car they clocked? were you still doing that speed when they did catch you?


They appeared behind me once I'd slowed down to exit the motorway around a mile after where they said they had been parked.
I was pulled over about a quarter of a mile later off the motorway.

Has it been known for darkness to mess with readings or make them invalid? Useful to say in court?
Faraway
to get up to 120mph and then close on you took them 30 seconds? are you sure it was a mile down the road? seems that they are not averse to travelling at dangerous speeds in the chase. if they reckon it was dangerous for you to drive at that speed then it could be argued it was for them too. the darkness doesnt affect the machine but it might have affected their ability to stop the correct car if you feel you were not doing 120mph.

you might want to establish the distance from where they pinged you to where they stopped you and work out what speed you averaged.
Ade B
QUOTE (Faraway @ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 - 11:52) *
to get up to 120mph and then close on you took them 30 seconds? are you sure it was a mile down the road? seems that they are not averse to travelling at dangerous speeds in the chase. if they reckon it was dangerous for you to drive at that speed then it could be argued it was for them too. the darkness doesnt affect the machine but it might have affected their ability to stop the correct car if you feel you were not doing 120mph.

you might want to establish the distance from where they pinged you to where they stopped you and work out what speed you averaged.



I'll need to check that distance.... wouldn't think it was over 2 miles anyway.
Also I did see 1** on my GPS on that stretch! Not sure if that was before or after they saw me.

Also it was discovered that the cars MOT had lapsed by a few weeks when they were doing a vehichle check, would this make me more likley to get the dangerous driving conviction upheld as opposed to it being reduced to speeding? (the car being argued as unroadworthy?).

How much does a lawyer usually cost for a case like this? I have no experience of using one....
Faraway


You might want to edit out the bit about the speed you mentioned on the GPS.
markie
Assuming you were doing that speed, for them to catch up to you - they would have to do in excess of that speed.

For police to drive at that sort of speed are they required to have their blue lights on at all times in any location? Regardless of the situation?



Gaza
QUOTE (markie @ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 - 14:24) *
For police to drive at that sort of speed are they required to have their blue lights on at all times in any location? Regardless of the situation?


No.


The two services in this area are either Bothwell (southbound) or Hamilton (Northbound). If my memory serves me correctly both have entrances and exits adjacent to each other rather than the more traditional "in and out" at opposite ends. It is perfectly feasible for them to have been sitting on the exit slip with the engine running and be able to reach sufficient speed to catch the OP especially if he was slowing for the exit.

Ade B - What direction were you heading and what junction did you leave at?

QUOTE (Faraway @ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 - 11:52) *
seems that they are not averse to travelling at dangerous speeds in the chase. if they reckon it was dangerous for you to drive at that speed then it could be argued it was for them too.


Nonsense. You would fail to argue in court that a highly trained Traffic Officer with a partner (remember this is Scotland so there would have been two of them) in a well maintained car driving at high speed would be dangerous.


QUOTE (Ade B @ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 - 01:34) *
They said it would be classed as dangerous driving at that speed.
What would I be likely to get in this case?


A minimum of 12 months ban and probably an order to resit your driving test before getting your license back

QUOTE (Ade B @ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 - 01:34) *
Are there any ways out? Delays, possible defences, loopholes etc?


A roadside stop by two BiB is extremely difficult to fight. You can hope for some kind of procedural cock-up but that would probably need a solicitor to spot.

QUOTE (Ade B @ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 - 01:34) *
Not sure if I'll be able to go to court if I admit guilt either.....?


Why?

QUOTE (Ade B @ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 - 01:34) *
Undecided if I should fight it somehow or just beg for some lieniency!


Fight on what grounds? You don't seem to be disputing the speed.
Faraway
"Nonsense. You would fail to argue in court that a highly trained Traffic Officer with a partner (remember this is Scotland so there would have been two of them) in a well maintained car driving at high speed would be dangerous."

You would think it was nonsense but one solicitor defending my mate is using that self same argument to argue that he wasnt driving dangerously. It doesnt excuse his speeding but if the BiB have to go faster than 120mph on a motorway that surely must also be argued to be dangerous to other road users regardless of how well trained they might be. They are clearly putting others at risk with such behaviour.
jobo
were going down the wrong line with this police are dangerous, even if they were it doesnt make the ops driving less so

theres a possible srgument about whether the car they pinged is the same on they pulled, did they loose sight of it

is there a junction where ether the op could have came on the mway or where another car could have escaped whilst out of sight of the bib, they probly have vid which would show this

the mot is comlete irelivent, if there going for dangerous condition they have to try a lot harder than just showing theres no mot in place
Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (Faraway @ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 - 15:51) *
"Nonsense. You would fail to argue in court that a highly trained Traffic Officer with a partner (remember this is Scotland so there would have been two of them) in a well maintained car driving at high speed would be dangerous."

You would think it was nonsense but one solicitor defending my mate is using that self same argument to argue that he wasnt driving dangerously. It doesnt excuse his speeding but if the BiB have to go faster than 120mph on a motorway that surely must also be argued to be dangerous to other road users regardless of how well trained they might be. They are clearly putting others at risk with such behaviour.

I presume that the solicitor is running this argument in an effort to persuade the CPS/PF to remove the Dangerous Driving from the sheet but its a sticky wicket at best and as it could well be argued that it goes to the ability/integrity of the police officers involved and consequently may well open up the possibility of the defendant's driving history being brought into evidence before a finding of guilt. My personal view is that unless you have an inexperienced officer (if he is on Traffic he is unlikely to be) then attempting this as a line of defence is at best fraught given the level of training he will have had in high-speed and pursuit driving. The OP is unlikely to be able to counter this and even if he was on off-duty or ex-officer, with similar training, making this known could only serve to aggravate the offence in terms of possible sentence. In any event it has no bearing on the facts.

Aside from that it should be borne in mind that Dangerous Driving is triable either way (it can be heard in either a lower or higher court). As a base, dependant upon how "serious" the excess speed is viewed by the court, the sentence will incur a minimum disqualification of 12 months and this could well be extended to 15 months. In addition, there is likely to be a community order of some sort and a fine, which even on summary conviction could amount to as much as £5,000. This is not an offence to be trifled with and you may want to seek some formal legal advice when you receive your citation.
Ade B
The idea of claiming the were driving at a dangerous speed sounds tenuous and hard to prove. Also I don't believe they would have been.... I don't believe speeding on a motorway at all when driving carefully deserves any punishment, but that's beside the point just now.

I guess I will automatically get sent to court even if I plead guilty?
Don't want to just do it by the mail.... would rather be there in person to show some remorse etc etc etc.....

If charged with DD, how would I go about having it changed to just speeding or CD? Would I have to plead not guilty and go to court?

Also, from what I'm hearing the sentancing seems so random! Wonder if anyone gets anywhere if they appeal their sentance?
davidson
Ade im assuming you were exiting at Jcn 5? Davidson
Orangutang
120 ! I assume if it was your capri in the avatar you were driving it must be a 2.8 Injection or brooklands then! laugh.gif
Ade B
QUOTE (Orangutang @ Sun, 19 Oct 2008 - 21:10) *
120 ! I assume if it was your capri in the avatar you were driving it must be a 2.8 Injection or brooklands then! laugh.gif


It's a 150BHP 2.0 Pinto, quicker than a wheezy old 2.8 Cologne wink.gif
v105
It could have been a Tickford, not that there are many left these days.
Ade B
Is it possible to try and get my dangerous driving charge reduced to a speeding or careless charge?

If so how would I go about this myself if I chose not to use a lawyer?
The Rookie
QUOTE (Ade B @ Sun, 19 Oct 2008 - 23:56) *
QUOTE (Orangutang @ Sun, 19 Oct 2008 - 21:10) *
120 ! I assume if it was your capri in the avatar you were driving it must be a 2.8 Injection or brooklands then! laugh.gif


It's a 150BHP 2.0 Pinto, quicker than a wheezy old 2.8 Cologne wink.gif


Steady, my 2.8 was properly modified (full details on request!) and pushing out over 190bhp (XR4x4), your Crapi wouldn't have got close!

As for speeding being dangerous, you will want to read McLean V Proc. Fisc. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?d...;method=boolean as it makes it clear that high speed is NOT dabegrous driving unless their are other factors.

Simon
spanner345
QUOTE (Ade B @ Sun, 19 Oct 2008 - 23:56) *
QUOTE (Orangutang @ Sun, 19 Oct 2008 - 21:10) *
120 ! I assume if it was your capri in the avatar you were driving it must be a 2.8 Injection or brooklands then! laugh.gif


It's a 150BHP 2.0 Pinto, quicker than a wheezy old 2.8 Cologne wink.gif


If you ever get the chance, drive an R.S. 3100 mk 1 ...Rare as hen's teeth only ever seen 1
youngsyr
As an aside, why is travelling at 120 mph on a motorway automatically considered dangerous driving?

Would it be so if it were Michael Schumacher in a road legal race car (superior brakes, stability and handling to average)?

I personally have driven at 140 mph repeatedly in a road legal car without incident (on a race track), so I would argue that 120 mph is not automatically dangerous regardless of the conditions.

If the race track/driver example is considered irrelevant, what about de-restricted autobahns, if you could show similar conditions on such a road to the motorway the OP was caught on, would that not be grounds to say that 120 mph is not automatically dangerous?

Obviously it would still be speeding in any case.
roythebus
I too regularly drive at speeds over 100mph on motorways, not in the UK though. It is rarely dangerous except when other drivers get too close or soenone pulls out without indicating. the Germans seem to get by without a speed limit on their autobahns. The Belgians don't seem too bothered by top speeds either, providing it is not on a busy motorway in the rush hour or bad weather. Why we have this fetish with "speed kills" here is a mystery.
The Rookie
Speed PAYS....read the case I linked to though, spead isn't dangerous...

Simon
yellowninja600
Takes me back...

To about three years ago...

I was stopped for speeding on the M6 motorway. Copper said that he had clocked me at over 135mph but had averaged my speed out at 106.9mph... He said if I wanted an argument then 135mph would be going through to the courts. I didn't argue and instead landed the 106.9mph (maybe the calibrated speedo wasn't calibrated? Anyway...)...

He stated at the time that any speed over 100mph was viewed as dangerous BUT since it was sunny, dry and the road was almost empty then he was satisfied with a charge of simply speeding. He said that I DID present a danger to other road users and used the 'tyre could blow out scenario'... I mentioned that his tyre could ALSO blow out... He said 'fair game'. I also pointed out that I had had four brand new tyres fitted on the car for the journey!!! He was happy with his speeding fine and so were the prosecution... 21 day ban and a £275 fine... You should've been caught speeding in England, far more favourable than Scotland!

Fast forward to the present day. I am up in court at the end of next month for travelling at 100mph on my motorbike on the M8 on my birthday. The coppers presented a speeding charge. The prosecution are chasing a dangerous driving charge. This is probably due to my previous BUT also down to the fact that the Police have WRONGLY included in their summary of evidence that the traffic conditions were 'HEAVY'...

By the looks of your situation the Police WILL state any factors which could ensure a conviction for dangerous driving. The lack of an MoT definitely will not put you in good stead.

I personally have absolutely no issues with your speed as long as the road was quiet and you weren't being aggressive or competitive about it. I also do not understand, as mentioned, the obsession with 'speed kills'...

One for the future though... When the road is quiet Mr Plod knows that the speeds increase, he'll be there ready to cash in!!! Road or public safety IS just a cover for stealth taxing and victimising the individual. I've stated it before and I will state it again, WHY are cars/bikes capable of such speeds IF it is soooooooo dangerous???
woolfie
QUOTE (yellowninja600 @ Fri, 24 Oct 2008 - 14:00) *
One for the future though... When the road is quiet Mr Plod knows that the speeds increase, he'll be there ready to cash in!!! Road or public safety IS just a cover for stealth taxing and victimising the individual. I've stated it before and I will state it again, WHY are cars/bikes capable of such speeds IF it is soooooooo dangerous???

Well said.

A friend of mine was recently stopped on the M8 doing 90mph at 2am. He and the BiB were the only ones on the road. They tried to make out that he was a danger to other road users. He challenged them as to which other users, the cop looked a bit sheepish and replied "Us" Needless to say my friend got away with a warning


W
youngsyr
QUOTE (yellowninja600 @ Fri, 24 Oct 2008 - 14:00) *
He said that I DID present a danger to other road users and used the 'tyre could blow out scenario'... I mentioned that his tyre could ALSO blow out... He said 'fair game'. I also pointed out that I had had four brand new tyres fitted on the car for the journey!!!


A friend I was talking to at the weekend had a very similar situation and was stopped for driving at 90 mph on a desserted M25 (middle of the night). The officer asked him what he thought would happen if he had a blow out at that speed.

My friend replied "Not much, my car is fitted with run-flat tyres." smile.gif

Didn't stop him getting three points though. sad.gif
captain swoop
Just because a tyre is new doesn't mean you won't get a blow out, tyres can be defective but more likely is running over some debris on the road.
bama
ex -colleuage of mine had a citroen. got a flat on the motorway and didn't know until he got home. at the time they had a ad with one of their vehicles being driven with a wheel taken off. police argument is kind of valid but would apply equally to them when they put the clog down.
captain swoop
Would depend on how it went flat and which one it was.

My works van got a flat on the rear offside, I didn't notice until i pulled up at the job site. I would certainly have noticed if the front went with a bang.
bluegolfboy
LoL... We've all ended up 'off topic' discussing tyre integrity...

Any news with regards to the charges?
Ade B
Nothing as yet, and hopefully they continue to ntake their time too!
bluegolfboy
Did you produce any identification at the side of the road when stopped?
Ade B
QUOTE (bluegolfboy @ Mon, 1 Dec 2008 - 07:57) *
Did you produce any identification at the side of the road when stopped?


Yes I did sad.gif
bluegolfboy
Oh... Could possibly have been a way out if you hadn't. Still trying to clarify the situation with regards to that one...
Zorro
You could claim that you were flying a secret prototype that developed engine failure and you had to conduct an enforced landing on a nearby road; hence the speed. Not sure of the procedure of NIP V Pilots Licence!

rolleyes.gif
Ade B
Got my citation through, just over 4 weeks til my court date icon_cry.gif
All looks truthful and accurate in their description of the events rolleyes.gif

Got the option to plead by mail, but I guess they'll be harsher if you can't even be arsed to turn up at court?

Not sure what I'm going to do about legal representation yet...... and if 's worth getting a regular lawyer, one of the expensive motoring specialists or just representing myself????
bluegolfboy
Erm...

Depends how much money you have...

Remember when dealing with the lawyer at first not to tell him everything about the offence and actually admit it. I've made this mistake. Causes no end of problems...

Present the paperwork to him and ask his opinion. If you tell him every detail straight away he will most probably miss anything which could be wrong with the citation or indeed the case. Let him form his own opinion and share it with you. From here you'll be wanting to ask him what he feels he can do for you to make the situation more favourable.

Basically, admitting guilt straight up will put him in 'mitigation' mode. Denying guilty will just get his back up... Just be neutral and let him ask a few questions.

Before taking on a brief though do a little homework. This guy is apparently one of the best in Scotland:

http://www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com/

Was willing to defend my case for £1500 + VAT. A hell of a lot of money but it could be of benefit if indeed an error has been made. Unfortunately he doesn't do legal aide which you WILL be entitled to for this case due to the seriousness of it.

What you must decide is whether you are guilty or not. A lot of errors can be made at 120mph... The insurance/MoT side of things is a little harder to defend... Mitigation can go a long way in limiting things but on the face of things it ain't looking good.
Ade B
QUOTE (bluegolfboy @ Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 00:14) *
Erm...

Depends how much money you have...

Remember when dealing with the lawyer at first not to tell him everything about the offence and actually admit it. I've made this mistake. Causes no end of problems...

Present the paperwork to him and ask his opinion. If you tell him every detail straight away he will most probably miss anything which could be wrong with the citation or indeed the case. Let him form his own opinion and share it with you. From here you'll be wanting to ask him what he feels he can do for you to make the situation more favourable.

Basically, admitting guilt straight up will put him in 'mitigation' mode. Denying guilty will just get his back up... Just be neutral and let him ask a few questions.

Before taking on a brief though do a little homework. This guy is apparently one of the best in Scotland:

http://www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com/

Was willing to defend my case for £1500 + VAT. A hell of a lot of money but it could be of benefit if indeed an error has been made. Unfortunately he doesn't do legal aide which you WILL be entitled to for this case due to the seriousness of it.

What you must decide is whether you are guilty or not. A lot of errors can be made at 120mph... The insurance/MoT side of things is a little harder to defend... Mitigation can go a long way in limiting things but on the face of things it ain't looking good.



Good bit of advice theitr mate.

There was at least no mention of the lapsed MOT in the paperwork I received....
bluegolfboy
So if there is no mention of the MoT then I am assuming that this has been forgotten about. Is it definitely not mentioned anywhere?

Just that the lack of MoT would invalidate your insurance etc etc... Could be a bonus and look a lot more favourable if it came to being found guilty and starting mitigation without the judge being made aware of the lack of MoT...

Obviously if that detail is missing then it is something you could 'eventually' discuss with the lawyer. Get his view on it.

The distance is playing tricks on me now... What court have you been summonsed too? I've been charged with DD for doing 100mph. Was there any 'aggravating' circumstances or was it simple speeding up the motorway? Did you pass any traffic? Were you headed North or South? Junction numbers???
Fredd
QUOTE (bluegolfboy @ Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 23:19) *
Just that the lack of MoT would invalidate your insurance etc etc...

No it wouldn't.
bluegolfboy
I thought a condition of the insurance was that the vehicle was in a road-worthy condition? If that is the case then an MoT would be required as part-proof???
The Rookie
No, being MOTable is not the same as having an MOT - you could be driving to the MOT test after all.

Another 'urban legend' that is in fact cow excrement!

Simon
Fredd
QUOTE (bluegolfboy @ Fri, 19 Dec 2008 - 11:02) *
I thought a condition of the insurance was that the vehicle was in a road-worthy condition? If that is the case then an MoT would be required as part-proof???

You should read S148 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Amongst a list of things the insurer can't exclude are third party cover claims due to the condition of the vehicle.
bluegolfboy
Okay guys... I get you.

With regards to 'travelling to an MoT station' though... Would a Police Officer not be able to check this out? I thought that when you booked your car in for an MoT it was registered on the VOSA system which in turn feeds the ANPR system? I thought the grounds for driving a vehicle to the MoT station was that it had to be 'pre-booked'???
zeppledd
hi guys...
when booking a car for mot, its usually booked into the garages diary
its only when the tester enters the details of the vehicle into the vosa system,that the vehicle is logged
.... also when the vehicle is booked in, ( name and reg number,, we also note the time) may the vehicle(without a valid mot) be taken to and from the testing station, by the shortest route possible,,but only if the vehicle is roadworthy.... alan
The Rookie
Rubbish.....

That's for VED not for insurance, read Fredds post!

Simon
Ade B
Talking to a lawyer today they suggested that it was highly unlikely that I would get anything other than the mandatory 1 year ban for dangerous driving. mellow.gif

Any ideas at all? How could I possibly get the dangerous changed to careless or speeding?

Any ideas welcome no matter how 'off the wall'....
bluegolfboy
It'd be extremely difficult...

Have a little read at this and see if it brings up any 'thoughts':

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/resea...ngandthelawno26


I know it's not exactly great but it's always good to see someone else's written take on things...

Remember though:

Dangerous driving is defined in S2(A)(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A person is guilty of dangerous driving if:

1. the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and
2. it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous

From here: http://www.trafficlawyer4u.co.uk/trafficla...ous_driving.asp


Suppose you need to provide supporting evidence against point 1 & 2.

Would a competent and careful driver do 120mph on the motorway?

Erm... Depends on what a competent and careful driver is... Biggest question though is 'Was the motorway empty?'


Would a competent and careful driver know that doing so would be dangerous?

Erm... Depends on his views and prior experiences in life... Question would be 'Did you present danger to anyone else?'


Not really a great help and a good dose of bull*hit in there but you will need to satisfy those two points in a clear and factual basis... 120mph is NOT dangerous it all depends on what picture the judge makes of all the evidence. Clarifying the actual road conditions, traffic conditions, your view of the road, slip-roads etc could go some way towards things...

The problem is that even with a careless conviction the judge will still come down hard on you. 120mph is a good speed and unfortunately they do not like it... It'd be worth looking into getting the speed reduced IF you can find anything valid to support a reduction.
andy_foster
South of the border, it would seem unlikely that they could secure a DD conviction based solely on a speed of 120 mph on a motorway, although in Milton (159 mph copper 'familiarising himself with the vehicle') the Divisional Court decided that speed alone could create a prima facie case.
bluegolfboy
Mr Milton is a legend though... Anyone else would surely have been facing some time behind bars yet he pulled of a Dangerous Driving conviction...

Indeed, England is FAR fairer when it comes to speeding from my experience and also through my general feeling on here...
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.