Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 39 in a 30 :-(
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
bear1989
Hi, i recieved a NIP this morning saying i was doing 39 in a 30 limit. I remember going past the van and checking my speed and i swear i was doing 30 but maybe im wrong. I am in the middle of exams at uni and dont need the stress of going to court. I was wondering how i can do the speed awareness course which is £60 and not get points? Thanks in advance ela x
motoring lawyer
The first step would be to respond to the NIP nominating yourself as the driver, which you say you were on the day in question.

It is lhighly ikely that you will not be eligible for the speed awareness course as an alternative to prosecution. However, you would be entitled to the fixed penalty offer (3pp and £60 fine). The cut off for the course tends to be 10% plus 2 of the speed limit and therefore where the speed recorded is greater than this a fixed penalty will usually be the first offer as an alternative to a Court summons to a motorist.

If you believe that you were not travelling at the speed recorded it may be worth your while challenging the speed reading. However, be warned speedometers tend to be unreliable and Court's do not tend to accept this as evidence unless you have had yours calibrated recently and indeed prior to the offence alleged. If you choose to dispute the speed reading the Prosecution would have to prove the offence against you beyond reasonable doubt at Court in order to secure a conviction.
nemo
QUOTE (bear1989 @ Wed, 28 Jan 2009 - 15:31) *
I remember going past the van and checking my speed and i swear i was doing 30 but maybe im wrong.

The speed measurement may not have been taken when you were adjacent to the van - it could have been taken from several hundred metres distance.

Please visit the READ ME FIRST section (Click Here), answer all the questions in the NIP Wizard (including the detailed questions reached by clicking on the Additional Questions button on the second page), and the Wizard will then post its output back here to enable us to help you.
Tasty Tartlet
39 in a 30 mph limit could possibly allow the offer of a speed awareness course.

Its a bit of a lottery depending on where the offence occured, as each police farce
is entitled to determine their own individual speeding policy and not all operate speed awareness courses.

Return the completed NIP, if you are not offered the option of a course then ask and
demand. I know for a fact that drivers have been allowed to attend speed awareness courses at the alleged speed of 39 mph.
slowerdriver
QUOTE (motoring lawyer @ Wed, 28 Jan 2009 - 15:45) *
The first step would be to respond to the NIP nominating yourself as the driver, which you say you were on the day in question.

It is lhighly ikely that you will not be eligible for the speed awareness course as an alternative to prosecution. However, you would be entitled to the fixed penalty offer (3pp and £60 fine). The cut off for the course tends to be 10% plus 2 of the speed limit and therefore where the speed recorded is greater than this a fixed penalty will usually be the first offer as an alternative to a Court summons to a motorist.

If you believe that you were not travelling at the speed recorded it may be worth your while challenging the speed reading. However, be warned speedometers tend to be unreliable and Court's do not tend to accept this as evidence unless you have had yours calibrated recently and indeed prior to the offence alleged. If you choose to dispute the speed reading the Prosecution would have to prove the offence against you beyond reasonable doubt at Court in order to secure a conviction.


Apparently I am not allowed to comment on or correct the other 9 errors/oddities in what appears above, but I'm confident I'm allowed to say that the "10% plus 2 of the speed limit" "cut off for the course" as stated by "motoring lawyer" is wrong. That's the ACPO cut-off limit/recommendation on whether or not any action is taken at all; i.e. the lower, not the upper, limit on any SAC offered.

Correct for the upper cut-off for the Speed Awareness Courses is "10% of the posted speed limit, plus 6mph", in areas where it is offered. Hence, contrary to "motoring lawyer"'s assertion, at 39mph the OP might just qualify for a SAC (if the PF concerned operate one). Click here for dozens of links to show this.
slowerdriver
Trembling with fear at possibly annoying a famed "motoring lawyer" of epic reputation, I timidlly add (humbly, with the greatest possible respect, with all good humour, and in abject expectation of censorship, deletion, sanction and severe spanking/punishment) that:

1) The "first step" is not as ml says - taking stock and getting proper advice are a better first step. Precipitately sending off the NIP, for one thing, will deprive the OP of the chance to request photographs "to help identification"
2) ml did not mention that sending in a filled-in NIP before one absolutely must do so is unnecessary and can be a tactical mistake
3) ml's "where the speed recorded is greater than this" is not a criterion for whether or not a fixed penalty is offered. Instead, use the

in order to determine whether or not a CoFP is a likely outcome. Here, it is, though if a SAC is offered by the PF concerned, it is within range (just, as 30mph + 10% + 6mph = 39mph)
4) ml did not advise to USE THE NIP WIZARD (click here) which is highly recommended as it hazes details and will permit a review of whether the NIP is valid at all (dates etc) and many other things I go on to mention, including forum-based local knowledge of the positioning, scamera-technology used and even whether the PF concerned (which will be known from the wizard) is able to offer an SAC, which has a material bearing on his immediate decision-making
5) ml did not mention that "Court's" (sic) are almost sure to land the OP with any (possibly very) considerable expert witness costs, should he contest the evidence on forensic grounds - and then lose. Rather relevant to a self-declared student, I think... I therefore disagree with ml's "it may be worth your while challenging the speed reading", unless our PePiPoo forum experts have given reason, from the supporting photographs etc., to doubt the validity of the "ping". They haven't as yet, as we haven't had photos....
6) ml did not advise to ask for photographs, or how best to do this. This potentially deprives the OP of many chances to assess whether there are technical reasons for disputing the validity of the speed reading due to positioning, other traffic, bounces, forum-based local knowledge as to locale and other possible causes/factors.
7) Proving the offence "at" Court (per ml) - but, I'm confused - where else would it be proved? Amusing alternatives occur to me, for whose expression PePiPoo is not a suitable venue. wink.gif
(etc.)

My advice (IANAL and I have no axe to grind other than to help the OP-in-need) to the (youthful?) bear1982 is -
PLEASE WAIT for experienced PePiPoo technicians and legal eagles (like southpaw82), whom I hope will be along shortly
Do not act precipitately
Ask for photographs (without specifying the reason why beyond "to help with identification" and definitely without using words like "evidence" or "proof")

Good luck, bear1982! smile.gif
southpaw82
I quite agree that bear (1989 vintage, not 1982 wink.gif ) ought to complete the NIP Wizard and, if time allows, write to the police asking for such photos as may assist with the identification of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.
slowerdriver
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 29 Jan 2009 - 15:22) *
I quite agree that bear [....] ought to complete the NIP Wizard and, if time allows, write to the police asking for such photos as may assist with the identification of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.

Thanks.

I take this opportunity to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that my point 2) does not just restate, or expand on, point 1), for that would be double-counting, something I'd never do.

Premature NIP-replying has not only the drawback of removing the best and most reasonable plank for requesting photos (which can have many uses), but also makes it somewhat less improbable that the other side will run out of time.

And to clarify 3) by expanding it - whether the speed exceeds "10% of the speed limit, plus 2 mph" (the comma too is important, as the 10% is not also applied to the 2mph) (I cannot parse "10% plus 2 of the speed limit" at all, but it is clear what was intended) - is not a criterion for deciding whether a CoFP is offered in lieu of Court attendance. That bar too (i.e., not just the SAC-offer bar) is set higher, as the sentencing wizard illustrates.
The criterion stated by ml is simply the "ignore entirely" criterion, as I pointed out in my post of 08:53 today. It is otherwise irrelevant to the likelihood of being offered either a CoFP or a SAC.

QUOTE
that bear (1989 vintage, not 1982 wink.gif )

Oh yes, the south-paw is 82 vintage, but the bear is 1989, you are quite right: I got the OP's year wrong.
I am always ready to admit my mistake - and my tendency to make mistakes is exacerbated by being slapped around so much, and in such exalted company too.

ml's input and correction(s) are solicited, as - this bears repetition - IANAL, and I am very unintelligent to boot, as is no doubt obvious to all concerned. "To err is human (etc.)"
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.