Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Will I lose my licence?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Jampickle
All Lincolnshire A1

last Friday - 80mph... Ok so i have 3 points already, that's ok ish.
TODAY I opened the mail as I knew it was from them again and 2 more from Sunday coming back from London - 82 and 85!! At 13.02 and 13.05... All in the same area. I'm so upset... Does this mean i will in fact lose my licence?

I know I shouldn't have been speeding but can't do anything about that now. There were horrendous jams and when they were cleared we just all drove faster - stupid I know sad.gif

Banning?
Pete D
In what speed limits. One of them may allow for an SAC with no points and you drive like a Nun for a three years. Pete D
henrik777
You should be offered a course for one of them.

As for the 2 minutes apart from each other, did you slow down in between ? If not it's one offence as the crime isn't passing a camera it's exceeding the limit.
gedblanker
QUOTE (henrik777 @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:43) *
You should be offered a course for one of them.

As for the 2 minutes apart from each other, did you slow down in between ? If not it's one offence as the crime isn't passing a camera it's exceeding the limit.

That's nonsense. It's being over the limit and getting detected that matters and this seems to be a case of being detected twice.

The police may treat it as one prosecution for the two detections, then again, they may not.
BaggieBoy
Can we assume you have had a full licence more than two years?
The Rookie
QUOTE (gedblanker @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (henrik777 @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:43) *
You should be offered a course for one of them.

As for the 2 minutes apart from each other, did you slow down in between ? If not it's one offence as the crime isn't passing a camera it's exceeding the limit.

That's nonsense. It's being over the limit and getting detected that matters and this seems to be a case of being detected twice.

The police may treat it as one prosecution for the two detections, then again, they may not.

I'm sure you can back that up with case law or similar, well actually I'm sure you can't and are spouting opinion as fact.

If a police car followed you for 6 miles, taking 5 minutes could he do you for an extra offence every time he blinked?
mrh3369
I would ask for the two to be considered as one continuous offence, as has been asked have you attended a speed awareness course within the last 3 years? Best outcome 1 SAC and 1 cofp £100 & 3 points, worst case scenario 9 pts and a totting ban for 6 months. More info required.
The Rookie
I agree, I strongly believe that is a single offence.
gedblanker
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 15:47) *
QUOTE (gedblanker @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (henrik777 @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 14:43) *
You should be offered a course for one of them.

As for the 2 minutes apart from each other, did you slow down in between ? If not it's one offence as the crime isn't passing a camera it's exceeding the limit.

That's nonsense. It's being over the limit and getting detected that matters and this seems to be a case of being detected twice.

The police may treat it as one prosecution for the two detections, then again, they may not.

I'm sure you can back that up with case law or similar, well actually I'm sure you can't and are spouting opinion as fact.

If a police car followed you for 6 miles, taking 5 minutes could he do you for an extra offence every time he blinked?

The examples you have given are nonsense too. I have issued many tickets for offences detected on the same road on the same journey and where the detections were a few minutes apart.
I suppose you will now give all of the decisions you have made that have cancelled tickets in similar circumstances or are you simply expressing an empty supposition?
southpaw82
QUOTE (gedblanker @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 19:30) *
I have issued many tickets for offences detected on the same road on the same journey and where the detections were a few minutes apart.


Are you a police officer?
The Rookie
Issuing a 'ticket' (NIP, COFP, or bus?) doesn't make it right.......or is it guilty until proven innocent in SCP offices?
gedblanker
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 20:01) *
Issuing a 'ticket' (NIP, COFP, or bus?) doesn't make it right.......or is it guilty until proven innocent in SCP offices?

What it is though is reality and what you have opined is fantasy at best.

To best assist the OP he should be given more than just your opinion as you have given an opinion in a way that would make it seem certain that the two tickets will be considered as one and can only be considered that way. That isn't correct. While some police officers and Central Ticket Office decision makers will consider making this into one penalty for the two detections others will not. What you need to realise is your opinion is based upon not being involved in the process whereas mine is from having been involved in that process. The OP can now make his mind up and with a little luck he will receive one penalty for the two detections; what is certainly not the case is that he definitely will as you seem to be remarking.

If I was the decision maker I would examine the circumstances of both detections and would either issue either none, one or 2 prosecutions for the two detections. What I certainly would not do is make it one because you said so.

...and by-the-way; that routine does not constitute guilty until proven innocent.
southpaw82
You seem to have omitted to answer my question.
The Rookie
QUOTE (gedblanker @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 21:09) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 Jul 2014 - 20:01) *
Issuing a 'ticket' (NIP, COFP, or bus?) doesn't make it right.......or is it guilty until proven innocent in SCP offices?

What it is though is reality and what you have opined is fantasy at best.

To best assist the OP he should be given more than just your opinion as you have given an opinion in a way that would make it seem certain that the two tickets will be considered as one and can only be considered that way. That isn't correct. While some police officers and Central Ticket Office decision makers will consider making this into one penalty for the two detections others will not. What you need to realise is your opinion is based upon not being involved in the process whereas mine is from having been involved in that process. The OP can now make his mind up and with a little luck he will receive one penalty for the two detections; what is certainly not the case is that he definitely will as you seem to be remarking.

If I was the decision maker I would examine the circumstances of both detections and would either issue either none, one or 2 prosecutions for the two detections. What I certainly would not do is make it one because you said so.

...and by-the-way; that routine does not constitute guilty until proven innocent.

I have suggested why you are talking claptrap, you didn't answer mine or SP's questions and haven't justified why at all, ergo I'll take that as unqualified and unresearched opinion.

What if the operator took 4 readings at 3 second intervals, would that be 4 'tickets'? (Though of course when it comes to speeding nothing is actually a ticket, that all have real names) and a totting ban?
southpaw82
What is more likely is that he's not a police officer and therefore issues a COFP only in the administrative sense. A better way of describing it would be issues after being instructed to do so by a police officer. Only a constable can decide to issue a COFP.
metalmick
yep come on , youve written reams and somehow failed to notice the relevant and pertinent questions from SP and Rookie
M
The Rookie
SP, that was my assumption, I was just waiting for it from the horses mouth.....as you say unless he is a police officer he isn't issuing in the manner understood by the law, and post, let's be honest, are churned out by a computer with no human taking reall responsibility at all.
sgtdixie
It pains me to do so but gedblanker is correct. The proximity of detections in time will not automatically mean they are a single offence. So I'm afraid Simon is, in his own words, talking claptrap.
There is 3 or 4 minutes (depending on how they round up the timings to full minutes) between the 2, and at over 80 mph that is a lot of miles. It is true that they may be dealt with as 1 or 2 offences. It would be for a court to decide if 2 summons was appropriate.
And I have been a decision maker and enforcer and can definitively tell you that there are no absolutes in making such decisions.

It would be nice however if gedblanker would nail his colours to the mast about his actual occupation. You see operators rarely perform the administration functions of issuing anything, and decision makers in SCP's will not be current practitioners.
The Rookie
SD I was referring to the 2 detections being 2 offences being claptrap (they could be 4 seconds apart!), if you read what is quoted above the use of the word!
sgtdixie
The trouble is that on this occasion I think gedblanker has more accurately represented the situation than you.
As the op has chosen not to give us the full we have no idea which way it will go.
desktop_demon
IMHO - a vehicle travelling at a constant illegal speed has committed an offence - one offence. If a vehicle is travelling at an illegal speed and slows to a legal speed and subsequently speeds up to an illegal speed, then two offences have been committed.

If a vehicle is traveling on the A1 at an illegal speed it would depend on what part of the A1 the offence was detected for one to be able to say if one or two offences have been committed. If for example there was a roundabout in the road en route then it could be reasonably presumed that the roundabout was navigated at a slower speed than the legal limit. In such a circumstance two offences could have been committed. If there was no such obstruction on the relevant part of the A1 then my presumption would be that only one offence had been committed. I would expect that argument to be accepted by the bench. if not then I would expect it to be accepted by the crown court or even the high court on appeal.


sgtdixie
QUOTE (desktop_demon @ Fri, 4 Jul 2014 - 11:39) *
IMHO - a vehicle travelling at a constant illegal speed has committed an offence - one offence. If a vehicle is travelling at an illegal speed and slows to a legal speed and subsequently speeds up to an illegal speed, then two offences have been committed.

If a vehicle is traveling on the A1 at an illegal speed it would depend on what part of the A1 the offence was detected for one to be able to say if one or two offences have been committed. If for example there was a roundabout in the road en route then it could be reasonably presumed that the roundabout was navigated at a slower speed than the legal limit. In such a circumstance two offences could have been committed. If there was no such obstruction on the relevant part of the A1 then my presumption would be that only one offence had been committed. I would expect that argument to be accepted by the bench. if not then I would expect it to be accepted by the crown court or even the high court on appeal.

well, there is the small matter of traffic etc. It would be for the defence to convince a court that this was a single offence. I have seen this argued in a Newton Hearing and the driver won having one summons discontinued. Unfortunately he then got 6 points for the single offence (as opposed to 1X3 points on a COFP and a SAC) as the bench decided the offence was aggravated by its prolonged nature and the disregard the driver had having passed 2 highly visible speed cameras which had both flashed him from the front. Given he was on 6 points it wasn't too clever a decision.
I was told he appealed but do not know the result, except that 5 months later he was caught disqualified driving.

The point is, we don't have the facts so we can't offer an informed opinion, and ultimately it is for the courts to decide.
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.