Woe,Woe. and thrice times woe.

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 08 Aug 2005, 21:06

I have filled the forms in stating I was the driver on the date-time in question.. Will post them today.. uh ohhh [|)]

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 09 Aug 2005, 01:42

If you intend to fight I hope you used the full 28 days.[}:)]

Kowalski · Unread post by **Kowalski** » 09 Aug 2005, 02:20

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by James.UK

I have filled the forms in stating I was the driver on the date-time in question.. Will post them today.. uh ohhh [|)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Don't sign the form, you're legally obliged to fill it in, but not to sign it, if you dont sign it, it has no legal status...

Paulmi16 · Unread post by **Paulmi16** » 09 Aug 2005, 02:33

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kowalski

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by James.UK

I have filled the forms in stating I was the driver on the date-time in question.. Will post them today.. uh ohhh [|)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Don't sign the form, you're legally obliged to fill it in, but not to sign it, if you dont sign it, it has no legal status...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I thought that loophole had been closed.
Paul.

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 09 Aug 2005, 07:21

I believe there is a legal obligation to declare the driver.. It states on the form that's its an offence not too. [:(!]
I do not intend to defend this issue in court. I see no valid defence available. I did pass a speed camera at 41 mph in a 30 mph zone, albeit on a country road outside a village school at 4.13am on a Sunday..
The fact that I was on fox, rabbit, deer, fog, watch etc and not thinking in terms of my road speed or speed limits is no defence in a court of law.. Neither it seems, is the time of day, as time of day is one of the items they list as not an acceptable excuse. [:I]..
.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 09 Aug 2005, 10:50

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by James.UK

I believe there is a legal obligation to declare the driver.. It states on the form that's its an offence not too. [:(!]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is true. But there are other ways of declaring the driver than filling in their self-incriminating form. [;)]
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do not intend to defend this issue in court. I see no valid defence available. I did pass a speed camera at 41 mph in a 30 mph zone, albeit on a country road outside a village school at 4.13am on a Sunday..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I understand your position. But there may never have been a need to defend the case. Most never get to the defending point. [;)]
Things seem to be snowballing against speed cameras anyway. We may be on the brink of seeing them start to quietly disappear as more and more evidence points to their ineffectiveness.
One of the latest blows was the revalation that the DfT have been sitting on official figures for cameras at motorway roadworks sites which show no difference in casualties between sites with and those without. Shame. [}:)]

Unread post by **martyhopkirk** » 09 Aug 2005, 14:52

Just as a point of interest I met a very helpful opperator of a speed camera in a talivan the other day whilst I was looking for the farm the ZX was holed up on - I parked carefully to ask him directions - so carefully traffic in both directions had to slow down[;)].
He happily gave me directions though - which was nice.

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 09 Aug 2005, 19:21

Hmm... [xx(] I don't see anything incriminating about filling in the form? The form asks who was driving at the time? that's all.. Had it contained the question, "was I guilty of the alleged offence" I would simply have crossed that question - paragraph out at this stage.. [;)]
I am hoping that when they send me the 'offer of a fixed penalty' that it contains some sort of evidence of the alleged offence.. However I wont know untill that arrives, and can do nothing more untill I have more information, I will keep you posted.. [:)]
.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 10 Aug 2005, 02:37

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by James.UK

Hmm... [xx(] I don't see anything incriminating about filling in the form? The form asks who was driving at the time? that's all..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The form can be used as evidence of the driver in court. There are other methods (search "PACE statement" on the Pepipoo forums) which cannot. If they have no evidence which can be admitted to court but you have fulfilled your obligations under S172 then they cannot make a case. The only reason for filling in the NIP as requested would be if you had concrete evidence their equipment was wrong. For instance if you could prove your car was not capable of that speed, or had a tachograph, and you wanted a good laugh at their expense in court.
What annoys me is. If you were being asked about being in the vicinity of a burglary you would have the right to silence. They would then have to prove you were there.
Time to put this one to bed methinks.
MODERATOR! close this one for my own good.

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 10 Aug 2005, 03:16

LOl.. [:D] No need to get so excited Homer [:0] [:o)].. I do appreciate all the info, but at this point in time it's a bit premature.. I see no reason to deny being the driver of the car.. Whether or not the camera was working etc is a matter of conjecture, at this point they claim it was.. We shall see what transpires....
If they send no evidence with an offer of a fixed penalty I will have a problem.. As I think I have to request a court appearance in order to get copies of the documents I would like to see. This being the case, is it worth the gamble? i.e. the paperwork may all be in order, but I will have forgone the chance of accepting a fixed penalty, and have to attend a court hearing in Dorset. Hhmm.. If my licence was at stake then yes, but it's not.. So I will probably simply pay the fine.
.

bxbodger · Unread post by **bxbodger** » 10 Aug 2005, 15:11

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you were being asked about being in the vicinity of a burglary you would have the right to silence. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not since the criminal justice and public order act 1994 you haven't...........!!!!
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence, etc, etc.........."

leonardo · Unread post by **leonardo** » 10 Aug 2005, 18:19

I got caught doing 36 in a supposed 30 area, that I had mistaken as a 40 zone. I was lucky that Thames Valley Police were letting anyone caught doing 36mph attend a drivetech session where you discuss speed, have your driving skills analysed by a computer. And you don't get any points on your license.
What struck me about speeding is the difference 30 to 40 mph makes to killing or injuring someone.
I now no longer speed.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 11 Aug 2005, 01:34

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leonardo

What struck me about speeding is the difference 30 to 40 mph makes to killing or injuring someone.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Only if you hit them without braking. Which is more likely if you are paying too much attention to your speedometer.
I would rather take my chances with the attentive 40mph driver than the inattentive 30mph one.
In Fluffy Bunny Land™ we would have both but we live in The Real World™ where a drivers attention is inversely propotional to their speed.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I now no longer speed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And that makes you safe?

Kowalski · Unread post by **Kowalski** » 11 Aug 2005, 04:23

A speed limit very rarely represents a maximum safe speed, there are times when it is safe to drive at the speed limit and times when it is not safe. There are times when it would still be safe to drive faster than the speed limit and times when it isn't safe to drive considerably slower than it.
I follow speed limits but not because of safety reasons its purely because I like having my license and don't like paying fines.

uhn113x · Unread post by **uhn113x** » 11 Aug 2005, 13:11

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kowalski

A speed limit very rarely represents a maximum safe speed, there are times when it is safe to drive at the speed limit and times when it is not safe. There are times when it would still be safe to drive faster than the speed limit and times when it isn't safe to drive considerably slower than it.
I follow speed limits but not because of safety reasons its purely because I like having my license and don't like paying fines.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I second this, and Homer's last post. There are far worse faults than speeding - mobile phone use while driving seems unabated, and unless there are cameras on them, running red lights means that I have to treat green ones as 'give way' junctions.
As for tailgating, especially on motorways, they should have their gonads made into pate. This is what causes big pile-ups where people get killed, often by a lunatic HGV driver(s).