Woe,Woe. and thrice times woe.

ACTIVE8 · Post by **ACTIVE8** » 17 Feb 2006, 14:36

The details of the report were actually featured on the BBC TV national news yesterday. Although it is also featured in the link below, take a look at the picture to see what they mean, and then factor in sat nav, phone calls, other people in the car, and possibly many other distractions, including drivers not paying enough attention to their driving. It's an all too common problem with excessive road signage making it all the more difficult for the "average motorist."

Here's the link:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4718502.stm

I agree with you Kowalski, I also focus on what's necessary, but excessive signage is a problem.

James.UK · Post by **James.UK** » 05 Mar 2006, 15:38

Well.. To get back to the original thread..

I have heard nothing since the 18th of December? And it's now more than seven months since the date of the alleged offence. (July 2005)..

I'm not sure exactly what the rules are in terms of a court date being set after any speeding offence but seven months seems a long time? I have a feeling there is some rule about notification within six months? but will have to get more info on the subject.. Anyone know?

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 05 Mar 2006, 17:02

You never know... someone somewhere may have lost/"filed"/binned/forgotten about this, and nothing will ever come of it... I certainly wouldn't be reminding anyone about it!

What I would do in your situation is work out the maximum you could be fined by the court, and put that amount of money away in a high-interest savings account. If the worst comes to the worst, then you already have the fine covered, and if in 4 years time you've still heard nothing, then you have some cash plus interest you can spend (on your car?)

James.UK · Post by **James.UK** » 05 Mar 2006, 18:03

Hi FnF.. Keeping stumb was my first choice too.

But it would not be fair to leave this thread hanging forever.. So I posted what I believe will be the final update.

Personally I don't think a court would have, (or will?) fine me as much as the camera Co. (£60) as the magistrate has the right to exercise discretion, and as passing through a small country village at 4 am on a Sunday at 41 mph (30 limit) was clearly not endangering anyone, I doubt a heavy fine would have been imposed. I don't believe endorsing my licence would have been justified either..

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » 05 Mar 2006, 21:42

I'm not 100% on this as I escaped from the legal profession many years ago - but as speeding is an offence that can only be dealt with summarily - ie in the Magistrates Court - the summons must be issued within 6 months of the offence. When issuing the court will insert a hearing date and obviously the summons must be served on the defendant before then.

I would have said the signs were good but hold tight for a bit longer.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 05 Mar 2006, 22:15

jeremy wrote:I'm not 100% on this as I escaped from the legal profession many years ago - but as speeding is an offence that can only be dealt with summarily - ie in the Magistrates Court - the summons must be issued within 6 months of the offence. When issuing the court will insert a hearing date and obviously the summons must be served on the defendant before then.

My information is that "papers" must be "laid" with the court within six months of the alledged offence. If this is done then the deadline for the summons is fairly open ended but they would need a very good excuse not to get it out within a few weeks. I'm pretty certain that James is in the clear.

Of course it may have gone missing in the post since the courts have so much trust in our postal system that they consider first class post to be adequate for a court summons.

Yet another example of the "safety" camera partnership being only interested in the easy money.

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » 07 Mar 2006, 20:19

The reason that courts serve documents by post is that it is difficult for postmen to get signatures for recorded/registered post as often no-one is at home and very few people are foolish enough to collect the things from Post offices or wherever as they seldom contain anything pleasant.

After all if someone rings a court clerk up and abuses him over the contents of a summons - the clerk at least knows he has received it!

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 07 Mar 2006, 21:32

jeremy wrote:The reason that courts serve documents by post is that it is difficult for postmen to get signatures for recorded/registered post as often no-one is at home and very few people are foolish enough to collect the things from Post offices or wherever as they seldom contain anything pleasant.

That's fair enough but it's my understanding that not recieving the summons (or NIP) is no defence. It's taken for granted that it will arrive if it is posted.

If you don't recieve the NIP it's up to you to prove it didn't arrive, the SCP only has to prove they posted it in order to prosecute you for failing to identify the driver.

There are more reliable ways of posting things than Royal Mail first class.

ACTIVE8 · Post by **ACTIVE8** » 08 Mar 2006, 09:14

Homer wrote:
jeremy wrote:The reason that courts serve documents by post is that it is difficult for postmen to get signatures for recorded/registered post as often no-one is at home and very few people are foolish enough to collect the things from Post offices or wherever as they seldom contain anything pleasant.
That's fair enough but it's my understanding that not recieving the summons (or NIP) is no defence. It's taken for granted that it will arrive if it is posted.

If you don't recieve the NIP it's up to you to prove it didn't arrive, the SCP only has to prove they posted it in order to prosecute you for failing to identify the driver.

There are more reliable ways of posting things than Royal Mail first class.

True there are more reliable ways of posting things than Royal Mail first class. The thing is the rest of us are aware of it's poor peformance.
Although the onus should really be with the authorities to ensure their communication by letter gets to it's intended destination. They might well have posted the letter, but seem to have an "ostrich" attitude with regard to postal performance. They don't seem to be aware about how bad it is nowadays. The law is an ass, slow, and not up to date.

So if the mail gets lost in the postal system, incorrectly delivered, or arrives too late, etc then person it's being posted to could be in trouble, surely that's not right, fair and just.

ACTIVE8 · Post by **ACTIVE8** » 14 Mar 2006, 11:58

Well given that the driver of the BMW, which was reported recently in the papers as having a sticking/jammed throttle was technically speeding, and for many miles. It will be interesting to see what the authorities think, or do about it.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 14 Mar 2006, 18:53

One report said the police had decided to take no action.

Probably because it was their stupid advice which got him in the situation.

reblack68 · Post by **reblack68** » 14 Mar 2006, 20:21

I wondered about that. Why didn't he switch the engine off and/or put it into neutral? And isn't he going to be prosecuted for allowing his car to get into such a dangerous state?

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 15 Mar 2006, 08:12

reblack68 wrote:I wondered about that. Why didn't he switch the engine off and/or put it into neutral? And isn't he going to be prosecuted for allowing his car to get into such a dangerous state?

His story is.

The accelerator jammed, he braked but brurnt out the brakes, it was an auto and wouldn't shift into N, he darent turn off the engine because he would lose PAS and brakes.

He rang the AA who told him to ring (or put him through to) the police.

The police told him to put his hazards and headlights on and drive down the hard shoulder.

He finally came to a stop (from 135mph) after hitting a roundabout and walked away with a slightly bruised chin.

Now anyone with an ounce of knowledge about cars can see the huge holes in his story. I don't know who the police are employing in traffic these days but they should recruit a few members of this forum.

ACTIVE8 · Post by **ACTIVE8** » 15 Mar 2006, 08:35

reblack68 wrote:I wondered about that. Why didn't he switch the engine off and/or put it into neutral? And isn't he going to be prosecuted for allowing his car to get into such a dangerous state?

Apparently the driver of the BMW is also an LCV driver, given that he makes his living driving vehicles, despite the predicament he was in, it's strange that he did not try various means to avert the dangerous situation he was in.

Here are some links to the story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ped111.xml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4796264.stm

The last two sentences in the Daily Telegraph report also make for interesting reading, in that it makes you wonder how fast a speed he actually did achieve, given that the road test reports by Autocar state how fast the car can go. I will (and I expect many others will also) certainly be studying the media to see the outcome of this situation.

James.UK · Post by **James.UK** » 15 Mar 2006, 12:45

His story doesn't make sense, but then neither did ringing the AA unless he thought they had a mechanic who could fix the throttle whilst running very fast... lmho...

Deciding to come off the Mway and head for a roundabout at 100 mph was rather an odd thing to do

.. Unless he had lost the will to live.. Duhhh....

I think the driver should be taken somewhere quiet and allowed to lie down for a few years, I sure don't want him driving when I am around!!

French Car Forum

Woe,Woe. and thrice times woe.

RAC report

Unreliable Postal System !

Jammed Throttle !

Speeding BMW