Safe Speed Forums

Hiya Again

Another friend of mine has recieved a summons for failing to provide details oh and no insurance.

He was caught doing just over 40 in a 30 zone coming into marple nr glossop. When he recieved his NIP he telephone the BiB that caught him him to explain there where 2 people driving that day and he needed to see a photo or something. so he went from southport all the way to marple to meet this bobby with the other driver and they both gave a statment saying they were both driving that day and they are both insured.

All the BiB can remember is seeing a red vectra speeding. Now if you saw his car you would describe it as Brown not Red but it says red on the log book/DVLA. Sounds like he cant remember just checked their computer and came back saying red.

The bobby then says hhmm dont know what to do about this and leaves it at that.

So yesterday my pal recieves a summons for failing to notify??? and no insurance???

He has insurance and he notified by giving a statement WTF?

what should he do he is in court next Fri

Cheers guys
matt

They must prove diligence in showing that they cannot prove who was driving at the time; credit card or other types of receipts. As for the insurance, taking the policy document would prove he had the insurance at the time of the offence.

It is well known that the insurance database is not reliable for police checking cover. So much so that some forces refuse to use it.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Unless this is a clever ploy by the police?

Do they hope that by pretending there was no insurance cover that the driver may step forward and say: "It was a fair cop, guv! But here are my insurance documents to prove I wasn't driving without insurance!"?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

UPDATE>

in court on the 14th december .. police have dropped the no insurance after doc's were produced ..


this is what the summons says.

between 05/07/2007 and 28/08/2007 at charlsworth , having been required by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the derbyshire constabulary failed to give information which it was in your power to give and which might have led to the identification of the driver of the vehicle , namely a vectra reg xxxxxxx who was alleged to have been guilty of an offence contrary to section 172 (3) of the road traffic act 1988 and scheduled 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988




but information was given in the form of a recoreded verbal statement by both parties at glossop police station ..

also i have written this letter but thave not yet posted it

To whom it may concern

In refernece to your letter . i would like to offer for subbmission an account of the events proceeding the incident on july 3rd 2007

myself and Mr jones were taking a camping holiday in the glossop area and were suprised to find several weeks afterward a letter detailing a speeding offence .
i queried the contents of the letter over the phone with PC D BIB (PC000) and aranged to travel with mr jones to glossop police station to give a statement .

As some time had passed between the original holiday and the letter detailing the offence . we were unable to accurately say who was driving the car on that day at that particular time . We had both covered several hundred miles of our journey and had taken it in turn to drive . and , as no incident of particualr noteworthy reference had caused us to take note of the journey thus far we we are unable to provide accurate details of the request being made of us .

i am certain beyond doubt that a police officer taking speed measurements would have caused either one of us to take note of the event . thus helping us in remembering who was driving at that time .

on the returning journey to glossop police station , i made a point of driving along the road where the incident occured and discovered that the speed reduction sign was all but totaly covered by over grown trees . which can be seen by the enclosed photos.
we both believe this to be a contributory factor as to why no adjustment to the speed was made on the date of the incident and would consider the inadequate display of imformation to be a suitable exemption to the offence .

it is my sincerest hope that the lapse in time , the lack of any striking event and subsequent discovery of obsured imformation has satisfied as an expalanation as to why we have been unable to disclose the requierd imformation

kinds regards

Pics Below








Those road works were there at the time of the offence.

What do i do plead guilty/not guilty/ guilty with mitigating circumstances

I told them it was either myself or my pal. asked them for the evidence ie a photo so i could say who it was. this never turned up plus the bib kinda gave the impression they had no evidence of the original offence.

Any help greatly appreciated

The sign is quite hidden, that can't be right.
I'm not convinced by the legality of the sign, I know backing boards in that shape are allowed, but are they allowed in white?
Shouldn't there be a black border around the bottom text?

There are some signs on the ABD Speed limit signs page which show how one is allowed to look. I'm waiting on the Statute Law web site at the moment...

_________________
Andrew.

The signs are irrelevant to a S172 charge.

Oh yeah. Shame really, that sign looks wrong. The bottom part isn't 2402.1 because that has a black border and I don't think white backing boards are allowed anyway.

_________________
Andrew.

Surely the 172 rests on there having been an offence to start with - which if the sign is not legal, there is not.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I was wondering that. Could be that it's a false allegation, but an allegation nonetheless...?

_________________
Andrew.

I was also thinking that
if i break out of prison but was falsely imprisioned can i be done for breaking out of a prison i wasnt supposed to be in, in the first place.

there are also no repeater signs for at least 2 miles

its been confirmed that the sign is non compliant. if only he had returned the nip saying it was him then we could get him off.
what do you guys think is his next course.

things you need to clarify to yourselves
Be carefull what you reply here as it has been known for forum replies to be printed out and used against people in court.

Quite clearly the photos showing the dubious sign could be introduced as evidence that you did indeed revisit the scene to try to establish who was driving. It will hopefully raise an eyebrow with the magistraite and prod his more lenient side of his concience.

When you revisited the scene was it clear (hidden place name) that you were in the right place? What delay was there before you were able to both go back and revisit the scene

Was there a heated debate over a few days as to who drove that day?
Did you come to a disagreement, a likly result or a definate result?

Is the road name and village name absolutly correct?
have you got a copy of the traffic regulation order?
does the road name match the nip and the map?
can you produce photos taken on that day to recap your memory.
was the nip delivered within the 14 days..(postal strike)

You must show that you explored every avenue and could not be sure.
you might show that in mitigation you were slightly distracted by the c**p speed limit sign

PS in the speeding summons did the statement say he had checked the signs and they were all visable and in place?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Did you, as the registered keeper excercise reasonable dilligence before realising that you were unabe to name the driver? Can you provide evididence to support this?

If so then you are not guilty.

I`m posting for a friend of mine but

He and the other driver took a hundred or so mile trip to see the bobby and both gave a statment to say they could be the driver show us a photo as 1 is 20st and 6ft2 and the other is barely 11 st and 5ft 6.

the police could not provide any evidence so my friend could not make a decision.
he has a taped interview and a written one from the officer saying they went there.

So if I have this straight, they were recorded speeding by a police officer using speed measuring equipment that did not take a photo, but he did not stop them at the time, opting instead to send a NIP.

They subsequently went to the police station and spoke to the officer in question (?) who, it would seem, did not indicate that he could identify the driver, despite the obvious disparity in their appearances.

Now they want to bag someone for the speeding, but have no evidence as to who it was, and so expect one of them to 'fess up or the keeper gets a S172 charge.

I'm not sure that 'normal' investigative routes would yield much, given that both were in the car at the time, but check them out all the same, credit card statements and mobile phone bills etc. so that they can turn up to court and show they genuinely tried, but if the prosecution has no evidence as to the driver, then they can offer nothing more.

yes thats about right.

it also says on the witness statment that all signs were correct and no video was recorded.
makes ya think doesnt it

Surely the 172 rests on there having been an offence to start with - which if the sign is not legal, there is not.
Quote:
who was alleged to have been guilty of an offence contrary to section 172 (3) of the road traffic act 1988

Even if the CPS loose the case due to incorrect signage, they will stick with the 172. You do not have to have being commiting an offence just suspected of and they can give you a NIP. You will probably find that the majistrates will beleive the police and the case would have to go to a crown court. What they will try to do is put you off because of the very high costs involved. Legal aid is usually available, when it goes to the crown court. Make sure your MP knows of your case ask him to write to the Chief Constable of the area and the justice ministery. The more people that write to their MP's the more notice may aventually be taken of the waste of police time taken up on persecuting drivers.

_________________
help Dr L i have been band from driving for six months i was not speeding the LTi 20/20 was not being used in line with ACPO this was proved, high probability of speed reading affected by reflection from other vehicle have video need to prove speed

Yes you can. You may well be not guilty, but you were, neverthless "Lawfully imprisoned"

On another note. I believe in some latin countries breaking out of prison is not an offence as long as you do no damage and dont hurt anybody.

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

M friend was in court today took along the other possible driver and got let off.
Nice result no speeding and no failing to provide.

That's great to hear. All too often people lose these cases even when it's staggeringly unfair. It's good to know that some magistrates won't go along with the general "encouragement" to convict those accused of speeding.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)