mattyg wrote:
Just picked back up on this post.
My mate honestly didnt know who was driving the car at the time
Like he said in court can you remember what you had for dinner last thurs
probably not but you could probably remember what you ate on your birthday.
The speed trap must have been hidden as neither of them saw it. and as a result didnt remember who was driving.
They have been best mates for years and regulary borrow each others cars without even thinking just grab the nearest keys.
Passenger would not have been concentrating on road. Driver may or may not have been at full COAST
Even so - here we advertise where we will monitoring - we do have one van and all the cars are
equipped
I take it they live together or next door
However...
First of all - unless the red car waas filthy - a police officer should not be able to confuse colours
as we do not recruit colour blind folk for obvious sleuthing reasons We usually stop the driver here so as to ensure we "get our man or woamn"
Yes - I think it quite possible on a long journey which involve members of the same family sharing the driving to ensure zero fatigue dangers - will not keep logs as to where they swopped seats and took over the drive. This is where this system of automation really fails - either to educate if guilty of the offence or delivers justice if the person genuinely was not driving the vehicle. Circumstances can be a soimple as the un-logged shared drive on a long journey or if the car was stolen and pinged shortly after its theft - usually before the hapless driver has woken up to find his car has disappeeared. (Please note burglars go "fishing" - and a fave of theirs is to place a long stickj with a hook on the end to get the keys you left on the table in the hallways
)
when automation started (per the Road Traffic Act 1991) - it created the need for the fixed penalty offer.
RTA 1988 therefore was amended
Under the RTA 1988 - S54
Do note the "reason to believe" - but be assured that this area will have the irrefutable evidence to back up and will have explained everything carefully and tried to help avoid such nasty shocks in future
- but if the person really has cause to claim they were not speeding - then they still have the right to put forth their reasons for this belief to a court of law in any case - for the benefit of "mrsinchcomb".
Under S54
S54 applicable when the driver is present and who should really be stopped if copped by said constables in uniform wrote:
1.The section only applies in England and Wales on any occasion when a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person he finds is committing a fixed penalty offence.
2. Subject to satisfaction - a constable may give the a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence.
3. Where the offence appears to the constable to carry an obligatory endorsement - teh constable may obnly give the fixed penalty under the subsection (2 of the above) if the
a) the driver produces his licence and counterpart to the constable
b) the constable is satisfied that the licence is genuine and that the driver would not be disqualified on tot-ups (under s35 of the Act) and
c) the driver then surrenders the licence and counterpart to the officer to be dealt with in accordance with the Act if we are at tot -up
Err. we do use discretion on this last one and usually require the normal production of documents within 7 day.
And this is covered by paragaphs 4 & 5 of S54 anyway
S62 driver not present wrote:
Under S62
Where on occasion a constable has reason to believe in the case of a stationary vehicle that a fixed penalty offfence or has on that occasion been committed in respect of it, he may fix a fixed penalty in respect of that offence to the vehicle unless the offence appears to him to involve obligatory endorsement
Defences are driver/owner did not know of the FPN until notified by the clerk - was not the owner at the time of the alleged offence or received the FPN and exercised riht to fight in the court
Person served with the notice will not be liable if he or she can prove they were not the owner of the defective vehicle.
As said the RTA 1991 created a need for issuiing fixed penalties where neither of the previous circumstances applied - presence of defendant or vehicle as seen by a constable in uniform.
Led to amendments to the 1988 RTA Act - and this is how come the OP received the NIP
Under S75 of RTA 1988 -
S75 of above Act wrote:
1 (a) A constable has reason to believe that a fixed penalty offence has been committed and
(b) no fixed penalty has been given in respect of the offence under S54 of this Act or under S62 of this Act, a notice under this section may be sent to the ALLEGED offender on behalf of the Chief Constable
;;;;;;;
7) A conditional offer MUST
give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence to which it relates as are necessary for giving reasonable information about the alleged offence
Getting the colour of the car wrong would undermine - if this "offence" was seen by the constable - though I do wonder given ANPR data gives us make/model/colour/MOT /insurance/VED details
S75 RTA 1988 wrote:
7b) the conditional offer must state the amount of the fixed penalty for the offence and
c) state that proceedings agaisnt the alleged offender cannot commence in respect of that offence untill# the end of the period of 28 days following the date on which the conditional offer was issued - or longer as may be specified in the offer
Naturally - if on 9 points - it will go to court :popcron:
In this case - the defendant satisfied the court that he had tried to work out which person was driving. There appears, per details given in OP's post, to have been some confusion over the signage which will have counted in his favour as well.
Whether of not these drivers knew who had been driving at the time - I cannot comment on the basis I do not know them personally
However, it does prove that our personal tough
wins hand over fist against automated means
We have below average KSI statistic each year but an above average showing for nailing uninsured and careless/undue care road users - including rogue cyclists
;shock:
Perhaps we are worth a huge pay-rise after all