Safe Speed Forums

Hi, just had my NIP come in the post after being cought by camera doing 78 in a temporary 40mph! what do i face for this? its my first offince and was at 5am in the morning no roadworkers in speed restriction area. im s**ting it, im self imployed builder with out my licance no work!!

Any advise would be great.

andrprin

Check here - this guides you to pepipoo.com - go through their NIP (Notice of Intended prosecution) section. They have legal persons on their forum regularly, who can advise appropriately. We do have a few here, but no as many, but I am sure when they read your post, they would advise, but you need solicitor advice. (I am not a legal representative and cannot advise you.)
You can check a few simple things.
If you are the registered keeper of the vehicle has the NIP arrived in the 14 day required timeframe?
Is your registration that of the vehicle so accused ?
You can request :
When last maintenance check carried out on the unit & were any defects found?
When was the last certificate (of operation) obtained ? If recent fair enough if due ensure that you obtain a copy of the next one.
Who signed the certificate and do the dates correlate ?
Go back and take pictures (if you can safely)to ensure that ALL the dignage is correct and that the local Council has authorised the roadworks AND the temp limit. Anything wrong here may help you.

Any delays or refusals of this data may also assist you. But you need legal advice...

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Assuming you are found guilty, then probably a ban. But unlike some who will come along shortly telling you how evil you are, some of us still believe in innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial.

Since you only have a NIP at the moment, time is on your side. You have 28 days to return it, use that time to do as much research as you can. Failing to (do all in your power to) identify the driver carries 6 points and a fine. Telling lies when you return the NIP could land you in prison.

To get a lot of the information SafeSpeedv2 is suggesting you ask for you will probably have to declare yourself as the driver and then plead not guilty when you get the summons.

Pepipoo is a good place to start for advice.

Just be aware that, if you raise this in court, they are likely to say that the limit remains in force during non working periods because it is too dangerous to cover the signs. They are likely to add that the danger arises from the number of drivers who drive at almost twice the 40 limit.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

So they can spend hours working in the same area with tools and vehicles, but to spend a one minute adjusting two signs?
I have to say that I don’t buy that!


If I were cheeky (and it wasn’t my licence on the line), I would ask them to prove such a claim, drawing attention to the effects of displacement of traffic to/from less safe roads (as well as general respect for law).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I don't seek to defend that point of view just to point out that it is likely to be put forward if the OP raises the point of no workers being present.

The questions you raise have been asked in court. The response tends to be that when working they place a lorry or JCB in a position to give some protection to the workforce. It would be impossible to leave a lorry in lane three at night without cones or a lowered limit and it would need to removed before the signs and cones are taken down. Thus making it dangerous to lower the limit.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Point taken.
I will continue to ask what the response of the court would tend to be, if you would kindly continue to humour me


Then keep the cones!
By all means leave the lorry there. That's no worse than any one of the millions of trees growing at the sides of NSL roads - and the trees tend not to be bright, or have reflective strips, or lights, or cones surrounding them.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

A perception of danger due to speed may have been what caused the limit to be posted in the first place but proof of danger is NOT part of a speeding charge although it may add to the sentence. If significant danger was caused the CPS would put forward a more serious charge. Either DWDC or dangerous driving.

In a speeding case the CPS would either say that there are no aggravating features or list what they consider to be circumsatnces that make the case worse. Such factors would include - bad weather, tailgating, towing etc. HGVs and buses would be considered to be an aggravating feature because of the risk to the public from sheer size of vehicle or - in the case of taxis or buses - that passengers were being carried. Location can also be an aggravating feature. lots of traffic and/or pedestrians will make things worse.


The dfendant then has the chance to put forward anything he or she wants the court to be aware of. Lots of people actually plead not guilty to speeding on the grounds that, in thier opinion, there was no danger. That defence fails because they were not charged with an offence which has danger as one of its elements.
Basically the defendant needs to attack the evidence put forward by the CPS and not introduce irrelevant factors. On the other hand if the dfendant can establish a genuine emergency that is a mitigating factor.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Since the consequences of being found guilty are horrendous, would it be reasonable to say this is not a minor offence, and therefore not covered by S172, making disclosure optional?

Where did you get the idea that s172 is optional? Or that it appies only to minor offences? I am not having a dig at you, I am genuinely interested to find out where this sort of misinformation originates.

The full title of s172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is "Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc, under certain circumstances". Full text can be found at
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... =2276534&A
which explains what is meant (in this specific case) by "certain circumstances".No mention anywhere that the potential consequences to an individual are part of s172.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.