Hopefully someone can tell me the procedure for this.
My other half was stopped by the police last night on his motorbaike during his commute back home from work.
He came onto the M11 heading out of London filtering past the traffic in a normal motorbike manner. As he was entering the motorway he (unknowingly) passed an unmarked police car.
He continued filtering up the motorway between the traffic at a reasonable speed, above the speed limit but definitely under 90mph.
The police car was following him but he didn't realise (he has a small 400cc race bike and when he's got his full kit on his arms block his mirrors).
He pulled off the motorway at the first junction and slowed down to 30 as he was now going into a housing area. Eventually the police car passed others and ended up directly behind him, at this point he saw it, pulled over and stopped. The police practically threw him to the ground, cuffed him and called a van.
In the station he admitted to speeding and the police admitted he was going at the fastest point no mor than 90 mph but they have decided they are refering him to the CPS for charging as Dangerous Driving. This we are going to fight as he does not feel he was dangerous and does not want a criminal record for speeding.
The police has said he will hear and face the magistrates in the next 6 to 8 weeks. The problem is a couple of days ago I booked us a 2 week holiday for late November/early December and paid the £2000+ for thge holiday immediately. This may clash with the court.
Since our only previous involvement with the police has been reporting his motorbikes stolen we don't have a clue what to do.
Any help or suggestions would be greatly welcomed.
Thanks
|
I am not a lawyer, but I'd say he has no chance of avoiding the speeding charge. The dangerous driving charge is different but the likelihood is that they have his actions on camera.
Be contrite, be polite, and get a lawyer.
|
|
Try Pepipoo.com and a good lawyer
|
THanks for your help.
It's not on camera they quoted 90 as that was the fastest they went and have said they don't have it on camera.
He has no issue with the speeding and has admited it on tape its the DD40 he disagrees with (and it looks like he will have to give up his job if he gets convicted since he wont get insurance and can't get to work without his bike).
Anyone know if a court hearing can be delayed or whether we may have to lose the holiday.
|
|
|
|
I don't think doing "more than 70 but less than 90" is going to count as filtering, I'm afraid - it's going to be seen as undertaking. Filtering is normally up to 20mph, maybe 30.
Also, as a motorcyclist myself, I would suggest that if he's doing this at high speed and can't see in his mirrors (to the point that he didn't know who was following him for some distance), he might want to consider rethinking. No one wants him to go under a lorry...
-Mark
|
Sorry to sound negative, but if by 'filtering' you mean weaving between middle and outside lane motorway traffic at 90mph, undertaking etc., then that (IMHO) is 'dangerous driving'. The fact he had restricted vision is a bit alarming too.
I know this incident is unpleasant, but in the longer term it may be a good thing. It might be the 'reality check' he needs and save his life.
|
|
Filtering between the traffic at 70+ sounds dangerous to me. I thought you were only supposed to filter then the traffic was crawling.
|
|
|
|
Up to 90mph, between the lines of traffic, on a crowded motorway at rush-hour? And you call that a "reasonable speed"? And you query whether it was dangerous?
Are you serious?
Sorry spottydog, you're not going to like this answer, but I'm very relieved to hear that traffic police were there, and very relieved to hear that they acted as firmly as you describe.
That's precisely the sort of driving that I'd hope they would stop. Plenty of backroomers believe that there should be lots more traffic police, and this incident seems to illustrate rather well how much traffic police are needed.
A lawyer maybe able to advise you about the posibility of rescheduling the hearing to suit your holiday (though personally, I hope the courts would say no).
|
I'd have to add my twopennyworth here and agree that your other half's driving (as it was described in your post) was dangerous and merits the action the police are taking.
Can't agree with the spiteful aside from NoWheels about hoping the courts won't let you adjourn because of your holiday - give the guy a break, it's a motoring offence, no matter how high up the scale.
I bet EVERYONE who posts here has at some time driven in a manner which would merit a DD if it had been spotted by the police. This fellow is being punished in proportion to the offence he commited, no need to crucify him.
|
Can't agree with the spiteful aside from NoWheels about hoping the courts won't let you adjourn because of your holiday - give the guy a break, it's a motoring offence, no matter how high up the scale.
Tom, I dunno when you've had any dealings recently with the court system, but my last experience (as a witness to the prosecution of a miscreant) was a depresing eye-opener.
The defendant got umpteen reschedulings, so that a small incident dragged out for over a year. By that stage, the procecutors had lost the thread, and it ended up just wasting lots more of lots of people's time without ever being properly heard. That may be nice for the defendant, but it makes a mockery of the courts.
I suspect that the courts probably will schedule an acceptable date, cos they are usually too frazzled to consider the merits of each case. I'm all in favour of adjustable scheduling when people have caring responsibilities, or work commitments etc ... but where someone has been behaving so dangerously and still thinks that this was "reasonable", I can't see why the case should be delayed just it's convenient.
C'mon folks, the backroom is full of indignation about the courts being too soft on dangerous drivers. Just because the partner of the suspect has posted here, I can't see why the courts should put someone's holiday ahead of ensuring that hustice isn't delayed.
But, as I say, I fear that the rescheduling will be readily granted. As you say Tom, despite the danger to others, this only a motoring offence :(
|
Whilst I'm finding myself agreeing with more and more things you say NW, (yes I'm seeing a psychiatrist next Wednesday), Spottydog shouldn't be penalised should she?
Yes - by all accounts (and it is difficult to judge without seeing the facts for myself) the riding was dangerous but how would you like it if you booked a holiday and got called to court as a witness? Slightly different circumstances I'll grant you but the same level of innocence.
I'm all for swift 'hustice', and let's be under no illusions, I thing dangerous driving is just that - dangerous but he's not a murderer. I think a good deal of justice has been dealt out already in the fact that he's being prosecuted - putting a measly court date back 2 weeks is hardly going to kill anyone - unless of course in that time he does the same thing again and hits someone which I think now, is somewhat doubtful.
--
Adam
|
|
|
NoWheels said:
"I'm all in favour of adjustable scheduling when people have caring responsibilities, or work commitments etc ... but where someone has been behaving so dangerously and still thinks that this was "reasonable", I can't see why the case should be delayed just it's convenient."
All I have to say on this, NoWheels, is that at the moment, the person is innocent of the crime (hence the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty"). Is it REALLY reasonable to force an innocent man to pay to cancel a holiday that has already been booked?
I understand your frustration, but making an *accused* person effectively pay up to turn up in court on a given date rather than a couple of weeks later isn't going to oil the wheels of justice too much.
V
|
|
|
|
I probably didn't make it clear, the maximum speed he did was between 70 and 90, not up to 90 while filtering. The reason he didn't se the police car was more to do with the fact that the police car was not directly behind him but a number of cars behind him (with no flashing lights on the roof as it was unmarked).
Where the police car spotted him was where to slip roads joined they were coming in from the other side he was in his lane. He obviously didn't notice them as they looked like a normal car.
He wouldn't hear the siren as he wears decent quality ear plugs as within a few months of him started commuting I noticed his hearing significantly deteriorating.
He uses a loud pipe along with a flourescent jacket, silver helmet, full beam dual headlights during the day as he was knocked off shortly after poassing his test by a woman doing a U-turn on top of him and claiming she couldn't see/hear him.
Filtering through London traffic is part of every commute in London and unfortunately made worse at this point of the M11 by slow moving traffic coming in on the far overtaking lane with the overtaking lane from the other side coming in to their left.
|
What exactly does the charge sheet specify as regards the dangerous bit of his driving, the manner in which he was filtering or the speed whilst doing so?
It could be a bit of red mist on behalf of the police if they thought he was trying to evade capture rather than being unaware that they wanted him to stop.
Worth seeking expert advice from a solicitor who specialises in motoring cases, as a Dangerous Driving charge is notoriously hard to make stick particularly if he opts for jury trial. (His legal right before any one complains about public money)
|
S.D
Bearing in mind that the max punishment for D.D. at Mags Court is 6 mths imprisonment and/or fine of &5,000 (2 years imp at Crown Court), disqualification and 3 -11 points,then I would suggest he needs some legal advice/representation.
I am not going into the strength of the case against him but from what you say it would appear CPS have enough to go ahead.
Are we getting all the facts?
You say he was arrested. As far as I am aware there is no power of arrest attached to that offence but certains aspects of PACE
could give grounds for arrest but doubtful as you say his collar was felt straight away.
If he was arrested, was he charged and bailed to a Court in which case you have a date to answer to.A Brief may get bail extended.
If reported for summons, then you will have to await the arrival of the summons to get the Court date. When this is known, you can get his brief to write back to the Court asking for an adjournment which he will no doubt require to marshall his defence/mitigation if any. In doing so the holiday may be catered for.
DVD
|
|
Without seeing it, I don't want to comment on whether the rider was Driving Dangerously" in the literal sense, but usually when you get a letter from the court one section is to fill in the days you will not be available in the next 6 months. I have had these when I may be called as a witness, but also when I didn't pay the council tax when they never emptied my bin.
|
|
|
|
Can't agree with the spiteful aside from NoWheels about hoping the courts won't let you adjourn because of your holiday - give the guy a break, it's a motoring offence, no matter how high up the scale.
Nor should his innocent partner suffer.
Still thats No Wheels for you.
--
Alyn Beattie
I'm sane, it's the rest of the world that's mad.
|
|
No opinion, no judgment. See a brief when the summons arrives, see the evidence whatever that may be. Get the first court date, its highly unlikely to clash with your holiday anyway. They will probably NIP you within fourteen days (even though he should have been verbally NIP'd at the time he was reported.) if there is going to be a case.
|
Loud pipe? Full beam headlights? Shame being persistently antisocial isn't an offence.
I may as well apologise now, it'll save time:-)
|
|
You seem to be saying he was "filtering at speeds from 70-89mph."That is NOT safe or fair to other drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a motorcyclist as well and can't imagine thet anyone without a deathwish could possibly think filtering at 70-80 as safe. If the M11 was this busy - as it genarally is - he could not do this speed without undertaking. If I were him, I would not mitigate myself by admitting that my mirrors were obscured! Mine are effective even with winter gear on. He should imagine what would happen to him if a vehicle were to change lanes in front of him. It is also unnecessary to ride on main beam, this just annoys other motorists. If he manages to keep his licence after this, an advanced riding course is called for. Sorry for the lecture but this sort of riding gives us all a bad name.
|
Not that I want to sound like a moderator (not that there's anything wrong with you lot) but this isn't helping is it? Firstly, spottydog didn't commit the offence, secondly, what's done is done and thirdly, whilst I agree with the comments made, the thread isn't called
" My partner has a problem. Please berate him and tell me that he's done wrong "
I think the original question was about moving the court date anyway.
God I do sound like Mark!
--
Adam
|
this isn't helping is it?
Sorry, I'd disagree there.
A quick summary of the advice offered in this thread would be:
a) get a lawyer
b) the case may scheduled to avoid the holiday, and DvD has explained how it works
c) lots of folks regard the sort of biking you describe as thoroughly dangerous
I've had to advise several ppl through court cases. I've often found that the hardest message to get through to folks is that the situation is serious, and that they have a real case to answer, rather than merely some "unfair" policing.
I doubt that point c is what spottydog wanted to hear, but it seems to me to be important and timely advice, and that it was strengthened by coming from multiple sources.
|
|
|
|
If you read spottydog's post again, she does point out that the 70-90mph her other half was doing was NOT while he was filtering, that was apparantly a seperate issue.
Agreed about the full beam, it is a pain when a following biker has it on.
|
"He came onto the M11 heading out of London filtering past the traffic in a normal motorbike manner."
He continued filtering up the motorway between the traffic at a reasonable speed, above the speed limit but definitely under 90mph"
Sorry Tom, but that says to me that the filtering was was done at between 70 and 90 mph which strikes me as dangerous (to himself more than the cars or 40 ton truck drivers). Don't object to filtering, often move slightly to one side to allow motorcyclists to do it more easily and most do it at a sensible speed , but remember that here it looks like he may have been going past or between cars which may hardly have been moving, at a speed which may have produced a big speed differential. Not often is one overtaken by vehicles doing 60 (?) mph more than one is doing - I wouldn't say it was "normal" motorbike manner.
There are a lot of "mays" in there because I don't know the precise situation.
Perhaps Spottydog could explain more what the exact charge is.
|
spottydog....
You're not seriously expecting to get any sympathy, are you? Or did you post here for a bet as to what reaction you would get?
--
L'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
Alright, enough. Answer the questions and offer sage advice by all means but there will be a real court hearing at some point in the future so lets leave the judge, jury and executioner bit to them, hmmm?
No Dosh - Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Dangerous Driving? It sounds to me like the person being most endangered by Mr. SpottyDog was himself. I do hope he gets a bit sensible as a result of this, regardless of what the CPS & courts decide. I did more than my share of idiot things when I was younger, but I lost a few friends, some on bikes, and most through no fault of their own.
The method of detention seems a bit OTT.
|
As I am about to fight a camera fine using a lawyer who frequently acts for well known traffic offenders (not it\'s not Nick Freeman) I will happily supply the name of my lawyer to Spottydog.
However, I had no idea what filtering was until I read this thread, and realised that this was a crazy way to ride, if this is indeed what he did. However, we are all innocent until proven guilty, so give the guy a break and let the Courts decide and let him have the best legal advice he can get..
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
Motorbikes are not dangerous, it is the rider that is. Comments like this don\'t belong on an enthusiasts forum.
|
Fortunately we have moderators who decide what belongs on this forum and they may be less impressed with your comment than the statement with which you obviously disagree.
And one of them turned up !! Bits and pieces removed please try and keep your teddy bears in the pram, and lets not incite others to chuck theirs. BTW, this comment is not aimed at Cardew.
|
Fortunately we have moderators who decide what belongs on this forum and they may be less impressed with your comment than the statement with which you obviously disagree.
I managed to restrain my post, but the original comment about motorbikes being a danger to others raised my blood pressure too.
How can one of the most vulnerable groups of road users be considered a danger to ALL other groups?
Many, many more motorcyclists are killed by other road users than the reverse. I\'m unlucky enough to know some of them.
|
|
|
A friend of mine has a bike and rides like a lunatic but he's never had an accident..... but he's seen hundreds in his rear view mirror!
|
|
|
|
Like all groups of people, there are some crazies out there, but don\'t put us all in one convenient category please!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spottydog was only asking for help and support - I think we should stick to this even if the facts suggest there is a possibility of dangerous driving.
I'm no expert but the best suggestions seem to be:
- Get a good solicitor with experience of these cases
- Plead guilty to speeding but not to dangerous driving
- Try your luck with getting the case deferred - you've nothing to lose.
Another thought - motorcyclists, most of whom are considerate and well aware of others on the road (they have to be) are a fraternity and very good at helping each other out. Google.co.uk may be able to help with names of local clubs or helplines.
Let's hope that Mr Spottydog avoids eternal dalmatian....
|
I don't own a motorcyle and therefore think that no-one should be able to. After all, sometimes they are involved in accidents, therefore they are lethal machines that should be banned or taxed.
::[FORUM ALERT! NoWheels has temporarily achieved remote control of Patently's mind! Normal (?ish) service will be resumed shortly]::
OK - the original post suggested filtering at 90, which is a little silly. But spottydog has specifically confirmed that this was not the case. So:
- he rode at speeds up to 90
- he filtered at unspecified speeds
- he uses his main beam
The only one I'm going to have a go at is the last one. Very irritating. And, oddly, they seem to be annoyed when I flash my main beam at them. Tough on hypocrisy, tough on the causes of...
The other two, and the actions of the officers, are matters for the court. And I will say no more.
|
Firstly, lighten up people.
Secondly;
1) Stop with the sanctimonious, preaching stuff.
2) Some comments removed due to incitement and response
3) You were asked for advice, not judgement. If you can\'t cope, then don\'t try.
4) Stop digging at each other
Its Monday morning, 4 weeks without cigarettes, my family is away, work is really busy and the weather is awful - you really don\'t want me to pay attention today, so lets move to calmer discussion please.
Oh, and don\'t bother telling me that you\'re innocent and this note doesn\'t apply to you; because if it doesn\'t apply to you then there is no point in responding to it and if it does apply to you there is no point in responding to it.
|
if it doesn't apply to you then there is no point in responding to it and if it does apply to you there is no point in responding to it.
Moderation with a sense of humour ... many thanks...!
|
|
|
|
::[FORUM ALERT!
Just in case..... no offence meant NW, merely parody.
|
>> ::[FORUM ALERT! Just in case..... no offence meant NW, merely parody.
That't OK patently -- though as parody, it was wll wide o the mark. Just for the record, I don't see a case for banning motorbikes.
They pose less danger to other road users than cars do. Hospital A+E staff call bikers "organ donors", because that's what lots of them end up as ... and if folks want to risk their lives that way, that's their privelige.
Patently may reckon that because he doesn't own a motorcyle, no-one should be able to. I hate that sort of approach -- I'm only interested in restricting things which are a menace to others.
And on that score, I wish something could be done about motorbikes with horrendously loud exhaust. Something suitably moderate, such as crushing the bikes or boiling the riders in chip fat ...
|
as parody, it was wll wide o the mark.
I thought parody was meant to be? ;-)
And banning them wasn't my view, btw. No chance of seeing me size up a big biker and tell him he should stop...
|
|
|
|
Why do people get so upset about race cans on bikes? I have one on mine. I will take it off when car drivers (Subarus etc.) are persued with the same zealousnes and made to have standard exhausts.
|
I'll remember the day Dad got one for his Gixer. "Not For Road Use" stenciled in the bottom - sounded lovely though.
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He came onto the M11 heading out of London filtering past the traffic in a normal motorbike manner. As he was entering the motorway he (unknowingly) passed an unmarked police car.
He continued filtering up the motorway between the traffic at a reasonable speed, above the speed limit but definitely under 90mph.
Spotty,
If he joined the M11 from the north circular or the Redbridge Roundabout then the first 3 or 4 miles is 50mph limit, so anything over 80 is serious speeding and he'll likely face a ban one way or the other I'd have thought.
CF
|
If he joined the M11 from the north circular or the Redbridge Roundabout then the first 3 or 4 miles is 50mph limit, so anything over 80 is serious speeding and he'll likely face a ban one way or the other I'd have thought. CF
A friend was caught locally by a mobile camera unit doing 70mph in a 30mph zone. Result = No court case, £60 fine and 3 points.
|
A friend was caught locally by a mobile camera unit doing 70mph in a 30mph zone. Result = No court case, £60 fine and 3 points.
Chuffin' eck, where do you live? I feel a visit coming on.
No Dosh - Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Chuffin' eck, where do you live? I feel a visit coming on.
Fifty in a thirty should (ACPO guidelines) earn an appointment with the bench. Seventy is near to disqauification territory and should certainly see the beak taking aim with his book.
I'd guess the evidence was not all that concrete (calibration checks present and correct?) and that even the offer of a fixed penalty was a try on.
|
Dipped main beam on a motorcycle is normal and to be advised, anything that brings you to the attention of doppy car drivers can and will save your life.
Filtering through slow moving or stationery traffic is normal on a motorcycle and was described to me as perfectly acceptable under the Highway Code by the chief motorcycle riding instructor at Hendon Police College (who I met at the TT).
A biker who has voluntarily stopped at first realising that an unmarked police car is following him and wishes him to stop being wrestled to the ground handcuffed and thrown in a van is police brutality, I would get a lawyer and file charges of assualt against those involved.
The fact that he has admitted on tape to speeding does not necessarily mean anything he could plead that he did it in fear after an unprovoked assualt by agrressive officers as described above.
All to play for, get a good lawyer now!
|
|
8< snip 8<
|
8< snip 8<
Nothing wrong with your post Tom, but as I removed Tartan\'s outburst and swearing, there wasn\'t much point in leaving your reply in. DD.
|
|
|
|
"Dipped main beam on a motorcycle is normal and to be advised, anything that brings you to the attention of doppy car drivers can and will save your life."
I've got perfectly good eye sight but am sensitive to bright lights. I don't need to be near blinded by inconsiderate a's on motorcycle.
If it's such a good idea, why do they swear when I returm the favour and full beam them.
|
Why do you think! Full beaming a motorcycle is dangerous and stupid. The thread says dipped beam is normal, so why are you main beaming? Bike headlights tend to jiggle as the bike accelerates or brakes.
"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do"
|
!>> Why do you think! Full beaming a motorcycle is dangerous andstupid. The thread says dipped beam is normal, so why are you main beaming? Bike headlights tend to jiggle as the bike accelerates or brakes. "Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do"
my mistake, should have been clearer and said those that use "full beam" which seems to be alot that I come accross. A number of biker friends admit they do it cause they are more visible when "getting a move on".
it actually says "dipped main beam" which I assumed was main beam - hence "full". as in driving (side), dipped (normal) and main (full).
Dipped beam is no prob for my eyes - but seriously bright lights (full beam) are, shades always at hand.
I have the same prob with idiots that have misaligned fogs or scooby spots on all the time
|
|
|
|
|
>> Chuffin' eck, where do you live? I feel a visit coming >> on. Fifty in a thirty should (ACPO guidelines) earn an appointment with the bench. Seventy is near to disqauification territory and should certainly see the beak taking aim with his book. I'd guess the evidence was not all that concrete (calibration checks present and correct?) and that even the offer of a fixed penalty was a try on.
It was a mobile camera unit (talivan) so there wouldn't have been any calibration marks on the road. The event happend in Sunderland, but you really don't want to go there...
|
This will probably get me in to trouble with the Mods but Chris2 your a complete idiot and you deserve everything you get.
Also if you are sensitive to bright lights your eyesight is not perfect its defective. I suggest you see a doctor.
|
Not really about dangerous driving but on my Dad's bike (a new one I might add) you can't turn the lights off. According to the manual this is so the more vunerable of us can be seen.
I'd much rather have a mildly annoying light in my back window than not see one (or the bike at all).
--
Adam
|
>Not really about dangerous driving but on my Dad's bike (a new
>one I might add) you can't turn the lights off. According to
>the manual this is so the more vunerable of us can be seen.
Yep, it's law now for new bikes to have the dipped main beam on permanently.
-Mark
|
Yep, it's law now for new bikes to have the dipped main beam on permanently.
Seems sensible, and I wish that more cars did the same. Using full beam is a different matter, and the highway code offers clear guidance on this, in sectiosn 94&95: www.highwaycode.gov.uk/08.shtml#94
|
***FANFARE****
ALERT ALERT - Everyone, I agree with NoWheels.
Yes - I'm scared too!
--
Adam
|
Oh dear. Both of us do.
There's a noise off - sounds like four men on horseback. I'd best go and see what they want, just as soon as I can persuade the pig to land.
|
Haha.
Let's go for 2.
Tell me NW...what's your opinion on Speeding?
:-)
--
Adam
|
ALERT ALERT - Everyone, I agree with NoWheels.
Once you overcome the shock, you'll find it's the right place to be :)
|
the right place to be :)
Ah, but for whom?
|
>> the right place to be :) Ah, but for whom?
for the discerning driver seeking wisdom and enlightment, of course!
|
Er....
Any takers?
--
Adam
|
the discerning driver seeking wisdom and enlightment
Let me understand this one.
Persons seeking wisdom and enlightenment must assume a lotus position and sit atop a small column. This, in effect, disables their legs.
Drivers seeking wisdom and enlightenment must have, err, no wheels?
|
I've got a hangover. It ain't Friday.
This place is [supposed to be] a motoring oriented forum.
|
|
Sorry Mark. We were both in shock. I'll stop now and go and do some work.
|
We bikers don't want cars to drive with lights on as this takes away the advantage we have.
--
"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do"
|
|
Yep, it's law now for new bikes to have the dipped main beam on permanently. -Mark
>>
No it ain't!
|
>>>> Yep, it's law now for new bikes to have the dipped
>>>> main beam on permanently.
>>>>
>>>> -Mark
>>>>
>>No it ain't!
It may not be law for new bikes to have their dipped headlights on, but all mainstream manufacturers seem to give the rider no ability to turn them off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
