I was 'clocked' last Monday evening at around 8:30pm doing 58 on an extremely innocuous and not at all dangerous (ie. no side entry roads whatsoever on this stretch between the two roundabouts) bit of 50MPH max dual-carriageway by a mobile unit in West Yorkshire!
Received the paperwork in the post yesterday and they've misspelt my middle name ? its actually Grahame (with an E on the end) exactly as it appears on my driving licence, however, they've used Graham!
A bit (lot) tenuous I know, but, that could be an entirely different bloke, right ? heh?! Worth pursuing on a 'technicality' basis, or not?
Obviously, I'll try anything once!
Best...
RickyBoy
|
Dear Ricky
I was similarly caught almost exactly 12 months ago and to date have not paid any fines nor been to court nor had any points on my licence. How?
I cannot/will not tell you in open discussion but the method was offered to me by a legal advisor, although how moral or legal the method is open to question. If you come to the North West Back Room Meet on 16th August (see other thread) I will tell you personally, but of course cannot guarantee success.
I suspect that the misspelling of your name is not a valid reason to rescind a notice.
Personally, if I was caught bang to rights then I would take it on the chin, but where I think the camera and or speed limit is purely there for money generation, then I would not hesitate to use this route.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
For me it would all come down to the total cost (all aspects) of trying to deny the offence compared to the total cost of accepting that I was guilty. You haven't told us whether it was a fixed penalty or whether the points would jeopardise your licence etc etc. Is there more to this than meets the eye ~ well, our eye(s)?
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
It's (it'll be my) my first ever offence in over 30 years of driving. I've been involved in a couple of 'prangs' over the years but none were my fault, so a clean licence it's always been!
Guess I've led a charmed life (re: speed limits) in more recent times mind (95 on motorways late in the evening in perfect conditions, etc.) so my luck has finally expired and yes, I'd normally take something like this on the chin and simply move on in a 'win some/lose some stylee...
...but as Espada suggests, this instance was unquestionably a revenue-generating exercise aimed at catching people immediately after their exiting the M1 at Junction 40(?)
For anyone living in that area (I was on the way to visit my mother!) the exact location was on the A638 Ossett By-Pass EBC between Leeds Road Gawthorpe & Sandbeds Industrial Estate Ossett.
As I live in Buckinhamshire I suspect I would have difficulty in making your NorthWest Meet-Up Espada but can always offer you my personal EMail address should you wish to share that little 'nugget' with me!
Best...
RickyBoy
|
I can confirm what Espada said in as much that mispelling Grahame will not invalidate the NIP.
I've known people with the numberplate misprinted by one letter still get done!
--
Adam
|
|
goto www.pepipoo.com that specialises in these matters. Regards Peter
|
I cannot emphasise Peters recommendation highly enough, www.pepipoo.com is an excellent site with some very good advice from those that know about these matters, they also have no moral axe to grind.
I would suggest you do nothing until you have posted your query there and got an answer, they really do know their stuff. There is also a lot of speeding news there, good to see a couple of the Scameraships have really messed up recently.
As always
Mark
|
A motorbiking mate of mine got zapped doing 75 in a 60 zone. They sent him the paperwork through the post and put the wrong date on it. The date they printed he could prove he was 200+ miles away on a customer site, not on the road in question.
He went to court to dispute the charges and the Magistrate just 'amended' the date when he gave the details of his challenge.
He took the points and fine.
|
The PePiPoo site as said is truly excellent and seems to me to offer a pretty good route out of a ticket. Pay particular attention to the role of civilian operators who are anyone but a currently serving police officer.
The way this site has evolved over the last 2 years is amazing and an indication of the power of the internet. I am amazed they haven't tried to ban it somehow.
(anorak mode off).
|
|
Also the guy who runs it occasionally goes over to a forum used by police officers and stirs them up. They think he's the anti-Christ and their responses are very amusing.
|
pepipoo are covering the tale of someone who is fighting his case by arguing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) can and should be applied to speeding offences. There is plenty about it on the site and may be worth looking at if you want to fight your fine. Even if you don't want to put up a similar defence (it will take years to go through Court and will cost you) the story is quite amusing and shows what a shambles the whole issue of speeding offences and PACE is.
|
As I recall the PACE Letter they suggest provides the information about the driver that is requested by S172 but in a way that is not admissible for prosecution.
The result of this seems that it generates a number of threatening letters from the Scameraships which are bluff and bluster often misquoting the appropriate regs then leading to a timeout situation in which the offence cannot be prosecuted. The key here is that you do provide the required information but in a way the CPS and scameraships have yet to find it acceptable before a beak.
There are a growing number of successes over at pepipoo for those that want to read up on it as well as lots of good procedural advice.
as always
Mark
|
|
Yes, what a terrible road. Terrible in the sense that it has no entry or exit points apart from at each end, no houses, schools or other buildings along its length, probably not even a pedestrian pavement. And yet for some reason a few years ago it had its speed limit changed from 70 to 50 mph. Feels very slow along there at 50, doesn't it.
|
I've just looked at the accident stats for this stretch of road.
1998 and 1999 no injuries or deaths
2000 1 injury no deaths
2002 3 injuries 1 death
2003 no injuries or deaths
2004 (to August only - why only August I've no idea it's 12 months ago!) 3 injuries no deaths
The camera, and I assume reduction in limit, was introduced in 2002. So the introduction of cameras and a reduced limit have had no effect in reducing the number of accidents on this road!
|
Davey, where can one get such stats from?
|
That is the best shooting in foot site I've ever seen.
How it's possible for accidents to rise with lower limits and cameras is crazy.
Saaaaay, maybe it isn't to do with speed at all.
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
Anyone who wishes their contact details to be passed on to another member may ask one of us to do it at any time.
moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Ricky
I presume that the signing was correct and that NOIP with CO papers were served on you within 14 days of the offence and that you were in fact speeding and caught by camera.
As Reg Keeper you will have been asked to name the driver
so who are you going to "fit up"?
SCP check DVLA for RK details. Check your V5. Does it contain the G error? If so why have you not corrected?
You can always try what you say but at the end of the day SCP can dig their heels in and go for Court where as Simon states the error is so minor that the bench will allow a correction.
You may wish to consider paying up with a smile and a resolve to pay more attention to forward observations.
DVD
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received the paperwork in the post yesterday and they've misspelt my middle name ? its actually Grahame (with an E on the end) exactly as it appears on my driving licence, however, they've used Graham! A bit (lot) tenuous I know, but, that could be an entirely different bloke, right
It could be an entirely different bloke, but could you prove that it was this bloke with the middle name Graham (or anyone else, for that matter) that was driving your car at the time and not you? (I'm sure that the police have concrete evidence that it was your car that was being driven at the alleged speed at the alleged time in the alleged location.) If you claimed that this other bloke was driving it with your permission then I would expect the police to put a lot of pressure on you to prove it. If he wasn't driving with your permission then presumably he had either twocced it or stolen it. Since you still have the car he didn't steal it, so he must have twocced it. How did you get the car keys back?
I don't think it's as much a case of whether you can dig yourself out of this one but rather how deep a hole are you are prepared to dig yourself into.
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
You broke the law, why not just pay up? You'll only get 3points and a £60 fine, not lose your licence or anything.
The typo could be a genuine mistake, I doubt your defence would stand up in court!
|
|
Because he's already paid Gordon Brown more than enough.
|
I admit to being somewhat surprised at the sympathy shown to the frankly contemptible idea of trying to wriggle out of a speeding ticket without even attempting to deny guilt. I confess I felt slightly badly-done-to when I was caught by a camera van on the A6 in Derbyshire in April, especially as I am generally well behaved, but I was most angry with myself - nobody else was to blame.
It is an unattractive trait not to accept responsibility for one's own actions, and the quickest way to get over it is to do so, take the consequences, and get on with life.
If you don't like Gordon Brown then then make sure you vote at the next election.
|
If I murdered someone, I'd try everything I could to get off with it. Why should speeding be any different?
--
Adam
|
If a looophole in the law exists then I can see no moral grounds against exploiting it.
To quote Judge Somebody or other, "A man is entitled to arrange his finances in such a way that he is able to avoid paying tax"
I would argue the same for arranging ones defence in a court case.
|
If a looophole in the law exists then I can see no moral grounds against exploiting it.
For the amoral, I agree.
Tax avoidance is legal. It is not a valid analogy.
All in my opinion of course...
|
|
|
|
Adski,
If you murdered someone, deliberately, in cold blood, I would hope you didn't get off with it.
This "crime" was also commited in "cold blood".
There is a difference in this case. The murder would, by definition, involve a victim. The speeding, in this case, had no victim. Most, if not all, speed camera cases have no victim. If anything more people caught this way should try to get away with it.
|
mjm,
You're of course right. If I did murder someone, I should get locked up. That wouldn't stop my self preservation though.
--
Adam
|
|
|
The speeding, in this case, had no victim. Most, if not all, speed camera cases have no victim. If anything more people caught this way should try to get away with it.
Oh dear. Now we decide which laws we can ignore. Define a speeding offence with a victim!
Do you mean if there was no RTA then it's OK? Is there an acceptable degree of speeding or does this defence apply to 100mph through a housing estate?
|
One could suggest that an acceptable degree of speeding is what feels safe and reasonable for the road and conditions without plainly being silly. Like the fact that a blind eye is turned to the multitude of motorway users doing 80-85 mph.
Similarly, the road in question, for at least 10 years, used to have a 70mph limit. It was, and still is, a dual carriageway with a continuous central barrier, no entries or exits, and nowhere near any members of the public.
Then there was a fatal accident occurred on it, so they reduced the limit to 50. It's still the same road though, so if the weather's clear and dry and there's little of no traffic, not surprisingly it still FEELS safe and reasonable to do 70 on it. Not the same as doing 100mph through a housing estate.
I don't deny it's still illegal, and if you get nabbed, you get nabbed, but you can understand why people feel miffed getting nabbed for 58 mph up there while 85 on the M1 is nod-and-a-wink acceptable, and 20mph zones past infant schools fail to get enforced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rickyboy,
I've been asked to pass an email onto you from one of the members in this thread who has some information for you - however, when I tried, it appears your email address isn't valid.
1. Can you email me so that I can pass the email onto you.
2. Please see the sticky at the top of the page (Lost Backroom Accounts/Existing Accounts) and spend a couple of minutes updating your backroom account with a valid email address.
TIA, DD. dave_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
If you were clocked at 58mph, you would have had around 65mph on your speedo - in a 50mph zone. What's the problem? Put your hands up a take your punishment like a man.
|
|
The speedo may be out, but I doubt by that much. My A2 was 3 mph out, my A3 is virtually spot on.
|
65 would be the max legal of 10%+2. Must admit the most I have ever seen as an over-read (using GPS for reference) was about 7% (Mazda) 5% (Skoda)<1% (BMW)
|
65 would be the max legal of 10%+2. Must admit the most I have ever seen as an over-read (using GPS for reference) was about 7% (Mazda) 5% (Skoda) >
Possibly, but the indicated speed woulbe at least 58mph and probably 60mph or more.
So I repeat - you were done bang to rights, why not take your punishment like a man (or woman)?
|
to clarify by "max legal" I was of course referring to maximum amount your speedo should overread (not the speed you should be driving at) and for most purposes I believe 10% is the figure - ACPO guidelines add 2mph on top of that...so if you still get caught at the indicated speeds, as drbe says, you probably deserve it ;-)
|
When the guidelines are followed. A lot of times they aren't.
--
Adam
|
>>When the guidelines are followed. A lot of times they aren't.
How do you know that ?
|
|
|
|
What guidelines are we referring to and when are they not followed?
|
|
ahh ok the ACPO ones, well just be aware they don't have to honour the 10%+2 they choose to give that tolerance...big difference....... back to the standard argument...don't speed and thou shall not get caught ;-) agreed?
|
Agreed. Not much help to RickyBoy though is it?
--
Adam
|
|
If Rb has been caught for speeding because he was erm speeding, then no.
|
|
Well I'll admit I was probably a little quick to use that admittedly sweeping statement.
I would have to say visibility guidelines more than anything else. Of the pictures I've seen and the few times I've gone through a none Police speed trap, they're pretty well hidden.
Plus the fact, someone I know (no really - I do) did get done once at 76mph. Correct me if I'm wrong but but ACPO guidelines are 10% +2.
--
Adam
|
"Plus the fact, someone I know (no really - I do) did get done once at 76mph"
What speed did he think he was doing (before he braked)?
|
I have absolutely no idea. We appear to be getting bogged down in the argument here of don't speed, don't get caught. You asked about the guidelines I replied to the best of my knowledge.
With regard to not helping RB, he's already committed the heinous act of speeding so how does this help?
(Purely rhetorical as a)I'm bored of these arguments, b)Everyone else is bored of these arguments at c) I fear I won't be able to answert anymore of your questions ;-)
--
Adam
|
"With regard to not helping RB, he's already committed the heinous act of speeding so how does this help?"
No more questions and my last post to this thread - I think you will find if you read an earlier post that a guardian angel(?) is trying to send an email to RB...no doubt as a response to his pleas for help, given it isn't a public post and the likely content of the email...
HTH, as they say.
|
|
|
|
|
