OllyK

Where did he say that? It reads to me that the NIP claims he was doing 68 in a 50, I didn't see him confirm he was doing that speed.

thedon

there was a programme on about a year and a half ago now that was showing all the people that had incorrectly recieved NIP. one of the people that was on this programme knew that speed camera he was caught on must have been wrong due to it clocking him doing 120 odd MPH towing a caravan!! when he contested it they checked the speed camera to find out the spacing between the lines on the road where incorrect

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

I am on the side of "do the crime do the time."

OllyK

But he hasn't admitted doing the crime. He's been accused i.e. recieved a NIP, but he hasn't confirmed that he agrees with it. He is asking what he might expect if he just accepts it, it could be that he is innocent, but can't be bothered to contest it anyway if he's only going to get 3 points and £60.

It's that apathy the camera partnerships rely on and it allows them to get away with collecting fines off genuinely innocent people.

thedon

i think hedgehog has put it nicely here!!!

Son of Quatto

Personally I have no sympathy. Under New Labour you are a criminal and should be treated as such.

Welease the hounds Winthrop

hedgehog

I would have to dig through about 5 years of communications to find a precise example and I imagine that most on which cases were won (i.e. the ones I would know about) have been "fixed" by the local councils now. From what I recall the situation could arise where a speed limit was "removed" from a road but where the replacement limit wasn't legally applied and so the road ended up with no limit at all, not even NSL. I know that there were a few people who won cases based upon this and I am sure that there are still roads in the UK which haven't come to the attention of local councils where this still applies.

Of course other motoring law would still apply and so driving at 195mph down one of these roads while not leading to a charge of speeding could lead to a range of other, more serious, charges.

I think Jeffery Archer (honestly) who posts on pepipoo assisted a few people with defences in relation to such circumstances if you really need an example. I will take a quick look to see if I can find any actual examples in the paperwork I have here but I can't remember seeing details of one for some time so success, in view of my filing system, is unlikely.

OllyK

No need to go digging if you don't have it to hand, was just a point of interest really.

Vegescoob

Avoid the 160SR then. Not Scoob of course but nippy and taut and says "I wanna play".

Legal Eagle

At the risk of being flamed by others simply for offering a view (you know who you are), where a highway has not been adopted by the local authority and, for example, is still owned by the housing developer, although to all intents and purposes the road looks like a road, in legal terms it is not. Consequently it is not subject to the speeding laws about which this thread is concerned.

OK - I have had my say.
Those who want to have a go at me over this, feel free.

hedgehog

Can I go first? Oh go on...

Surely such a road would, because the public have access to it, be subject to the RTA and, therefore, it would be possible to be guilty of the same offences when driving on such a road as would be the case when driving on what might be considered the public highway.

For the road not to be subject to the RTA it would have to be maintained such that the general public do not have access. If such a road were to be blocked with a locked gate, for example, then the RTA would not apply and so someone driving on it would not be in a position to fall foul of the RTA.

Legal Eagle

Nice try but nope. Simply because the public have access does not make it subject automatically to the RTA. The path and steps to my front door are available for the public to have access but there is no NSL in force there. If a road is not adopted and maintained at the public expense, it is not a highway.

A relatively recent example of speeding ticket fines being refunded (on application) on non-maintained roads demonstrates the point (and provides such an example for which you were searching earlier). It may even be in the new edition of Stones.

hedgehog

In England and Wales the RTA applies to "any highway and any other road to which the public has access"

The important element is that the public has access, not whether someone in the council has decided to call it a road or not. This therefore includes footpaths and even roadways and driveways on private land assuming that measures have not been taken to exclude the public from them.

Legal Eagle

But that is precisely the point. Is it a public highway and is it subject to a speed limit and if so what is the limit and for how much of the length of road? If it is not a public highway there will be no Traffic Order giving the speed limit, its duration and extent. QED (I would respectfully submit).

Son of Quatto

Hedgehog without being offensive you don't half waffle on. LOL your read makes for a good nightcap as its boring as sin. LOl no wonder so many women look elsewhere when their hubbies are tittilating themselves over this dross. The man asked what he would get not a fecking **** law lecture

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Sorry to go off topic here but SoQ keeps popping up criticising the length/depth/content of posts!

SoQ - you seem to have a strange obsession with length and women

You seem to think the longer the post the less likely the poster is to have an attractive sexual woman at their side.

Did you know that according to a range of surveys, the range of sexual experience of a woman is directly related to IQ

The smarter they are the better the imagination

The smarter they are the more likely they are to want stimulation right between their...













...ears

hedgehog

I think you are respectfully correct but I've been a bit careful with my posts in the discussion with you on the matter in that I didn't actually mention a speed limit I just insisted that the RTA applies, something you failed to pick me up on. I thought the cunning plan would tell me something about you but, on reflection, I'm not sure it has. That being the case you probably win on two counts as my suspicion was that you may have been getting your info from someone else but I am not at all sure I've come close to establishing that, yet :-)

My point remains that the RTA applies but you were with it enough to note that this tells us nothing about any speed limit which may, or in the case of an unadopted road, may not apply as the RTA doesn't specify a speed limit for each bit of road in the country.

I'm away off to practise this respectful submission thing.

EVOLUTION

He is spot on right on this one...

I know as i have used this defence in a court of law before 3 magiatrates.


I was accused of doing something in my car to which the police considered to be dangerous driving. Flat out denied it and the clever solicitor i used, said just in case you dont believe him, then this particular road is not subject to to the RTA.

Anyway to cut a long story short, i ened up with NO CASE TO ANSWER as the verdict, then i filed a counter claim for damages sustained to my vehicle, didnt get to court, but they saiud in the interest of this case, we are not admitting we did it in writing, but heres a sum of money anyway just to shut you up.

It had WE DID IT AND WE ARE SORRY wrote all over it in invisible ink lol

hedgehog

Now, I'm not so completely convinced of this one, though I don't doubt that it happened. Legal Eagle is correct that no speed limit applies because none has been applied to the road. However, as discussed, if the public have access ("any highway and any other road to which the public has access" again) then the RTA should apply. With this in mind although they can't get you for speeding they can get you for dangerous and this makes me think there must be slightly more to your case or that the Mags must have considered something that perhaps wasn't discussed with you but which lead them to find for you. It must be said that dangerous is a charge that is very rarely taken by the CPS because it is hard to prove but that is an aside to your point.

Do you know was there any attempt to argue that the RTA didn't apply because the road you were on wasn't generally accessible to the public? This is certainly one reason why I can imagine the RTA not applying but generally speaking the RTA will apply on paths, public parks, car parks etc. and in Scotland it applies anywhere the public have right of way which could mean some remote mountain top!

This isn't a flame or an attempt to shoot you down, I'm very interested in what you say just because if you argued that the RTA didn't apply on a roadway to which the public had access and won on this basis then it was a most interesting case indeed. Either that or the Clerk of Court had a very strange idea of the law :-)

Dave uk blue mica

i know a way to get out of it mate and i'll pm you later about, posting on here would just get do gooders saying take the points etc