Got my first NIP - what now
26 July 2003, 01:11 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Surrey
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got my first notice of intention to prosecute yesterday. Apparently doing 70mph in a 60. It seems to me that the form I have to complete makes me admit guilt. The burden of proof is surely with the police, who have shown no evidence that my car with me driving committed the alleged offence. What should I do?
I would expect to get a copy of the photo at least.
Apparently if I do not "own up" my fine will go up and I could get more points. Is this not asking for money with menaces? This all seems a bit odd to me. If I got stopped by an actual copper who could show me the evidence (and it would be self evident I was on that peice of road at that time) I wouldn't be so aggreived.
Any advice appreciated (except calls for me to slow down
)
LoFi
[Edited by LoFi - 7/26/2003 1:21:53 PM]
I would expect to get a copy of the photo at least.
Apparently if I do not "own up" my fine will go up and I could get more points. Is this not asking for money with menaces? This all seems a bit odd to me. If I got stopped by an actual copper who could show me the evidence (and it would be self evident I was on that peice of road at that time) I wouldn't be so aggreived.
Any advice appreciated (except calls for me to slow down
)LoFi
[Edited by LoFi - 7/26/2003 1:21:53 PM]
26 July 2003, 02:00 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
70 in a 60!
now that is tight
i got done for 82 in a 70 on a dual carriageway which really pi$$ed me off
Police camera action joyriders get 6 points for driving like nutters through built-up areas at more than double the limit?????
Law is an ***.
now that is tight
i got done for 82 in a 70 on a dual carriageway which really pi$$ed me off
Police camera action joyriders get 6 points for driving like nutters through built-up areas at more than double the limit?????
Law is an ***.
26 July 2003, 04:01 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
see my thread wtf got done again dont sign the facker prolong the pain you wait just before 28 days ask for the photo then play tennis with it by not signing it! thats what im doing anyway!
dont know if it will work wait n see I suppose!
Stishriek, what a ****ter! 70 in a 60! Law is an ****! Catch some scoob theives why dont you! Instead of bashing motorists!
dont know if it will work wait n see I suppose!
Stishriek, what a ****ter! 70 in a 60! Law is an ****! Catch some scoob theives why dont you! Instead of bashing motorists!
26 July 2003, 07:55 PM
#5
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27 July 2003, 03:49 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STIShrek again you show your extremist side. You should respect the law when the say 60 mph. Hell you're even allowed to go at 68 mph (10%+2) but no... you want to go the extra 2 mph. Why cant you be a good citizen and do as the law says. Stick to bashing immigrants dude..
27 July 2003, 09:11 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Surrey
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
katana, I think in your eagerness for a cheap shot at StiShrek you forgot to read and understand what was said. The point is that yes it is breaking the law but the levels of punishment for offences are weighted so that those breaking the law by some margin get only a marginally greater punishment than those breaking the law in a minor way. In that regard the law is an ***. Breaking the law is breaking the law but the punishment should suit the crime. Speed cameras cannot make judgements and nor can the fixed penelty system.
What interests me is that the letter that came with the NIP says that one third of road injuries are due to excess speed. That meand 66% are caused by other things, what are the police/government doing about that? Not a lot I suspect because it is more difficult and doesn't generate enough revenue.
LoFi
What interests me is that the letter that came with the NIP says that one third of road injuries are due to excess speed. That meand 66% are caused by other things, what are the police/government doing about that? Not a lot I suspect because it is more difficult and doesn't generate enough revenue.
LoFi
Trending Topics
27 July 2003, 10:15 AM
#8
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LoFi,
unfortunately you have been mislead about the 33% of accidents being due to excessive speed - see One Third = 7%!
It is this kind of patronising statement (the one included with your NIP) along with the presumtion of guilt (with you having to prove innocence) that is alienating the Police from the people who pay their wages [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
I expect that for you it is made even worse by the fact that you were "Apparently doing 70mph in a 60", which doesn't in itself seem like a heinous crime - yet you are being penalised even though you weren't aware of it at the time.
A burglar doesn't "forget that he broke into a house" and a murderer doesn't "fail to remember that he killed somebody", but for them to be convicted, the Police have to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. A driver who does tens of thousands of miles per year cannot be expected to remember each and every time he strays over the posted speed limit (if, indeed, that speed limit is clearly displayed
) - but in the eyes of the law he is!
There are already an increasing number of cases of car cloning occurring (see various posts on this board alone), yet still, the registered keeper is deemed guilty onless he can prove innocence (and just how are you supposed to do that????).
Have a read of Unsigned Forms, as i suggested above, and also have a browse around the rest of the ABD web-site for other useful information (and maybe consider joining up).
The authorities seem to think that they can overstep the mark with regard to prosecuting the ordinary "man in the street", whilst failing to clamp down on the real causes of crime and suffering. It is only by contesting this behaviour that we can change things for the better!!
mb
unfortunately you have been mislead about the 33% of accidents being due to excessive speed - see One Third = 7%!
It is this kind of patronising statement (the one included with your NIP) along with the presumtion of guilt (with you having to prove innocence) that is alienating the Police from the people who pay their wages [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
I expect that for you it is made even worse by the fact that you were "Apparently doing 70mph in a 60", which doesn't in itself seem like a heinous crime - yet you are being penalised even though you weren't aware of it at the time.
A burglar doesn't "forget that he broke into a house" and a murderer doesn't "fail to remember that he killed somebody", but for them to be convicted, the Police have to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. A driver who does tens of thousands of miles per year cannot be expected to remember each and every time he strays over the posted speed limit (if, indeed, that speed limit is clearly displayed
) - but in the eyes of the law he is!There are already an increasing number of cases of car cloning occurring (see various posts on this board alone), yet still, the registered keeper is deemed guilty onless he can prove innocence (and just how are you supposed to do that????).
Have a read of Unsigned Forms, as i suggested above, and also have a browse around the rest of the ABD web-site for other useful information (and maybe consider joining up).
The authorities seem to think that they can overstep the mark with regard to prosecuting the ordinary "man in the street", whilst failing to clamp down on the real causes of crime and suffering. It is only by contesting this behaviour that we can change things for the better!!
mb
27 July 2003, 03:44 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Surrey
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boomer,
very interesting site. haven't had a chance to read it all, but I will. I have decided to amend the form I have to send back so that although it is signed I have changed the statement to simply read that I am the owner of the vehicle. I have deleted all references to being the driver at the time of the alleged offence because I simply cannot confirm their precise timing. I've also put together a covering letter explaining in detail why I cannot sign their statement as written and what information I require to confirm the car they have seen is actually mine with me driving.
Having read http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm which goes into some detail about where the burden of proof lies I doubt I will get anywhere. As you say I'm just annoyed that for any other offence the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Edited to saying having read some more I notice it is an offence for me not to complete the NIP form including signing it :
Quote "Queen's Bench Division judgement of DPP v Broomfield 2002
As a result of the above court decision, a recipient who returns but fails to sign a Section 172 notice commits an absolute offence and can be prosecuted for failing to comply with the requirements of Section 172. Road Traffic Act. 1988
The offence will be dealt with in court and attract a fine and penalty points. The court will also have discretionary power to disqualify.
The notice is a statutory requirement to supply details of a driver at the time of an alleged offence." End quote
So it seems you're totally stuffed
LoFi
[Edited by LoFi - 7/27/2003 4:19:45 PM]
very interesting site. haven't had a chance to read it all, but I will. I have decided to amend the form I have to send back so that although it is signed I have changed the statement to simply read that I am the owner of the vehicle. I have deleted all references to being the driver at the time of the alleged offence because I simply cannot confirm their precise timing. I've also put together a covering letter explaining in detail why I cannot sign their statement as written and what information I require to confirm the car they have seen is actually mine with me driving.
Having read http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm which goes into some detail about where the burden of proof lies I doubt I will get anywhere. As you say I'm just annoyed that for any other offence the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Edited to saying having read some more I notice it is an offence for me not to complete the NIP form including signing it :
Quote "Queen's Bench Division judgement of DPP v Broomfield 2002
As a result of the above court decision, a recipient who returns but fails to sign a Section 172 notice commits an absolute offence and can be prosecuted for failing to comply with the requirements of Section 172. Road Traffic Act. 1988
The offence will be dealt with in court and attract a fine and penalty points. The court will also have discretionary power to disqualify.
The notice is a statutory requirement to supply details of a driver at the time of an alleged offence." End quote
So it seems you're totally stuffed
LoFi
[Edited by LoFi - 7/27/2003 4:19:45 PM]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post