Unfair Notice Of Intended Prosecution

[Ellipsis]

Asking for a friend, who was driving up the motorway at 1:48 AM in the early hours of Saturday morning, at 70mph. As you might imagine, the motorway was empty and she was in the inside lane.  A Gatso speed camera appeared showing 40 mph across all four lanes, and an electronic picture showing queues ahead.  Seeing far ahead, she saw no queue as yet.  She took off her accelerator and did not slam her brakes, as there were cars behind her, also on the inside lane.  

A flash appeared and she thought "What the ...???" She checked her speedo and it was just over 50mph (because she had taken off the accelerator).  Literally half a mile later, another electronic sign showed end of restriction (the "0" symbol).  She had not seen any cars ahead in that time - there was no queue. 

(As I said, "Seeing far ahead, she saw no queue as yet."  In fact there was nobody ahead at all, because if there had been, my friend would have seen their flash, and braked herself"! As no doubt the drivers behind did, thanks to her misfortune.)

Today she received a "Notice of Intended Prosecution" showing that she was caught doing 52mph in a 40mph zone at 1:48 AM on Saturday.  This seems ridiculous. What should she do?

[douglas9401]

It's an injustice, Calimero.

[New Judge]

“What should she do?”

First of all she should respond o the “request for driver’s details”. She will find this accompanying the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP). It is a separate document subject to different legislation but probably printed on the same sheet of paper as the NIP. She must do this regardless of any issues she has with the speeding offence itself. Failure to do so within the 28 days allowed will see her commit a separate, more serious offence which carries six points upon conviction.

Then she should check that the NIP was received by the Registered Keeper within 14 days of the date of the offence. If it was not it may provide a defence to the speeding charge, depending on why it was served late.

So to the offence itself. There is nothing “unfair” about the NIP. An offence has been alleged and the law says that a NIP must be served if prosecution is to be considered. You said “a Gatso speed camera appeared”. I’m sure that’s not the case. What more probably happened was that she saw that the next gantry was displaying a large, bright red circle with “40” in the centre, across all four lanes. These signs are very bright and can be seen from a considerable distance, especially at night. From your later post it appears this restriction had been in place for some time, so there is no question that it changed as she approached the gantry.

If all of this is in order she has nothing in the way of a defence. She should be offered a speed awareness course for that speed. It will cost her about £100 and a few hours of her time, but no penalty points. If she does not fancy doing the course she will be offered a fixed penalty of £100 and three points.

“A friend of mine was fined doing 57 in a 40mph zone.  With the notice came a letter basically saying 'we don't care what excuses you send us - you're fined'.  “

I’ll wager it said no such thing, naomi. I’m quite familiar with all the documentation that accompanies a speeding allegation and none says that. It may have said something like that you can take a course/pay a fixed penalty and if you don’t you will be prosecuted in court. But that’s not he same thing at all. Every driver has the right to reject any out of court offers and have the matter heard in the magistrates' court, where the prosecution will have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

“Can you at least plead mitigating circumstances these days, to reduce the penalty a bit?”

Of course you can. The problem is that the only place you can do that is in court. By the time you get there the out of court offers I mentioned will be off the table and the normal sentencing guidelines will apply. Even with mitigation this will cost probably three or four times the out of court penalties. As well as that, from the description of the event, no mitigation appears to exist.

[Ellipsis]

Thanks, NJ.  There is the answer and a lesson to us all. Next time you're driving home at two in the morning at 70 mph with nothing ahead for miles to see, slam your brakes on if Mr Robot Policeman says so ...

[Ellipsis]

Oh, and then half a mile later, continue as you were, again thanks to Mr Robot Policman ... what a friendly and completely fair robot it is.

[bhg481]

She is implying that the speed limit appeared too late for her to brake gently (so as to avoid an accident) in time for her get her speed below 40mph in time. If she has a dashcam she could see exactly when the speed limit appeared, how far away she was at the time and how much she had slowed down when she passed the Gatso. If she hasn't a dashcam there's a good reason for getting one.

[THECORBYLOON]

The speed limit didn't appear too soon though, did it?

It had applied since 11:59 pm and the offence was at 1:48 am so the sign had been operational for almost two hour by that time.

[THECORBYLOON]

For, "soon" read, "late".

[barry1010]

Ellipsis, if you notice the Gatso sign so late that you have to slam the brakes on, you are either watching a movie on your laptop or driving at over 100 mph.  

[naomi24]

You may wager all you like, NJ, but that is what she told me it said.  Having known her since childhood, I've never had reason to doubt her word.

[bhg481]

TCL - good point; I'd overlooked that.

Barry - yes, there are no sharp bends or overhanging trees on motorways to prevent you seeing a sign in good time to react to it.

[ToraToraTora]

13:03, there is no way it said that, fantasy.

[naomi24]

I won't argue with you TTT except to say I know her - I don't know you.

[Ellipsis]

> It had applied since 11:59 pm and the offence was at 1:48 am so the sign had been operational for almost two hour by that time.

Yes, and no doubt it caught many victims who, with no other drivers ahead, did not see the flashing to warn that this ridiculous camera was active.  How long the camera was on is irrelevant to the driver, who only sees it when they're driving towards it.  My point is that for that camera to be on for two hours between midnight and 2AM is ridiculous.  Maybe there was a queue at midnight, but there certainly was no queue at 1:48 AM when it says it there was.

> Ellipsis, if you notice the Gatso sign so late that you have to slam the brakes on, you are either watching a movie on your laptop or driving at over 100 mph.  

A ridiculous statement.  Two things are happening at the same time.  The road is obviously clear.  The sign says 40, queues ahead.  At 1:48 AM, a good driver does not brake - not unless they are conditioned to brake by previous bad experiences with Mr Robot.  I suppose she was lucky she was only doing 52, rather than 71 - that would have been an instant ban, on a clear motorway!

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, Good drivers would brake to comply with speed restrictions.  I would.  Not to do so is folly - as she discovered.

[Squitty]

There is a possibility they wont take you to court if you dont just accept the points & pay up.

I had the same (I thought) unfair NIP and I was prepared to go to court to argue - it was for 92mph on the motorway (I still have the NIP) - I didnt pay and they didnt take me to court either.

Not recommended action of course but whats the worst that could happen?

[gulliver1]

16.15. 16.26.It seems to me that just because this lady is known to Naomi that she is a privileged  person. And should not receive a fine .

[New Judge]

"Next time you're driving home at two in the morning at 70 mph with nothing ahead for miles to see, slam your brakes on if Mr Robot Policeman says so ..."

There's absolutely no need to do so.

As I said, the speed restriction signs on motorway gantries are very bright and visible from some distance. The standards to which  National Highways adhere mean they are visible from at least 300 metres and in practice they are probably visible further than that. Even if the actual figure cannot be determined from that distance, a driver should realise that a new limit may be applicable and should be prepared to slow down. It is clear from your description that this reduced speed limit sign did not "just appear". It had been illuminated for some time and would have been visible from some distance.

The (generous) Highway Code stopping distance from 70mph to a complete stop is only 96 metres so shedding 30mph from that speed from the time an illuminated gantry becomes visible until it is reached should be easily achievable just by lifting off, with little or no braking required at all.

The argument that the limit was improperly applied might hold some water. She could enquire of National Highways what the reason for it was. However, there could be a multitude of reasons which would seemingly see no need for a reduced speed limit: there could be pedestrians or stray animals reported (though none visible to drivers), for example; there could be invisible road damage. Whattever the reason, it is not for drivers to make their own judgement calls based on what they can or cannot see ahead..

What you are really suggesting is that she would have been  quite satisfied if she had been caught speeding provided she saw a good reason for the reduction, but is unhappy because she did not. 

That's not really a very sound argument because at the time of her transgression she did not have all the information which was available to National Highways but still broke the limit nonetheless.  

[Ellipsis]

> Ellipsis, Good drivers would brake to comply with speed restrictions.  I would.  Not to do so is folly - as she discovered.

You would brake from 70 to 40, despite the fact there was somebody behind you that was faster than you?

(By the way, I have now seen the photos.  I can see there was somebody quite close behind.  I don't know that they were getting closer, because the camera doesn't show that.  It does show that there's nothing ahead, at all, which is also what my friend said).

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, on a motorway you can see speed restrictions from quite a way off.  I'm not suggesting anyone slam their brakes on endangering themselves and other motorists, but you do have time to slow down safely.  

[Ellipsis]

> The argument that the limit was improperly applied might hold some water. She could enquire of National Highways what the reason for it was.

Thanks, I will let you know.  Is that here: Call: 0300 123 5000 Email: [email protected] (as seen on https://nationalhighways.co.uk/help-centre/)

> Ellipsis, on a motorway you can see speed restrictions from quite a way off. 

OK, thanks.  I think she's been poorly treated.  As I said, the 40 sign and the following 0 sign were only half a mile apart, the sign said "Queues", there were no queues, no red tail lights, in fact no other cars at all ahead, but one behind, at 1:48 in the morning.  To me, it seems like a revenue generating exercise, no more.  Still, a lesson learnt for her, me and hopefully some others too ...