Donate SIGN UP

Unfair Notice Of Intended Prosecution

Avatar Image
Ellipsis | 11:18 Wed 10th Jul 2024 | Law
114 Answers

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?

Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 114rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Avatar Image
pay it, do the course if you can, there is no defence.Auto nicking systems have no judgement. In the days before the cameras a plod could use his judgement and unless he was jobsworth of the week he would have not bothered in this case. An automated system has no such judgement.If you fight it then it will just cost more, the offence is clear.
11:22 Wed 10th Jul 2024

she's done it -  pay the loo-loo !

adequate case law that says she has to obey lawful signs even it if seem stupid

pay it, do the course if you can, there is no defence.

Auto nicking systems have no judgement. In the days before the cameras a plod could use his judgement and unless he was jobsworth of the week he would have not bothered in this case. An automated system has no such judgement.

If you fight it then it will just cost more, the offence is clear.

Pay up.  She can't say she didn't do it.  

Question Author

A nice earner for some ...

Motorists are easy targets.

obey the law, or pay the penalty ! ( Shakespeare or someone)

"As you might imagine, the motorway was empty" yet there were other cars behind her?

She hasn't got a hope of getting off.  Best to pay up immediately before the fine is increased.

the Pedant strikes ^^

Question Author

Yes, "empty " as I. very few cars around, and none ahead - otherwise, as she said, she would have slammed her brakes on, having seen cars ahead being flashed.

Question Author

as in*

At the end of the day, she was breaking the law and knew it!  I see it every day of the week, people speeding along the roads like they own them.  Pay the fine and obey the speed limits, they are in place for a reason.

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'.  

Question Author

> Pay the fine and obey the speed limits, they are in place for a reason

Clearly not in all cases ...

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

There was a reason, it cleared before your friend reached it. That's how it should work 

Humans control the restrictions so even if the need for the speed limit no longer existed, someone might have had other priorities to deal with before removing this restriction.

arrods: "Can you at least plead mitigating circumstances these days, to reduce the penalty a bit?" - there are none.

See my post at 13.03.

 

The M25 often has speed restrictions late at night for no apparent reason.  I hate to say I suspect it's a good money earner - but I do.

Question Author

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

Well, that was what I was asking ... there's 52 in a 40 zone, and 52 in a 40 zone!

> someone might have had other priorities to deal with before removing this restriction

She can see that the restriction was set at 11:59 PM so it had been there for almost two hours.  The time being so close to midnight is a bit suspicious. It feels like a revenue-making mechanism, nothing more.

1 to 20 of 114rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Unfair Notice Of Intended Prosecution

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.