Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: Bucksdriver on August 13, 2024, 11:23:48 pm
-
"...even though i think the whole thing was a waste of time,"
Or perhaps not:
"...ive decided to calm down my driving anyway. I no longer overtake as much as i used to and have more of a chill approach to commuting and long journeys."
-
Ok i had a reply from the tvp traffic office. They shared the footage with me and it wasnt where they said it was, it was further along where theres a long straight. Im shown overtaking the cam car behind another vehicle. We both over take and move into the space. I then pull out and overtake that vehicle aswell and another infront of him and go out of view. They stated in the email that i made oncoming vehicles have to take evasive action with careless overtaking. My driving didn't effect the cam car or any on my side btw and from the footage i didnt see any issues from other side. The road i was driving down is a very wide single carriageway with a straight for around 300m. Hence why people use it to overtake slow moving traffic.
Anyway i digress. They have stated they have reviewed the case and will just be offering a warning letter and case complete. Im very relieved and even though i think the whole thing was a waste of time, ive decided to calm down my driving anyway. I no longer overtake as much as i used to and have more of a chill approach to commuting and long journeys. As any car i overtake could have a dash cam, so why take the risk footage will be sent in and have this stress.
Thanks for comments and help given, im glad this is all sorted and my license remains clean.
-
I doubt you'll get a NIP as they don't know who the driver was until you tell them by completing the s172 grassing yourself up.
Aye, the time for getting a nip is long past, hence why i asked in my cover letter why i never received one. Im just wondering what's going on as i returned the 172 info weeks ago and had no reply. I guess no news is good news, will just wait and see what comes of it. As i mentioned the stl for the offence runs out in november.
-
I doubt you'll get a NIP as they don't know who the driver was until you tell them by completing the s172 grassing yourself up.
-
Just an update, i returned the filled in 172 form with a cover page requesting more information if possible about the incident, as it had been so long i had no idea what it was i was supposed to have done. I also questioned why i hadnt had a NIP for the offence. I am yet to hear back from them at this point and wondering whats going on. Im gonna just wait and see and have tried to stop worrying about what happens with this one. If i get any update in terms of a reply from TVP then ill pop a reply on. At this point the offence runs out in november as it will be passed 6 months by then....but realistically i should hear back before then unless something drastic has happened.
-
I got a lovely section 172 notice (asking for driver details) from thames valley police today. This was bare bones on any info but basically said they were considering prosecution for "careless driving" and the location and date and time of the offence.
What else would be needed for it to be an actual NIP, should have been set out in a particular form?
It must tell you that the driver may be prosecuted, and specify the alleged offence and the time and place. There's no standard format
-
Yes mate its all correct on the v5.
And you've not recently moved or bought the car such that the address may have been incorrect at the time the police obtained it?
If not then on the face of it you have a defence in that the requirement to serve a NIP on the registered Keeper within 14 days wasn't satisfied. However you really do have to be certain of your position before taking it to court.
As AF has stated, it's not sufficient that there was a collision due to the presence of your car on the road, but also that you were aware of it, if the police can evidence a collision you would have to 'prove' (I believe balance of probabilities is the standard) you were not aware of it. Apart from your own testimony the nature of the collision and your car's involvement would play a key part in whether the court believes you or not. If the front of your car was stove in and airbags deployed (as an extreme example) they probably wouldn't accept you were unaware!
-
I got a lovely section 172 notice (asking for driver details) from thames valley police today. This was bare bones on any info but basically said they were considering prosecution for "careless driving" and the location and date and time of the offence.
What else would be needed for it to be an actual NIP, should have been set out in a particular form?
-
Queue jumping can in and of itself constitute careless driving.
-
So you're overtaking (a queue of?) slower moving traffic on the approach to a roundabout, and the approach is single carriageway?
Its quite a wide single carriageway road separated by normal white road markings. When i overtake any traffic at the location i would pull back in well before the roundabout.
-
There are many things that could potentially constitute careless driving. Currently they constitute idle speculation.
What is perhaps notable is that the s. 172 notice was apparently not incorporated into a NIP. My understanding is that this is far more prevalent when a NIP is seemingly required due to an RTC, but beyond that, and taking the OP's claim that it was not a NIP at face value, I would only suggest that it was unlikely that an earlier NIP was sent anywhere. I do not recall ever hearing of a NIP-less s. 172 for an Operation Snap or similar on the basis that the issuer felt that no NIP was required due to the reasonable practicability exception, or even for mobile phone offences.
As any fule kno, the RTC exception only applies if the driver was aware of the RTC.
In general, if a defence relies on the accused's credibility it is helpful to set out his stall early. As the OP suggests, he should include a covering letter with his s. 172 response, asking for clarification of what exactly he is being accused of.
-
So you're overtaking (a queue of?) slower moving traffic on the approach to a roundabout, and the approach is single carriageway?
-
... I know i sometimes overtake traffic there, as there is a long run up to a roundabout and usually slow moving traffic leading up to it...
If you are using the approach to the roundabout to overtake slow moving traffic, could you possibly be using a right turn only lane but going straight on?
No mate, this is a single carriageway road at national speed limit. It doesnt have a solid line in middle. It splits into two lanes once it reaches the roundabout and both are straight on lanes (or left turn for left lane, right turn for right lane).
-
Im the registered keeper and own the vehicle outright...
Have you actually looked at your V5C to confirm that your name and - especially - your address are both recorded correctly?
The name and address on that document are what are used to send out the first NIP. Any discrepancy would explain delayed or missing paperwork.
Yes mate its all correct on the v5.
-
Ok well, i guess i just need tvp to get back to me with circumstances and evidence then and see where to go from there.
To expand on what SP says, you aren't entitled to any of that ahead of the matter going to court, if you are likely to plead/be found guilty you really want to avoid that happening and take an out of court settlement (course or fixed penalty) which will be 'less painful'. A polite request for help with details of the allegation may well see them provide some of the information.
For careless, that could be a close pass of a cyclist or pulling out on another road user and may well have been reported via 'operation snap'.
-
... I know i sometimes overtake traffic there, as there is a long run up to a roundabout and usually slow moving traffic leading up to it...
If you are using the approach to the roundabout to overtake slow moving traffic, could you possibly be using a right turn only lane but going straight on?
-
Im the registered keeper and own the vehicle outright...
Have you actually looked at your V5C to confirm that your name and - especially - your address are both recorded correctly?
The name and address on that document are what are used to send out the first NIP. Any discrepancy would explain delayed or missing paperwork.
-
The police are under no obligation to tell you anything at this stage, though they may well do so. You are required to respond to the s 172 notice in any case.
-
Ok well, i guess i just need tvp to get back to me with circumstances and evidence then and see where to go from there.
If im in the wrong then ill own the mistake. im just in the dark with this whole thing at the moment. I have a clean license, so im hoping if worst comes to worst to possibly accept a course or ticket and avoid court. Ill update once i hear back from them.
-
I wasnt involved in any accident thats for sure. .
An accident is defined as "owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle" - you don't need actually to collide with anything, so it's quite possible not to know.
-
Im the registered keeper and own the vehicle outright. There is no issue with the notice being sent elsewhere incorrectly before i got this one. This also seems to be their first correspondence with me (not a follow up letter, with first being missed) and is just a 172 asking for driver details, rather then a nip aswell (which i believe they usually send nip and 172 together). So far as im concerned i havent been nipped for the offence so far....
Anyone ever had this before? I read a few articles online and its stated that the offence of careless driving usually requires a verbal nip at time of offence or one sent by post within 14 days of offence. I also read this doesn't apply if someone is hurt in an accident. I 100% have not been involved in an accident so im completely in the dark at the moment with it.
Anyone had anything similar happen to them?
-
Is the car registered in your name and all details correct on the V5? If it was a company cr, or leased then only the first NIP to the registered keeper ever needs to be within 14 days.
-
I wasnt involved in any accident thats for sure. I guess im just gonna have to wait and see what happens after i return the 172 notice. I honestly have no memory of any incidents at the location. I know i sometimes overtake traffic there, as there is a long run up to a roundabout and usually slow moving traffic leading up to it. I wonder if this could be something to do with it. I cant think of anything else if im honest. Ive been doing this route for nearly 10 years though and if conditions allow, i always overtake slower vehicles at this point...so wonder what the issue is. I guess i have the nervous wait now for the next letter.
-
Lots of people have been prosecuted for careless driving without being warned, normally because they have been involved in an accident. Ring any bells?
-
Hi all,
I got a lovely section 172 notice (asking for driver details) from thames valley police today. This was bare bones on any info but basically said they were considering prosecution for "careless driving" and the location and date and time of the offence. Im confused as the offence was dated 20/05/24 and the date on the notice was 08/08/24. I wasnt stopped by an officer at the time and dont remember any incidents at all. So im in the dark atm. My confusion stems from the fact i didnt receive a nip within 14 days of the offence. It is now well over 50 days since it happened in fact. Im going to reply on the 172 with my details, as i know failing to provide details is a seperate offence but plan to add a cover letter asking if the offence will be time barred as i didnt receive a nip at all. Anyone have any experience of this and has anyone ever been prosecuted for careless driving without a nip?
Any replies welcome