Free Traffic Legal Advice

When someone "helpfully" seeks advice for a friend, it invariably ends up as some form of Chinese Whispers. Unfortunately, the Admins won't let me string those involved up from the nearest lamp post.

If he's only been charged with the s. 172 offence, there's no option of doing a deal to plead guilty to an offence he hasn't been charged with (although it was apparently common practice for the instant when Harriet Harman was allowed to do it - but never before or since).

I note that a partial statement setting out a version of events has been included in the images of the PR, which will be before the court. The version of events in that statement appears to contradict the OP's statement that the RK was invited to provide "correct" driver details.

However. I would be wary of advising the OP's friend to challenge the statement, or give evidence at all (or attend court), as currently there is merely a very strong suggestion that he was perverting the course of justice, but unless he chooses to give evidence there is no opportunity for the court to put the question to him under oath.

This is a motoring legal advice forum, not a fairy tale contest.

So the NIP arrived within 5 days and I admitted the offence which was 1.30am on 06/03/24 and heard nothing back from them until a week or so ago a ‘single justice procedure notice’ arrives dated 04/09/24 which is exactly 6 months after the speeding offence well 5 months, 4 weeks and 1 day!

And say it took 2 days without delays by RM to deliver it, would this make it statute barred as I never received the proceedings letter within the 6 months time frame?

Yes, absolutely, in much the same way that 2 days short of 6 months is "exactly 6 months" - in other words, well no, not whatsoever.

my attention was drawn to that graphic, supposedly posted by the Police, which effectively says that once you are in another lane, the position of the cyclist in his lane is irrelevant- situation 2.

Except that's not what the bollox from the police says. It refers to "the opposing lane", not "any other mickey mouse lane regardless of how narrow, just as long as it has the magic broken white lines to protect the lycra lout". I'm sure that there's a technical term for somebody who tries to make a point by deliberately misquoting something and then trying to treat the misquoted version as gospel. Other than the various appropriate four letter variations.

To rationalise the bollox from the police, if the car driver and the cyclist have a lane each and the cyclist decides that he is going to straddle the white line for no reason other than to make it difficult for the car driver to pass while still giving him the 1.5m which he considers his absolute birthright, the driver would be doing society a favour if he allows the cyclist to prove Darwin right, that's no longer the driver's problem.


 posted by a Police source should be 100% accurate and unambiguous (one hopes..).
[/quote]

Absent exceptional circumstances (e.g. rushing to see a loved one on their death bed, or some kind of medical emergency), applicable mitigation for a run of the mill motoring offence is quite rare. In other words, there is little that you will be able to say that will lighten the sentence.

However, there are any number of things that you can say that could constitute aggravating factors - in other words, make things worse.

Education tends to focus on the development of the student. As regards speeding, courts tend to be more like the cafeteria - that's today's menu, those are the prices, and tough luck, that's sold out.

The court will not sentence you more harshly for turning up in person and taking up their time by giving the same performance of how ashamed you are to be before them, etc., that they've heard 10 times already that day, but they aren't going to be offended if you send in a note expressing the same sentiments, nor will they give it any less weight than the zero weight they would have given if you expressed it in person.

If you feel that the experience of going to court will help you focus on the consequences of [getting caught] speeding, then it might be a worthwhile exercise. If you think that it is required or is likely to result in a substantially lesser punishment, then  would suggest waiting for a tame magistrate's opinions on the matter...

For the avoidance of doubt, a revocation under the New Drivers Act can only be triggered by points being given for an offence committed within the probationary period. If such points take your total of relevant points to 6 or more, the DVLA will revoke your licence with notice - at which point you would need to re-apply for a provisional, etc.

Assuming you get the 6 points, they will be on your full licence, and if they had been awarded before you passed your tests, they would be carried over to your full licence, but it requires an offence committed within the probationary period to trigger a revocation under the NDA.

Look up s. 2(1)(f) Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 if you want to see the authoritative source.

As regards the NDA, getting 3-8 points for offences committed before passing your tests would leave you a single 3 point offence committed during the probationary period away from a revocation. The significance of 6 points over say 3 points, is that you are that much closer to a 12 point totting up ban (12 points for offences committed within 3 years).

N.B. Effectively you only ever have one driving licence. When a provisional licence is "upgraded" to a full licence, it includes the full entitlement to the appropriate classes of vehicle, and usually provisional entitlements to others.

Most provisions concerning points on licences concern the date of offence, not the date of conviction - although insurers require you to declare for 3 or 5 years from date of conviction to ensure that hey get their pound of flesh.

Im honestly unsure what the first thing i was given was i remember fixed penalty was in the name, i have since moved house and the letter is still boxed up somewhere (i know thats irresponsible but ive at least kept my summons and statement of facts on me).
I just remember after saying im guilty they sent me a letter that this couldnt be handle under the previous method and forwarded it onto the single justice.

If you complied with the requirements to accept a fixed penalty, then you cannot lawfully be prosecuted for the offence., regardless of whether or not a fixed penalty would usually have been offered for that speed. However, if you did not comply (e.g. did not send of the required identification details, or did not comply with the timescales), then you, err, did not comply and they can still lawfully prosecute.

I should probably go digging for these letters again at some point soon.

That might be a good idea.

N.B. If you are looking to defend the matter, how to approach the court (simple one word answer - respectfully) would be of secondary relevance (the first being the defence itself). If you do not have a defence, there seems little point in getting dressed up, leaving purple hair and pronouns at the door, and spending half a day in court to almost certainly get the same paint-by-numbers sentence you would get by being sentenced in our absence.

i have nominated the driver and sent it returned the filled form as first class stamped and took pic of posting in the letterbox but i have received reminder now?

Are you asking us or telling us?

is it normal to receive reminder or do i need any action on the reminder ?

It is common to receive a reminder if your response has not been processed - either from still being sat in the "to do" pile, or because it hasn't been delivered.

There is no separate obligation to respond to the reminder, but if your response was not delivered, you have not satisfied the original obligation.

What should I do? Even if I appeal I still technically was overspeeding, so if they admit officer's mistake I'm still guilty - so I assume the court won't upheld my appeal?

You could try making up words, such as "overspeeding", but that won't help much.
In court, it could perhaps be argued that the level of the amount of alleged morespeederering is within the stated tolerance of the approved device and therefore the court is not entitled to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt that you were actually exceeding the speed limit. Or you could speak calmly to the police, explain the issue and hopefully avoid the matter getting to court - but where's the fun in that?

Also, on the fun side - as per police official document pack they sent to me - I do not qualify for the speed awareness course as the speeding threshold for it - 76 to 84mph inclusive. But I was going "just" 71...

Utter hogwash. The guidance for speed awareness courses is 10% +2mph - 10% +9mph over the applicable limit. The numbers quoted do not match any recognised limit, let alone the unspecified one in your NIP. It is possible that the CTO plucked those numbers out of the air (or even deviated from the guidelines), but as a general rule, the sausage machine does not do that.

Are the numbers quoted, the range that the notice explicitly states are applicable to your [alleged] offence, are they numbers quoted as being applicable to a speed limit within a table, which you selected despite there being no speed limit specified in your NIP, and a presumption that a 70mph actually applied but the NIP being issued on a flawed belief that a 60mph limit applied, or have you worked them out yourself?

[quote
For some reasons can not upload the screenshot, here's the text :[/quote]

Usually due to not reading the "READ THIS FIRST" post, and in particular that part that advises that you use a third party hosting site.

In accordance with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, I hereby give notice that it is intended to take proceedings against the driver of
motor vehicle PK23XRS
for the alleged offence of Speeding - exceed limit for type of vehicle (not goods/ passenger) vehicle - manned equipment

Recorded Speed 71 MPH on 21/08/2024 at 10:59
 at (place) A5 Bletchley


contrary to Section 86(1) and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

The NIP states that the [alleged] offence is exceeding the speed limit for the class of vehicle. It goes on to state "not goods/passenger" - which are to all intents and purposes the categories of vehicle class speed limits, but nobody ever accused the police of being literate.

S. 86 RTRA 1984 concerns speed limits for the class of vehicle (as opposed to overarching speed limits - which apply to cars and other vehicles which do not have specific class limits).

TL;DR - you can post a semi-literate whinge about how absurd it is, or you can have a polite word with the police and hopefully get it dropped.