Speeding ticket / next actions advice

[jackvdbuk]

worth posting onto the experts on these sitations pepipoo forums, very good advice
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

[Disturbedguy]

1)

As for the original topic - do the right thing. You are, by your own admission, guilty of speeding. Go to court, tell the truth, and pay whatever fine you may be subject to. I'm not one of those people that believe in karma - too many idiots think that if it exists, it's somehow a 1 way street. But they do have your info, and at some point, they *WILL* figure things out, and while I can't speak for the UK, here in the US, if you don't pay your ticket(s), at some point, they will revoke your driving privilege, which you will have to pay to get back, and if they pull you over while your license is suspended, you are now guilty of an actual crime. The hassle isn't worth dealing with.

But I'm not saying I'm not going to pay it, but why should I pay the fine, which will likely be quite high when they have the roads speed limit incorrect? And the place I was caught.
Like I said, I admit to speeding, but I definitely wasn't speeding on the section of road they say I was

[abaxas]

Remember that the effort of fighting something often outweighs the result.

If it's 3 points and a small fine, why not just pay and move on instead of having months of letters and possible angst.

[Disturbedguy]

Remember that the effort of fighting something often outweighs the result.

If it's 3 points and a small fine, why not just pay and move on instead of having months of letters and possible angst.

Because it likely won't be a small fine and surely there has to be some sort of responsibility on behalf of the police to actually get things right?

How many people may have received tickets with this incorrect information and just accepted it and paid up?

[Saracen]

Because it likely won't be a small fine and surely there has to be some sort of responsibility on behalf of the police to actually get things right?

How many people may have received tickets with this incorrect information and just accepted it and paid up?

Indeed, but there's also some responsibility on the part of those speeding. After all, by your own admission, you were. Had you not been speeding in the first place, you presumably wouldn't have been involved in whatever mix-up has occurred.

From a pragmatic perspective, abaxus is right, paying an uncontested ticket is, at least on the surface, cheaper than contesting it, should you go to court, and lose. Of course, there may be more to it than the surface. If you contest it, are you planning on doing it yourself, or getting a solicitor (and Mr Loophole type barrister, perhaps) involved? That'll cost. But conversely, (hypothetical situation) a relatively trivial speeding conviction MIGHT involve a ban for totting-up reasons, which might also involve loss of job, which could trigger a breakup in an already strained relationship, etc. And, insurance might go through the roof, especially if there's a previous history. The ticket fine may be the trivial end of the consequences. Also in the "of course" category is that in such a hypothetically volatile situation (which I presume you aren't) only an idiot would risk getting done for speeding AGAIN, with that lot at stake.

Personally, I certainly don't judge, morally, on a few mph over the limit, briefly. It's easily done, especially in some cars. I have an M3, and it'll hit limit-breaking speeds extremely quickly, and utterly effortlessly. I'm not going to pretend I've never broken the limit, and on a modest number of occasions, it might, ummm .... have been intentional.

I have been very selective in times, locations and road conditions, though. And as suggested by 40 years driving without ANY driving convictions of any sort, by and large, law-abiding, the vast bulk of the time. Otherwise, the law (of probability, if nothing else) would have got me. Drink driving, on the other hand, I do judge, and condemn, and have nothing but contempt for, not least because I've seen the results of it on innocent third parties, a friend of mine having had life-changing, career-destroying, marriage-wrecking injuries, nearly fatal and permanently disabling injuries, and 40+ surgeries, one of which his odds of surviving weren't good.

Speeding CAN cause such results, but it tends to be either wildly inappropriate levels of speed, or location, or both.

So, no judgements from me.

But you need to decide what you're looking to achieve. If it's getting away with it, then take a punt and dispute it. It may already be too late to procede against you on the actual speeding, and if you can prove the details on the ticket are wrong, you can prove you aren't guilty of the specific offence on the ticket. And the offence is, after all, at this place and at that time, you were doing x mph in a y mph limit, thereby breaking the law. And you weren't.

Abaxas is correct, other things being equal, paying it MIGHT be the cheapest way, and will certainly be the least hassle. It's also natural justice, given the basic allegation is correct but the details wrong.

If you do want to dispute it, my advice is to get professional legal advice, and right quick. Your chances of successfully fighting it might depend on doing the right things, in the right way and at the right time. Doing the wrong thing might also be counter-productive.

Ultimately .... your choice, DG.

[peterb]

There is the responsibility of the prosecution to get the facts straight. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if you can prove that your were somewhere else at the time and place when the offence is alleged to have been committed, you should be found not guilty.

That said, errors in drawing up paperwork do occur, and a magistrate might accept it as a genuine error, but in that case, I might expect a magistrate to impose the equivalent of a fixed penalty. However, you might end up paying costs and the victim support payment, and magistrates have little discretion over that.

In fact they have so little discretion that some will accept that any technical irregularity is worth kicking out so the defendant doesn't pay a disproportionate amount compared with the original penalty.

But as always, it is a gamble, a bit like double or quits.

[GuidoLS]

But I'm not saying I'm not going to pay it, but why should I pay the fine, which will likely be quite high when they have the roads speed limit incorrect? And the place I was caught.
Like I said, I admit to speeding, but I definitely wasn't speeding on the section of road they say I was

And that's what I said to relay to the court - not an admission of the incorrect part.

I don't know how the legal system works in England, let alone the traffic court system. I was basing my opinion on how individual state law works here in the US (there is no federal law that affects the average US citizen - it's all state by state). I'm actually sort of confused - are there not at least a dozen phone numbers to dial up to talk to some self-important bureaucrat, er, civil servant to actually get some real information, instead of a tech forum, where you are only going to get well meaning, but probably incorrect advice?

[GuidoLS]

I'm not sure what elementary level you're referring to Guido. I was referring to the following definition which in the context of Saracen's sentence still fits but leaves it open to a different interpretation. The point I was trying to make is that the acroynm/abbreviation IANAL is not one which Hexus provides an auto-definition for.



so Saracen's sentence

given his self admitted pedantry in other threads can be read as - but I'm a pedantic individual so I tend to go into things in too much detail - act on my advice at your own risk.

If that is elementary and needs a giggle be my guest. Says something about the American mindset that you assumed another meaning really.

I'm not certain where you are demonstrating a curse word here - what you have demonstrated is half of a common psychological diagnosis - the other half being the word retentive. I know Blair was attempting to wipe out any access to adult content on the web - I'm pretty sure he wasn't capable of deleting those cells in the brain that know there is a part of adult entertainment that also uses the word, which is where the juvenile comes in - much in the same way that Beavis and Butthead would get the giggle fits from watching a video and saying - huh huh, huh huh, he said butt.... huh huh, huh huh... if the word juvenile offends, there's always puerile... both apply.

[peterb]

And there was me thinking that iANAL was a new form of abuse dreamt up by the Android fanboy club

[ik9000]

I'm not certain where you are demonstrating a curse word here - what you have demonstrated is half of a common psychological diagnosis - the other half being the word retentive. I know Blair was attempting to wipe out any access to adult content on the web - I'm pretty sure he wasn't capable of deleting those cells in the brain that know there is a part of adult entertainment that also uses the word, which is where the juvenile comes in - much in the same way that Beavis and Butthead would get the giggle fits from watching a video and saying - huh huh, huh huh, he said butt.... huh huh, huh huh... if the word juvenile offends, there's always puerile... both apply.

Indeed Guido, but it was you who assumed that other meaning was what I was referring to, when there was a much more reasonable explanation. It was you who chose to that read it that way, and whether that's due to suffering a juvenile or a puerile (sic) disposition I don't really care. I do however suggest that's enough on this as it's detracting from the thread.

[DanceswithUnix]

It has been a long while since I had a speeding offence, but I went and asked a lawyer and presumably because it was only a short chat over what is a criminal offence it didn't cost a penny. That is just as well, the speeding fine isn't so bad but having your insurance go up 20% for 5 years with some companies refusing to quote for crims the total cost it pretty high (made the wife's insurance go up as well).

I would make sure the facts are right though. If you are just a bit over then you might get the choice of a safety lesson rather than points. If they say you were doing 56 in a 40 area, well that is nearly 50% over which is pretty bad.

So yeah, we are not lawyers, phone one and ask how much some proper advice would cost.

Edit to add: Some say being a crim even for speeding helps you avoid getting called up for jury duty, so if true it isn't all bad

[peterb]

There was a report on the radio this weekend that some insurance companies are now asking if you have ever attended a speed awareness course, and a yes answer affects the premium.

[Saracen]

There was a report on the radio this weekend that some insurance companies are now asking if you have ever attended a speed awareness course, and a yes answer affects the premium.

And IMHO, that's entirely reasonable, on both points.

[Guy]

But then surely as you've had 'further education' and won't have the ability to attend it again within the next 3 years and go straight to points, you'd be a safer risk as you're thinking twice about all your actions.
So the premium should stay the same or have a slight decrease.

Oh yes, that's not how the blood sucking vultures in the insurance industry tend to work

[DanceswithUnix]

But then surely as you've had 'further education' and won't have the ability to attend it again within the next 3 years and go straight to points, you'd be a safer risk as you're thinking twice about all your actions.
So the premium so stay the same or have a slight decrease.

Oh yes, that's not how the blood sucking vultures in the insurance industry tend to work

Indeed.

The whole point of the course is supposedly to educate people into being safer drivers.

Frankly, if the insurance industry is going to penalise me the same, I would be tempted to just take the points as it would be a whole lot easier. Way to make the roads safer, insurance parasites!

[filbert]

Would admitting to the fine be a crime, as he never committed the speeding fine as stated, so he'll be admitting to a crime he never committed?