Speeding ticket / next actions advice

[Disturbedguy]

Hi all,

Received my first speeding ticket today, but I do have a question / query.

I knew I had been caught when it happened (mobile speed trap and I wasn't paying attention - completely my fault).

However the document has come through today and the location of where it says I was caught is incorrect which also means the stated speed limit for the road is also incorrect*.

Is the burden of proof on me, to prove I was not caught in the location the ticket says I was and that therefore the speed limit they state for the road is incorrect?

*It says I was caught speeding on a road that has a 40mph limit, when in fact I was caught speeding in a 50mph area (i was doing 56 according to the document that's come through)

Like I say, my fault I've been caught, but just want to know if I have a leg to stand on so to speak.

(it is worth noting that there WAS a van in the location it says I was caught, but this was a week or so before and the time stated on the ticket would have been a time at which I was in work so would have been impossible for me to be caught.

[abaxas]

You is <Oi -Swearing rules still apply -Admin>

Guilty until proven innocent.

[Disturbedguy]

You is <Oi -Swearing rules still apply -Admin>

Guilty until proven innocent.

Sorry but seeing as a lot of your posts recently have been somewhat breaking the rules despite reminders being posted (swearing) and some of your posts seemingly looking for altercation / argument's I'll wait until someone else posts.

[Andy3536]

You can request the photos first, but if you want to contest it doesn't look easy. You'll have to go to court.

http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/...eeding-ticket/
http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/...ample-letters/

[Saracen]

....

Guilty until proven innocent.

Not necessarily ... 'cooked'.

Details on the ticket SHOULD be right. As I understand it, that would be grounds for challenge, especially if you can demonstrate you coukd not be where it says you were, when it says you were.

Put it this way. If you were charged with, oh, armed robbery, but can prove you didn't commit that particular offence, it's not required for you to own up to knocking over a bank the week before, even if you did.

The allegation is, if you like, that at a given place, on a given time, you committed an act whichvis an offence under this or that law. And, if you're right in your assertions, you DIDN'T commit the offence you are accused of, even though you committed the same offence some other time.

OPTION 1. You committed the offence, but different time/place. Morally, you're guilty. Legally, not so. But as you did speed, plead guilty.

OPTION 2. Opt for court. Put the facts before the court, EXACTLY as here. You were caught, and rightly so, but NOT as per the charge. It's maybe a bit risky, but technically, you did not commit the offence charged with. You ought to score brownie points with the magistrate for honesty, and technically, aren't guilty.

OPTION 3. Get legal advice, from a forum or, better yet, a legal expert in such matters like Mr Loophole. He, I suspect, would drive a coach and horses (at legal speeds) through that charge. But he won't be cheap, I'm sure.

Which, is up to your conscience.

Oh, and it should be said ... IANAL - act on my comments at your own risk.

[abaxas]

Sorry but seeing as a lot of your posts recently have been somewhat breaking the rules despite reminders being posted (swearing) and some of your posts seemingly looking for altercation / argument's I'll wait until someone else posts.

I gave up conforming to the rules when we found out that not everyone has to

[Disturbedguy]

Cheers to Andy and Saracen for the advice.

I'll see what I can do, I know 100% that I wasn't caught where it said I was. The only way I could prove it, would be my phone / system login time at work (that I can think of right now anyway)

[Saracen]

I gave up conforming to the rules when we found out that not everyone has to

Oh, really. So it was deliberate?

My advice, my sincere advice .... quit while you're ahead.

Anyone is entitled to a slip, which is why it was just edited. If that was intentional .... well, the discretion just ended. If you want to continue posting here, be warned.

[TeePee]

Request the pictures. They will show the place you were caught, timestamped with the date/time, I hope.

If they show you on the 50mph limited road, get evidence of the limit and contest at court. If they show you at a time you were elsewhere, then you need evidence from work, and use this to contest at court.

[Andy3536]

Hi all,

Received my first speeding ticket today, but I do have a question / query.

I knew I had been caught when it happened (mobile speed trap and I wasn't paying attention - completely my fault).

However the document has come through today and the location of where it says I was caught is incorrect which also means the stated speed limit for the road is also incorrect*.

Is the burden of proof on me, to prove I was not caught in the location the ticket says I was and that therefore the speed limit they state for the road is incorrect?

*It says I was caught speeding on a road that has a 40mph limit, when in fact I was caught speeding in a 50mph area (i was doing 56 according to the document that's come through)

Like I say, my fault I've been caught, but just want to know if I have a leg to stand on so to speak.

(it is worth noting that there WAS a van in the location it says I was caught, but this was a week or so before and the time stated on the ticket would have been a time at which I was in work so would have been impossible for me to be caught.

If you are right, and you were doing 56 in a 50 zone. Then it's gotta be worth a punt.
According to this - http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/...s-your-rights/
Speeding tickets arn't issued in 50 zones for doing less that 57. So if you were in a 50 zone you shouldn't be getting a ticket at all.

[ik9000]

mate, I'm all for honesty, but if their ticket is for a time and place you weren't at then refute it. It's up to them to get their systems working properly. and the implications of 56 in a 50 zone vs 56 in a 40 zone are very different. Definitely do not go with Saracen's option 1 IMO.

Oh and Saracen, IANAL can be read as I-ANAL. Could be misunderstood without the little pop up to translate it....

[Saracen]

Oh and Saracen, IANAL can be read as I-ANAL. Could be misunderstood without the little pop up to translate it....

It could, I s'pose, but it's a very common acronym, and is in a thread asking for legal comments, advice, opinion, whatever we call it.

Also, saves typing I Am Not A Lawyer every time.

Maybe I need a macro assigned to a keystroke?

[Saracen]

If you are right, and you were doing 56 in a 50 zone. Then it's gotta be worth a punt.
According to this - http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/...s-your-rights/
Speeding tickets arn't issued in 50 zones for doing less that 57. So if you were in a 50 zone you shouldn't be getting a ticket at all.

I would advocate being VERY careful about disputing it on that basis. In fact, personally, I would not do so.

First of all, ACPO guidelines are exactly that, guidelines. Not rules.

Second, not all police forces follow those guidelines.

Third, speeding is an absolute offence, and technically, either you are, or you aren't. If the limit is 30, and your true, actual speed is 31, you are. And are prosecutable. The speed you're doing will likely affect the penalty imposed if you take it to court, which you have to if you contest it, but not whether you are or not, and ACPO guidelines certainly don't bind magistrates - the law does.

Fourth, court is a gamble. If you accept a fixed penalty notice, there are two major implications. One is, it's an admission of guilt. The second is the penalty is fixed. Go to court, and it isn't fixed. It has to be within statutory limits, but it can get a LOT more expensive, especially with costs.

Fifth, and I have this on direct advice of a magistrate of 30+ years experience that happens to be the dad-in-law, it is generally NOT a good idea to try to wriggle out of it on the basis of a spurious sort-of technicality. If the technicality is sound, IN LAW, then you haven't committed an offence. But if you waste the court's time by trying to be a smart-alec, like that, you risk a magistrate deciding you need to be taught a lesson.

My advice .... anyone convinced they really are innocent of the specific charge needs to make a judgement call - do they just pay up, and avoid the hassle, or do they challenge it, either to save the costs, or on principle, or both, and RISK ending up with a larger fine/costs, if they are convicted anyway.

That's partly why I suggested DG think carefully about challenging it. If you can't demonstrate convincingly that the ticket details are wrong, you risk upping the stakes considerably. A decision needs to be made about tossing the dice like that. After all, when admitting actually having been speeding, then trying to wriggle out on errors on the ticket may be legally valid, but is morally iffy, and if it fails and you end up with a much harsher penalty because the court didn't buy your evidence, there would be a kind of galactic Karma in that.

[GuidoLS]

It could, I s'pose, but it's a very common acronym, and is in a thread asking for legal comments, advice, opinion, whatever we call it.

Also, saves typing I Am Not A Lawyer every time.

Maybe I need a macro assigned to a keystroke?

1) In the English speaking world, IANAL is universally recognized as an acronym for I am not a lawyer, and only children on an elementary level even giggle at other possibilities.
2) Except (again) in those childish minds, the 4 letter word in question isn't even remotely close to being a curse word - unless using adjectives that are used in the medical professions, amongst others, to describe the tail end of the digestive system has suddenly become cursing/swearing. Just because a word has been hijacked for something other than original intent shouldn't mean that it's banned. I can think of a British slang word for cigarette that would result in a butt whipping here if used in the wrong company... but then again, this whole premise is silly.

Personally, I don't use any words on these forums that I don't hear on the Britcoms we get on PBS here in the states. It just seems safer that way, and I kind of hope that they aren't secretly using what are considered swear words in England, but are perfectly normal here in the US (and we're a LOT more prudish here, at least on TV) I think I came close once or twice, very unintentionally, to using words that crossed the threshold here - words that are perfectly acceptable in US society, but offensive to whomever is in charge here. It's all good - a guest is expected to behave and act within the house rules.

-----------------------

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.

[Saracen]

@Guido. You did come close, once, IIRC, no doubt unintentionally. Since then, nothing even close that I've noticed.

It's tricky enough, though, determining what is and is not swearing even among different parts of the UK, never mind internationally. On a previous forum, there was a long and, to be honest, both heated and tedious argument about what was and wasn't swearing, and what should and shouldn't be allowed.

What followed, here at least, was a long debate about how to explain what was considered strong enough to be barred, or mild enough to be permitted. And I just know that if we allow this but not that, someone is going to come up with something not on the list, and then demand to know why "this" is okay, and their expletive of choice isn't.

Our solution is that nothing is allowed. That means we can step in on anything. Then, by and large, we either ignore or light-touch moderate anything except those things everyone would expect 'no swearing' to cover.

However, from time to time, a bit of a crackdown, or at least the threat of one, becomes necessary. Otherwise, standards slip a bit, then a bit more, then more still. And then it's out of hand.

By and large, most people self-moderate. Or get a nudge from other members. Or occasionally, a bit of a verbal slap from a mod. More often than not, swearing just gets silently edited, or just ignored. Unless it's one of those obviously disallowed terms.


As for the original ticket, here, a notice of intended prosecution has to be sent within a fixed, and short, period if a prosecution is coming. IIRC, 14 days. However, police do have "intelligence" on computer, and markers can be put on specific cars. Even if that wasn't done over something like this, it certainly used to be the case that some police officers might, ummm, let's say keep an especially close eye on certain individuals, just waiting for them to slip up. There certainly used to be an element of 'what goes around, comes around'. Karma got a bit of a helping hand, on occasion.

[ik9000]

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.

anal (ˈeɪnəl )
Definitions
adjective

3) designating personality traits in the adult, such as orderliness, meanness, stubbornness, etc, due to fixation at the anal stage of development .

so Saracen's sentence

Oh, and it should be said ... IANAL - act on my comments at your own risk.

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.