Forget the 14 day rule !!

[219]

The NIP has to be DELIVERED to the registered keeper not later than 14 days after the alleged offence - not 'sent to arrive' . If , for whatever reason , it fails to arrive within the alloted time , the prosecution fails .

I would think that , at most , given that the change of keeper was not recorded at the time of the alleged offence , they would have a further 14 days from hearing back from the previous keeper ( who must respond to the enquiry form within 30 days ) to then send out a NIP to the new keeper - NOT NINE WEEKS .

Regardless of whether you admit the offence , the prosecution must therefore fail .

EDIT - just read post 17 from Simon - I don't think that is correct and am pretty sure what I wrote above is the case . Best to consult a lawyer .

 

[bpsorrel]

Two wrongs will never make a right.

You cannot use someone elses speeding as an excuse for your own.

Some of us are capable of observing speed limits quite simply because we are adult enough to recognise that to be a part of society is to observe its rules and can't be bothered with the legal aggro that ensues when if we behave as though above the law.

If you don't like rules, try a lawless state like Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. We all know you wouldn't last 10 minutes there.

But let's be honest here, is there anyone who can honestly say they have never, ever exceeded the speed limit, somewhere, sometime? Let's not make this out to be worse than it is. A few mph over the limit once in a while is not a crime. We're not talking about hooning around a busy town at 80mph. Let's get real here, that's a huge leap from talking about breaking a speed limit to living in a lawless, despotic country!!!!

 

[renault12ts]

Two wrongs will never make a right.

You cannot use someone elses speeding as an excuse for your own.

Some of us are capable of observing speed limits quite simply because we are adult enough to recognise that to be a part of society is to observe its rules and can't be bothered with the legal aggro that ensues when if we behave as though above the law.

If you don't like rules, try a lawless state like Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. We all know you wouldn't last 10 minutes there.

So, you are actually expecting everyone to believe you have never broken the speed limit??

 

[raymont]

Two wrongs will never make a right.


because we are adult enough to recognise that to be a part of society is to observe its rules and can't be bothered with the legal aggro

This really is too simplistic.

Whilst speeding might not be quite as important breaking the law has quite a good track record in achieving good things;


Votes for women

M L King

Ghandi

getting rid of poll tax etc.



Uncritical adherence to bad laws is not good for society. Just because someone in government says something is right that does not make it right.

 

[bpsorrel]

I agree. But likewise, if you do choose to break a law, you must be able to take it on the chin and move on. I exceed the speed limits occasionally and I know if I get caught I'll get points and a fine. That's my gamble when I choose to drive at 80 on the M1 at 2am etc etc!

 

[MOCAŠ]

This really is too simplistic.

Whilst speeding might not be quite as important breaking the law has quite a good track record in achieving good things;


Votes for women

M L King

Ghandi

getting rid of poll tax etc.



Uncritical adherence to bad laws is not good for society. Just because someone in government says something is right that does not make it right.

Ah, but there's a world of difference between a concerted campaign of civil disobedience with the aim of overturning an unjust law for the good of society as a whole... and getting caught speeding and then trying to wriggle out of it on a technicality.

For a start, one of the objectives of the noble protestors (and for the record, I wouldn't include the so-called poll tax rioters amongst their number) was to attract the wrath of the authorities - not evade it - in order to draw attention to their cause.

 

[Burger]

The NIP has to be DELIVERED to the registered keeper not later than 14 days after the alleged offence - not 'sent to arrive' .

I'm not a lawyer but from all the information available on the web including some very reliable and reputable sources such as speedtrap.co.uk it does indeed appear that the police only have to be able to prove they sent the NIP so that under normal circumstances it would arrive with the registered keeper within 14 days. Postal strikes etc. being abnormal circumstances for example and therefore not counting.

Interestingly, it also appears that it is not 14 days from the date of the offence (not counting the day of the offence) but in fact 14 days from the time the police are able to identify the registered keeper. So for example if it takes them 30 days to work out who the registered keeper is then this isn't taken into account with the 14 days.

There seem to be loads of ways to get out of speeding tickets but some take some real dedication and time consuming research etc. Camera position, markings etc. being some of the more obvious.

Regards,

 

[raymont]

Ah, but there's a world of difference between a concerted camapign of civil disobedience with the aim of overturning an unjust law for the good of society as a whole... and getting caught speeding and then trying to wriggle out of it on a technicality.

For a start, one of the objectives of noble protests was to attract the wrath of the authorities - not evade it - in order to draw attention to their cause.

Agreed about the difference. But it was the unquestioning one dimensional acceptance that the law is the law and must be obeyed and the rather patronising
'Some of us are capable of observing speed limits quite simply because we are adult enough' that I disagree with.

As far as the technicality aspect goes powers that be are quite keen to prosecute based on a technical infringement of the law, so I think it's quite reasonable that they too fully comply with all technical aspects of that law when implementing it.

 

[Charles Morgan]

That's my gamble when I choose to drive at 80 on the M1 at 2am etc etc!

Shocking - throw away the key for that speed I'd say....

 

[oldcro]

The NIP has to be DELIVERED to the registered keeper not later than 14 days after the alleged offence - not 'sent to arrive' . If , for whatever reason , it fails to arrive within the alloted time , the prosecution fails .

This statement makes no sense to me. You're saying I can drive like a raving idiot without fear of prosecution the day before my holidays, as long as I am away for 14 days and leave no forwarding address.

 

[Bellow]

I agree. But likewise, if you do choose to break a law, you must be able to take it on the chin and move on. I exceed the speed limits occasionally and I know if I get caught I'll get points and a fine. That's my gamble when I choose to drive at 80 on the M1 at 2am etc etc!

In response to other posts. Like the above if I get caught exceeding a 60/70 limit I blame no one but myself. And I do exceed those limits when it presents no danger to others.

But 30 and 40 limits are to protect pedestrians, road workers, etc - who are without the protection of an airbagged 1800kg steel cage. Different ball game, gambling with the lives of others.

In a recent thread considerable debate around raising or maintaining the 70 limit - a valid debate.
But 30 and 40 limits are non-negotiable. They are for the safety of others.

 

[Sp!ke]

But 30 and 40 limits are non-negotiable. They are for the safety of others.

Oh I don't know, there are plenty of 40 limits around here on dual carriageways that I'd driven on for many years when they were a 60 or 70mph limits posted on the same stretches.

Some speed limits seem very inappropriate.

 

[raymont]

But 30 and 40 limits are non-negotiable. They are for the safety of others.

Broadly agree with this.

The difficulty comes in that quite a few 30 / 40 limits are inappropriate.

Especially over the last few years when limits have been reduced for no apparent reason. This leads drivers to take the limits less seriously than they probably should.

 

[Bellow]

Especially over the last few years when limits have been reduced for no apparent reason. This leads drivers to take the limits less seriously than they probably should.

And a cause of some frustration to me also!
But usually there is a reason. A pedestrian injured or new buildings etc...
The ones that wind me up are the ones introduced because at some point in the future there will be new buildings. Can't we wait till they start the building?!!!

I really do hate people speeding in 30/40 zones though, as mainly they are to protect others. Also, what do we gain by 35 in a 30?
And a bit less emphasis on enforcing harmless speeding in 60/70 limits in return for all of us respecting the 30/40 limits would be a decent deal for all concerned. Let me do a reasonable speed out the road and I will have plenty time to slow down in the 30/40 limits.

But as long as fora such as this are full of posts complaining they got 'done' in a 30/40 limit, there's fat chance of common sense policing gaining any traction.

 

[whitenemesis]

Broadly agree with this.

The difficulty comes in that quite a few 30 / 40 limits are inappropriate.

Especially over the last few years when limits have been reduced for no apparent reason. This leads drivers to take the limits less seriously than they probably should.

I was speaking with a neighbour recently. He supplies councils with road building/maintenance materials. Quite a number of local roads have recently had their speed limits reduced (60 to 50) because the council has been using lower spec surface materials and had to reduce the speeds for 'safety' reasons. Presumably the surface provides less resistance to skidding? Or is more likely to break-up under stress? I'm not sure how much credence I put in this but I see no reason why my neighbour make it up?

 

[Burger]

My village would love a 30mph speed limit. It should have one because there is a tight bend at one end that simply cannot be taken faster than 30mph and even that would be pushing it. There are houses close to the road with driveways directly onto it and the road is narrow enough to not have any street markings.

We've been here 7 years and for the first 4 years I sat on the Parish Council and made it my mission to get the village it's speed limit. To this day it remains a national speed limit section of road and the council and government maintain their position. They absolutely will not reduce the speed limit until someone is killed or seriously injured. Go figure!!! Stupid world.

Not trying to take this thread off topic except to say, there is no rhyme or reason to why some councils reduce speed limits and others don't.

 

[MD5]

Not trying to take this thread off topic except to say, there is no rhyme or reason to why some councils reduce speed limits and others don't.

Which is what makes the whole topic of speeding such a hot potato, and the advent of cash cow cameras gave people the right to shout 'unfair', imo.

I'm probably more of a hazard watching my speedometer than I am when keeping my eyes on the road ahead.

 

[Rovinghawk]

and getting caught speeding and then trying to wriggle out of it on a technicality.

Weaselling out is what separates man from the animals.

(Except weasels, obviously)

RH

 

[thewhirls]

Did you get caught at the camera in Ings?

 

[Spinal]

The NIP has to be DELIVERED to the registered keeper not later than 14 days after the alleged offence - not 'sent to arrive' . If , for whatever reason , it fails to arrive within the alloted time , the prosecution fails .

Actually, I think you'll find that the CPS consider a letter posted by Royal Fail to be "delivered". According to them, proof of postage is equivalent to proof of delivery.

Odd, I know. It makes no sense whatsoever. but that's what I read a while ago...
M.