Over 200mph reported speed on the public road.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
All very well , but if more than 14 days has elapsed since the alleged offence , which it has , since this thread started on May 22 , then it is too late to issue the NIP , so the prosecution must fail .

If it was taken by an automatic camera or scamera partnership I believe you are correct. But this is an investigation into someone filming themselves breaking multiple laws to all intents and purposes, not just speeding. I would think it would be a much more complex case, unlikely to have many precedents to follow. Conviction and cost/benefit will of course be difficult/high, but I would guess the CPO in this case believes its in the public interest to try for a conviction by way of setting an example to stop others doing it.

You will be caught was his message, and it would appear he is indeed following through with that.
 
If it was taken by an automatic camera or scamera partnership I believe you are correct. But this is an investigation into someone filming themselves breaking multiple laws to all intents and purposes, not just speeding. I would think it would be a much more complex case, unlikely to have many precedents to follow. Conviction and cost/benefit will of course be difficult/high, but I would guess the CPO in this case believes its in the public interest to try for a conviction by way of setting an example to stop others doing it.

You will be caught was his message, and it would appear he is indeed following through with that.
AIUI , the rule applies in all cases .

when stopped by officers at the scene , the NIP is effectively served there and then when the officers caution the suspect .

in all other cases , again , AIUI , the NIP has to be served within 14 days of the occurrence. After that the actual prosecution can be served up to 6 months later .

it may be different for a crime such as murder , but for a traffic offence , which IIRC is not a criminal matter , it still applies .

I think , more likely , the suspects will be watched very closely indeed , given their history, they will be caught doing something.

There used to be a procedure , at least here in Scotland, where following conviction, a criminal could ‘ask for other offences to be taken into consideration’ for sentencing . It always sounded daft to me that a burglar convicted of one job would say ‘ oh I did all these other ones , why not add to my sentence? ‘ but there must be some point to it ; perhaps the ‘request’ is directed by the PF .
 
There was a case a few years ago when a biker started taking the piss at the Cat & Fiddle. Plod did a dawn raid and siezed bike, computers and anything else they thought was relevant. IIRC he got done.
I wouldn't class dangerous driving as a minor motoring offence. A biker was jailed for 170mph.
 
All very well , but if more than 14 days has elapsed since the alleged offence , which it has , since this thread started on May 22 , then it is too late to issue the NIP , so the prosecution must fail .
That applies for speeding. Not sure whether that applies to all motoring offences, which in this case would be dangerous driving.

Edit - Seems that it does include dangerous driving, but there are exceptions that may allow the police/CPS to bring a prosecution.
 
Last edited:
AIUI , the rule applies in all cases .

when stopped by officers at the scene , the NIP is effectively served there and then when the officers caution the suspect .

in all other cases , again , AIUI , the NIP has to be served within 14 days of the occurrence. After that the actual prosecution can be served up to 6 months later .

it may be different for a crime such as murder , but for a traffic offence , which IIRC is not a criminal matter , it still applies .

I think , more likely , the suspects will be watched very closely indeed , given their history, they will be caught doing something.

There used to be a procedure , at least here in Scotland, where following conviction, a criminal could ‘ask for other offences to be taken into consideration’ for sentencing . It always sounded daft to me that a burglar convicted of one job would say ‘ oh I did all these other ones , why not add to my sentence? ‘ but there must be some point to it ; perhaps the ‘request’ is directed by the PF .
Are you legally trained?
 
There was a case a few years ago when a biker started taking the piss at the Cat & Fiddle. Plod did a dawn raid and siezed bike, computers and anything else they thought was relevant. IIRC he got done.
I wouldn't class dangerous driving as a minor motoring offence. A biker was jailed for 170mph.
They would have to define dangerous driving .

The first line of Roadcraft, Chapeter 6 ‘The Use of Speed’

“Speed is not , in itself , dangerous’
 
That applies for speeding. Not sure whether that applies to all motoring offences, which in this case would be dangerous driving.

Edit - Seems that it does include dangerous driving, but there are exceptions that may allow the police/CPS to bring a prosecution.
Where , exactly , does speeding become dangerous driving ?
 
^ In the same vein, who decides whether its careless, dangerous or reckless driving?
Is it the CPS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 219
Where , exactly , does speeding become dangerous driving ?
When the driver has one hand on the wheel at 200mph, undertaking other drivers.... Dont be knob, you're better than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 219
^ In the same vein, who decides whether its careless, dangerous or reckless driving?
Is it the CPS?
I read somewhere yesterday that 'reckless' driving has been dropped as a definition, though I can't now find the page..
Edit - it was on Wiki, so may not be accurate. Though only careless and dangerous are discussed on the .gov.uk page.


Careless driving is where the driving standard exhibited is shown to have been below what would be expected of a competent careful driver.

Dangerous driving is where the standard exhibited is far below that expected.

CPS decides which applies.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 219
Fastest for me on a public road was 135mph (911 SC) quite a few years ago - stupid I know - and quite frankly it scared me. Car felt safe, but the knowledge that I could be a single blink away from death at that speed made me slow down very quickly. I'd not do it on a standard road again
Oh crikey, I wasn’t on the public road! When I did 174 mph it was at Jaguar’s test track at Gaydon, and 162 mph was at the testing facilities at MIRA in Nuneaton.
 
If, and it's a big if, the fourteen day NIP thing applies in this case, isn't it from when the driver is identified? Otherwise anyone could get away with speeding by delaying a response to the "Who was driving?" letter. "Sorry, I was self isolating and couldn't leave the house to post the letter for fifteen days".
 
Oh crikey, I wasn’t on the public road! When I did 174 mph it was at Jaguar’s test track at Gaydon, and 162 mph was at the testing facilities at MIRA in Nuneaton.

Totally stupid of me. It was part of a "salesman of the month" award which I managed. When the incentive finished, the MD said I could take it for a night...

I'd never driven a really fast car before and TBH the speed it got up to very, very quickly caught me quite by surprise. Not helped by the fact it was just so stable it did not seem stupidly fast at all.
 
All very well , but if more than 14 days has elapsed since the alleged offence , which it has , since this thread started on May 22 , then it is too late to issue the NIP , so the prosecution must fail .
There are exceptions to this, such as where the offender could not reasonably be identified and could not therefore have an NIP served on them within the timescale.

Whatever the deficiencies of the CPS and Police, even they wouldn't be daft enough devote such level of time and effort to tracing and arresting the miscreants in the extant case if it were a slam-dunk out of time scenario.
 
I read somewhere yesterday that 'reckless' driving has been dropped as a definition, though I can't now find the page..
Edit - it was on Wiki, so may not be accurate. Though only careless and dangerous are discussed on the .gov.uk page.


Careless driving is where the driving standard exhibited is shown to have been below what would be expected of a competent careful driver.

Dangerous driving is where the standard exhibited is far below that expected.

CPS decides which applies.



Reckless used to be where you knew something was wrong or illegal , but you chose to ignore it and did it anyway .

I appreciate the distinctions between careless and dangerous , and for the record , I do think chummy was an @r$e and was dangerous , but my point is that speed alone , even very high speed , is not in itself enough to make the driving dangerous ; there have to be other factors .

A very experienced and competent driver , in a suitable vehicle , on an empty motorway , in favourable conditions , would not necessarily be 'dangerous' at 200 mph ; BUT when you bring other factors , such as other traffic , which may not see him coming and pull out into his path , weather conditions ( road surface , visibility , wind ) , the drivers physical and mental fitness , the vehicle's mechanical condition ( primarily tyres ) then danger can arise .
 
Reckless used to be where you knew something was wrong or illegal , but you chose to ignore it and did it anyway .

I appreciate the distinctions between careless and dangerous , and for the record , I do think chummy was an @r$e and was dangerous , but my point is that speed alone , even very high speed , is not in itself enough to make the driving dangerous ; there have to be other factors .

A very experienced and competent driver , in a suitable vehicle , on an empty motorway , in favourable conditions , would not necessarily be 'dangerous' at 200 mph ; BUT when you bring other factors , such as other traffic , which may not see him coming and pull out into his path , weather conditions ( road surface , visibility , wind ) , the drivers physical and mental fitness , the vehicle's mechanical condition ( primarily tyres ) then danger can arise .
It wouldn't take much to convince the bench that 200mph on a british motorway was dangerous despite your homespun legal opinion.
 
There are exceptions to this, such as where the offender could not reasonably be identified and could not therefore have an NIP served on them within the timescale.

Whatever the deficiencies of the CPS and Police, even they wouldn't be daft enough devote such level of time and effort to tracing and arresting the miscreants in the extant case if it were a slam-dunk out of time scenario.

This suggests that the rules are quite inflexible , and apply to offences including speeding and dangerous driving , although there are other motoring offences to which it does not apply - it is likely they will be charged with something else - such as aggravated theft of a motor vehicle .

The main exception is where the NIP is served on the RK within 14 days , and includes a section 172 request to name another driver within 28 days , if this is done , the clock starts ticking then for the nominated driver . AIUI this vehicle was stolen , so the RK won't be able to respond , but I'm not at all sure this removes the obligation on the authorities to serve the NIP on time , not for speeding or dangerous driving which are specifically listed in the schedule .

 
^ In the same vein, who decides whether its careless, dangerous or reckless driving?
Is it the CPS?

Judge/magistrate.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom