Traffic Law? Information needed please

HO87

@OP I admire your father's willingness to defend his belief but I fear that it might be in vain. The officer's evidence will carry weight and he will tend to have the benefit of the doubt rather than your father. I suggest that, as recommended by others, that you get out to the scene and video the section of road at the same time of day. If, using that, you are able to cast doubt on the officer's description of what he could see then your father may well come away with a satisfactory finding. Hoping to disprove the allegation based solely on giving verbal evidence on oath is unlikely to be enough to sway the bench.

Hopefully some preparation will be fruitful but even so when weighed against a £60 fixed penalty the sort of sentence the bench may well pass - if the case against your father is proved - could cost him double. If they mirror the fixed penalty and fine him £60 the addition of costs - current average is £45 - £50 and the inescapable Victim Support Levy of £15 - will take the total to £120.

kwaks

Yeah throwbacks are the arrows preceding the Solid lines, so seems they are there.

Solid white line systems are difficult to challenge, as they do not need a traffic order in place before being installed, all they require is a competent person to deem them necessary (highways agency) and PRIOR notice given to the relevent Chief Constable.

As the throwbacks are there, and assuming the lines themselves are correct, then it really will come down to your dads word against that of the policeman. As a professional driver, your dads word will hold more say than your average driver, and he would have to install reasonable doubt in the policemans statement in order for the charge to be dropped.

It is a gamble, the points would be the same in court as taking the FPN, however the fine could be higher. He can represent himself and indeed take a McKenzie friend with him. I have done this myself to defend against a trumped up Careless driving charge which was ultimately laughed out of court.

His choice, but as said stick it on pepipoo to get the expert opinion there.

Gavin83

For the record, I do find it disgusting that a policemans word holds more weight in court than a normal civilians, but that is the way it is. I wish your dad the best of luck and hope he wins his case, be sure to come back and let us know the outcome.

gingerdad

Plus if he was in his works van, he would be breaking the speed limit at 60....

Stigy

Gavin83 wrote: »

For the record, I do find it disgusting that a policemans word holds more weight in court than a normal civilians, but that is the way it is. I wish your dad the best of luck and hope he wins his case, be sure to come back and let us know the outcome.

Why? A Police Officer is a trusted pillar of the community whom has be sworn in to the Police Service and above all is a Professional Witness. Other people are just normal members of the public mostly. Having said that, every force has its bad apples.

mustrum_ridcully

@rooster11 I hope your attitude came from your mum's side.

Because if it comes from your dad I can just see him throwing a wobbly when the police stopped him and started ranting about "haven't you got any real criminals to catch" etc.

Finally, I maybe many things, but I'm not psychic, so if you're asking for advice it's a really good idea to include stuff like "my dad knows the road well and knows it's ok to overtake at this spot" in your post - because it makes a MASSIVE difference to people perceptions.

Where's the rolleyes emoticon when you need it? I guess this one will have to do :wall:

mikey72

Gavin83 wrote: »

For the record, I do find it disgusting that a policemans word holds more weight in court than a normal civilians, but that is the way it is. I wish your dad the best of luck and hope he wins his case, be sure to come back and let us know the outcome.

Well, if a policeman catches some thug burgling my home, I hope they don't need to have an independent witness before they send him down.

johnfarquhar74

gingerdad wrote: »

Plus if he was in his works van, he would be breaking the speed limit at 60....

Is there not some exceptions, such as a commercial vehicle from a car chasis, i.e a Vauxhall Combo, Ford Courier?

Stigy

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

Is there not some exceptions, such as a commercial vehicle from a car chasis, i.e a Vauxhall Combo, Ford Courier?

I imagine he's using a full sized van as his example, although yes, you are correct.

Car derived vans have to adhere to the same speed restrictions as cars so long as their laden weight doesn't exceed 2-tonnes. Vans which are any larger than car derived vans (Ford Transit for example) have to adhere to reduced national speed limits of 50mph on a single carriageway road, or 60mph on a dual carriageway road where the national speed limit exists and reduced speeds are not indicated.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

your dad is guilty till proven innocent in this case, your dad would have to have undoubted evidence that he did not commit the road traffic act in question, he would also have to disprove the police officers statment. get all the photo's you need, go through the police officers stament carefully for in accurecies of road type. Any police officer can pull over a motorist with given reason, whether its an unmarked patrol car,dog unit,panda car,riot van, persuit vehicle, or bike, you can be stopped by a single police officer, who can then call for anther unit to arrive and assist.

if there was any truth in a single copper in a panda car on an A road not being able to stop a vehicle then what would be the point of a panda car? most of britains roads are A roads, if this was true then they wouldnt have panda cars and just use the persuit vehicles instead for responses it would save them and use allot of money wouldnt it! commonsense should of prevailed to you that wasnt true!

the court is gunna ask if he knows the road well, if he does then its all lost as he would of known wich parts are double white lines or not even though he may have over took on whitelines wich then went into doubles it was poor judgement in they eyes of law and this is what he gunna need to disprove wich is very difficult.