driving without due care and attention

sarahg1969

sassy-one wrote: »

Please ignore this advice
It is completely and utterly wrong, it's the thought of Monday starting work tomorrow bringing this incorrect advice

Evidence? I've shown you the relevant section of the RTRA, and if you google it you'll find loads of other information. Show us something that says you're right.

sassy_one

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Evidence? I've shown you the relevant section of the RTRA, and if you google it you'll find loads of other information. Show us something that says you're right.

I don't need to provide 'evidence' as it were, lets see if the OP gets convicted shall we? On the say so in court of the Police officers without firm evidence that he was speeding

kwaks

sassy-one wrote: »

I don't need to provide 'evidence' as it were, lets see if the OP gets convicted shall we? On the say so in court of the Police officers without firm evidence that he was speeding

Think you are getting a bit confused sassy, 2 police officers opinion can be enough to convict on.

Sarahg1969 quoted the relevent act, and explained the situation as it is, 2 officers, 1 officer & speedo etc etc

andygb

sarahg1969 wrote: »

The trouble is if there were two officers, it will stand up in court very easily.

Very true Sarah. Back in my youth, I was stopped by an unmarked car for speeding.
When it came to court, the magistrate simply said that, owing to the experience of the officer, he would take his version of events over mine.

sarahg1969

sassy-one wrote: »

I don't need to provide 'evidence' as it were, lets see if the OP gets convicted shall we? On the say so in court of the Police officers without firm evidence that he was speeding

In this case, the OP says he's not been NIPed for speeding, but for DWDCA.