Court summons for been 6" over in a 6ft 6" width restriction HELP

colino

What was the point of the ticket? Were roadworkers being bowled off their feet, were traffic cones exploding into the air by your mighty presence? If not, it must have been a very quiet day or he wanted to stop you for something else and couldn't find anything else.
Hopefully a magistrate not in the pocket of the local police will laugh it off as a waste of court time, or you might find Mr Inflexible who will consider exceeding the lane width as an absolute offence.

thelawnet

colino wrote: »

What was the point of the ticket? Were roadworkers being bowled off their feet, were traffic cones exploding into the air by your mighty presence? If not, it must have been a very quiet day or he wanted to stop you for something else and couldn't find anything else.
Hopefully a magistrate not in the pocket of the local police will laugh it off as a waste of court time, or you might find Mr Inflexible who will consider exceeding the lane width as an absolute offence.

Nonsense. The experienced policeman would have known that Luton vans are all too wide for a 6'6" restriction, and so should the OP - he shouldn't have gone through there.

It's only £30, hardly a major money spinner, it's not much of a deterrent not to break the law if the copper says 'Don't do it again or next time i might fine you £30'.

thelawnet

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Was it one of these little oinks who drives around in the Battenberg highway patrol 4x4s thinking they are patrolling the Pacific Coast highway or something? AKA failed coppers.

Anyway..it is my view that although technically you may have broken the law/regs...it might be a fair argument that the width restriction could be viewed in more general terms. That is to say,unless your vehicle has a plate or sign in the cab indicating its height/width/length then you can only make a general assessment as to whether your vehicle is too wide/high/long at the time when you approach the restriction. Are we all to stop at such signs and measure to ensure we can pass? No we are not. The driver of a car or motorcycle would make an instant judgement that they are clear to pass whereas it would be reasonable for the driver of the rig below to know that he would be over the width restriction and therefore could not pass.

You on the other hand are in a middle ground as your medium sized vehicle is somewhere between a big panel van and a small truck and further,the front of the truck is compliant whereas the rear is marginally over. Does the law say all the vehicle has to be under the width and does it require you to measure it/make an on the spot assessment?

The front of the truck is NOT compliant, it is 78.5", the restriction is 78".

You are responsible for knowing the width of your own vehicle, and such information is easily available online and in your vehicle handbook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_Sprinter shows

Width Vans:
1,993 mm (78.5 in)[2]
Pickup Trucks:
1,990 mm (78.3 in)

It really isn't rocket science.

Ilona

What was the point of sticking that big picture of the low loader in here, and making me scroll sideways many times to read the posts. Please remove it, it has no relevance. Thank you
Ilona

Stigy

BRADFORDTIGERS wrote: »

...
On a funnier note can you give me items that measure 6" keep it clean...:D

That's my response out the window then...:D

Hotspur

OP,

It's an absolute offence; the vehicle specs and you agree vehicle was over the restriction so you will lose in court even if the court agree that the officer measured incorrectly, which is unlikely, and the vehicle spec is used as evidence and you are asked what width your vehicle was. Best result, if the bench agree with your mitigation, would be a conditional discharge but more likely a fine and contribution to the prosecution costs.

If you are able to eat humble pie, and it's not too late to stop the legal process, pay the £30 ticket and write to apologise in the hope that the CPS will not proceed with the prosecution.

ElkyElky

Ilona wrote: »

What was the point of sticking that big picture of the low loader in here, and making me scroll sideways many times to read the posts. Please remove it, it has no relevance. Thank you
Ilona

Maybe it will give your fat fingers some exercise.

daveyjp

paddedjohn wrote: »

He has already stated in his post #5 that his vehicle is 7 ft wide.

So what. He's not taking himself to Court - the burden of proof is on the police officer.

If I was 5 times over the limit, but the officer didn't do the breath test properly I can be found not guilty.

Ilona

ElkyElky wrote: »

Maybe it will give your fat fingers some exercise.

Why did you say that?
Ilona

asbokid

Ilona wrote: »

Why did you say that?
Ilona

To give you some practice at arguing.