Ticket for speeding on motorway

Trebor16

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Here is a petty good example of speed being considered dangerous driving:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

The outcome of the case is somewhat irrelevant, however it shows that a speeding charge can be coupled with a charge for dangerous driving.

The outcome of the case is not irrelevant as the person was acquited, so not a very good example at all.

vaio

I think it's relevant in that it demonstrates that

a. speeding and dangerous driving are distinct separate offences and
b. even driving at 159mph is not automatically dangerous

kingstreet

To the OP.

If you are summonsed, the summons will show a "date information laid" which confirms when the Police actually applied to the court and commenced proceedings against you. Provided the date is within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence, the prosecution can continue.

In general - it's worth noting the rules in Scotland are slightly different.

birkee

vaio wrote: »

I think it's relevant in that it demonstrates that

a. speeding and dangerous driving are distinct separate offences (Agreed) and
b. even driving at 159mph is not automatically dangerous (Disagree)

Item B is to be taken in context.
On a open motorway with no traffic. Who cares?
In a 30mph zone? .... Automatically dangerous.
There is no way the driver can discount the intrusion of other vehicles from sideroads, drives, or pedestrians stepping out.
In fact, it is not only automatically dangerous, it is homicidal.

kingstreet

Having read a little more of the OP's story, the CoFP appears to have been received on 18 August. The 28 day limit would appear to be well over and unless the SCP has offered an extension it has had a much longer period to lay an information before magistrates. The information may well have been laid already.

The OP could contact the magistrates' court which deals with speeding cases for the SCP in question to ask if an information has been laid in his/her name.

If summonsed, the OP will face a potentially higher fine but this can be mitigated by an early guilty plea to ensure she receives the 1/3 discount available in such circumstances.

Flyboy152

Wig wrote: »

I don't know how to find the case (on BBC news, and also referenced before on DT on MSE) but there was another one of young man possibly in a Porsche possibly near the seaside but definatley driving down a straight road overtaking with flat grass (parkland) either side of the road, going well over the limit like 100+ a two laned single carriageway.

Was charged with dangerous driving (I think) and was found not guilty as he had a clear view all around him, whilst the manoeuvre was speeding, it was found to be not dangerous.

But the debate is not the verdict of the case, but the charge relating to the offence. I am pretty sure that if a civilian had been driving at these speeds the conviction would have been upheld. You seem to forget that the PC involved was actually found guilty of the offence, but after some pressure was levied on the courts, he won his appeal.

vaio

Originally Posted by vaio
I think it's relevant in that it demonstrates that

a. speeding and dangerous driving are distinct separate offences (Agreed) and
b. even driving at 159mph is not automatically dangerous (Disagree)

birkee wrote: »

Item B is to be taken in context.
On a open motorway with no traffic. Who cares?
In a 30mph zone? .... Automatically dangerous.
There is no way the driver can discount the intrusion of other vehicles from sideroads, drives, or pedestrians stepping out.
In fact, it is not only automatically dangerous, it is homicidal.

that's what I meant (and thought I'd said), it shows that "even 159mph is not automatically dangerous", it depends on the circumstances

Trebor16

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But the debate is not the verdict of the case, but the charge relating to the offence. I am pretty sure that if a civilian had been driving at these speeds the conviction would have been upheld. You seem to forget that the PC involved was actually found guilty of the offence, but after some pressure was levied on the courts, he won his appeal.

It's only a debate in your own mind. Everyone else sees you moving the goalposts yet again.

birkee

vaio wrote: »

that's what I meant (and thought I'd said), it shows that "even 159mph is not automatically dangerous", it depends on the circumstances

No, you said it is, "it's NOT automatically dangerous."
And I gave an example of where it IS automatically dangerous.
The dangerous driving charge would almost certainly be automatic too.