Fixed Penaly Notice - should I go to court?

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You were driving a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition, so you won't win in court.

I would suggest that in future you check the condition of your tyres before setting off.

That's not entirely fair. Unless youre calling the OP a liar based on nothing but suspicion, his original post gives a perfectly reasonable likelihood that his tyres were fine when he set off and were damaged a few miles before he stopped.

It doesn't take much of an impact to damage tyres, especially at speed, and most people hearing a minor thump from a pot-hole etc would continue driving until it was convenient (not just to the nearest layby) if there was no obvious change in the car's behaviour.

I've got a lot of years of experience, but when I hit a pot-hole in the middle of the outside lane on the A55 a few years ago, I had no idea at all that my front tyre had been damaged until I pulled off 20 miles later and it deflated as I took the slip-road roundabout. These things do happen.

Unfortunately for the OP, the law (as written) doesn't take account of factors like that. Your tyres are either good or bad and, if you drive on them after they become bad for any reason, you're committing an offence (which carries obligatory points). A magistrate can't ignore that the law makes it's an offence and nor can they ignore that the law says you get three points for it.

heading into the absurd for a minute, you could have a Police armed response unit shooting tyres out, with a road policing unit stopping the cars 100 yds later and ticketing them for the damaged tyres. Quite apart from any other offences being committed, those tickets would still be valid and a magistrate would have no choice but to award you the points for them (although they could choose not to fine you).

That's the injustice of absolute liability in legislation - even if you commit the offence unintentionally because of the intentional .criminal act of someone else, you're still guilty. A combination of absolute liability and obligatory punishment (as in this case) is as bad as it gets for justice because it removes the chance for a Judge to show discretion and discharge those "caught innocently".

Sadly, it's the de facto system we've allowed (even encouraged) to develop where traffic law is concerned because it looks like a great system - when it isn't you innocently caught out by it!

Joe_Horner

Portly_Pig wrote: »

A bit far fetched and not entirely true.

So you admit it's partly true that Armed Response get tasked to set people up for motoring tickets? :beer:

I know it's far-fetched (and admitted as much by "heading into the absurd"), and I don't believe for a second it would happen, but the point is that going against the legislation, even in an extreme like that, is way above a magistrate's pay scale.

Then again, I have an absolute dislike of absolute offences (and of obligatory sentencing) because they're nothing but time / money saving schemes that cause enormous harm to the principles of natural justice.

Joe_Horner

Portly_Pig wrote: »

Everythings above a magistrates pay grade.;)

Have you ever heard of special reasons not to endorse?

.

Not sure special reasons would apply - they can only be facts pertaining to the offence, not ones related to the offender and clearly the fact the AR teams were shooting at him was personal and related to the offender, mi'lud :p:p

On the other hand, something in the Road Traffic Offenders Act S.48(2) that might be of use to the OP:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/48

That says that, while the conviction is absolute, the court [/i]must not[/i] endorse if he can prove that he didn't know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the tyres were damaged.

Could be a tricky balancing act between "I hit something a few miles back" and "I had no reasonable cause..." , especially depending on what exactly he's already said to them at the scene, but would be worth a free half hour with a motoring solicitor to look into.


eta: Is it just me, or is it an odd use of the word "obligatory" when there are exceptions stated elsewhere that make it not only "not obligatory" to endorse but actually prohibited to do so?

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's not entirely fair. Unless youre calling the OP a liar based on nothing but suspicion, his original post gives a perfectly reasonable likelihood that his tyres were fine when he set off and were damaged a few miles before he stopped.

It doesn't take much of an impact to damage tyres, especially at speed, and most people hearing a minor thump from a pot-hole etc would continue driving until it was convenient (not just to the nearest layby) if there was no obvious change in the car's behaviour.

I've got a lot of years of experience, but when I hit a pot-hole in the middle of the outside lane on the A55 a few years ago, I had no idea at all that my front tyre had been damaged until I pulled off 20 miles later and it deflated as I took the slip-road roundabout. These things do happen.

Unfortunately for the OP, the law (as written) doesn't take account of factors like that. Your tyres are either good or bad and, if you drive on them after they become bad for any reason, you're committing an offence (which carries obligatory points). A magistrate can't ignore that the law makes it's an offence and nor can they ignore that the law says you get three points for it.

heading into the absurd for a minute, you could have a Police armed response unit shooting tyres out, with a road policing unit stopping the cars 100 yds later and ticketing them for the damaged tyres. Quite apart from any other offences being committed, those tickets would still be valid and a magistrate would have no choice but to award you the points for them (although they could choose not to fine you).

That's the injustice of absolute liability in legislation - even if you commit the offence unintentionally because of the intentional .criminal act of someone else, you're still guilty. A combination of absolute liability and obligatory punishment (as in this case) is as bad as it gets for justice because it removes the chance for a Judge to show discretion and discharge those "caught innocently".

Sadly, it's the de facto system we've allowed (even encouraged) to develop where traffic law is concerned because it looks like a great system - when it isn't you innocently caught out by it!

The OP said they didn't have a clue how they damaged the tyres.

You knew that you had hit a pot hole, and therefore you knew how you damaged your tyre.

With a tyre in good condition it would not be possible to have enough impact to damage a tyre without knowing what had caused it. If it was a sharp object then it would be a different matter, but one tyre had a lump. So it sounds like the tyres were either kerbed (the most likely), they hit an object, or they hit a pot hole.

On the other hand a perished, or previously damaged tyre (which would have already been illegal), could be further damaged with only a small impact.

Ultrasonic

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The OP said they didn't have a clue how they damaged the tyres.

Not true, the OP stated they hit something but didn't know what it was.

alastairq

Paradigm wrote: »

A shame it's "dead" then Like I said

Not dead at all...those in the know are still there...MAybe it's because all the jerks have gone?

dacouch

goomba wrote: »

I didn't question it, when he said I could have 6 points it was a shock to the system because that would be my licence gone and I didn't know what was happening. After 5 minutes when he was taking the picture I asked if there was anything I could do and he said no, and then I didn't want to bug him in case he decided to give me 6.

Ultrasonic I hope that's the case and I don't get any more tickets, but I've had my licence for 3 months and driving on the road for 1 month, I think I drive quite well but still feel that I'm inexperienced. 21 months seems like a long time right now, my insurance will go up as well, I think I have enough evidence to at least have a chance in court.

Consider doing the Pass Plus course which gives you good extra driving experience, a few Insurers still give a discount for it.

I would also recommend you ask a parent of knowledgable friend to give you some basic maintenance lessons eg changing tyres and checking fluids etc etc

MEM62

Forgive me if things have changed but are drivers no longer taught the basic vehicle checks when learning to drive?

OP, I appreciate that you are a new driver but you must realise that you have an obligation to ensure that your vehicle is in a legal and roadworthy condition. From you post I believe that you are saying that the damage to the rear tyre 'could' have been caused by the impact that blew out the front. If you had checked your tyres (I check my car tyres once a month or so and the ones on my motorcycle weekly) you would be able to say for sure that the damage was not there before the incident.

Whichever way you go with it I hope it works out for your you and no doubt you will be able to take something from the experience. You see so many vehicles on the road these days that are obviously not subject to even basic checks by the owner (lights out, broken lenses, partially inflated tyres etc) I accept that cars are more reliable and fewer things fail these days but a few old-fashioned checks from time to time can still save a lot of hassle.

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The OP said they didn't have a clue how they damaged the tyres.

From the OP's first paragraph, I took this to mean he'd felt an impact of some sort but didn't realise it might have been bad enough to damage anything.

goomba wrote: »

I felt something 5-10 minutes before but had no reason to think it was something so serious until it suddenly just went, and luckily there was a slip road there to pull into.

Jamie_Carter

Ultrasonic wrote: »

Not true, the OP stated they hit something but didn't know what it was.

Ok, maybe I could have worded it better. The OP said that they felt a bump, but didn't know what it was:

goomba wrote: »

I honestly have no idea, I felt a hard bump but sometimes you get really harsh potholes or bumps and I didn't think anything of it at the time.

If there is a pot hole big enough to cause damage to two tyres, then the OP should have seen it. So even if they hadn't had a chance to avoid it, they would know what they hit. Otherwise they are driving without due care and attention.