Notice of intended prosecution - does it apply in this case?

Goudy

It's an odd one the rules around using the hard shoulder.

We're told not to pull over on the hard shoulder unless it's an emergency or directed to do so by the police or a traffic officer, but there's nothing written down as what constitutes an actual emergency, it's all a bit subjective.

Obviously a mechanical breakdown counts, things like punctures but interestingly it's not recommended to change the tyre yourself (if you actually have a spare) but use a breakdown company.
You just can't carry one, so end of argument.
Running out of fuel is different though, it's not a mechanical breakdown but poor judgement at best.

Medical emergencies or illness are others, but there are some grey areas with these, like a stopping for a passenger to be sick.
Ok if you're the driver or say it's a small child being sick and you're the only one in the car with them, then yes you would perhaps best stopping if there was a risk of choking.

In cases like this it's basically down to a risk assessment.
What is riskier, carrying on or stopping. 

I think you both would be pretty safe under medical emergency or illness.
If you're the driver and being/about to be sick, you can't be in full control of the car. Illness has caused you to stop for safety reasons.
It could be argued that the risk of carrying on is higher than the risk of stopping.

Same as loosing a contact lens, you need to see to drive and there are standards for eyesight when it comes to driving.
Your defence is the law states it's unsafe to drive without meeting those standards and the safety risk of stopping to correct that is surely less than carrying on.
If it wasn't, there'd be no eyesight standard to drive.

Mildly_Miffed

Why are you even worrying about this?

Stopping on a hard shoulder is not prosecuted by CCTV. If the control room saw you sat there, they'd despatch a National Highways traffic officer or police patrol to come and find out what was going on. 

If the police turned up, and you then took the mickey, they might give you a NIP at the time...

Even if it was CCTV enforced, the first thing you as keeper would get is an s172 request to identify the driver. That's what has to be posted in time to reasonably be expected to arrive in 14 days. After that, the keeper nominates the driver, who then gets their own s172, and  an NIP when they agree it was them. But that won't happen.

Arunmor

LightFlare said:

Arunmor said:

I imagine most people could conjure up a reasonable excuse for stopping.  I can't imagine many are prosecuted unless they stopped and set up the BBQ, played ball etc etc

Its for emergency use only and I imagine the host of cctv cameras available on the network could rapidly unravel a lie

Host of CCTV cameras really? Not on the motorways up here.

I also don't see how a CCTV camera can see what is going on with the car or the driver.

Car_54

Mildly_Miffed said:...

Even if it was CCTV enforced, the first thing you as keeper would get is an s172 request to identify the driver. That's what has to be posted in time to reasonably be expected to arrive in 14 days. After that, the keeper nominates the driver, who then gets their own s172, and  an NIP when they agree it was them. But that won't happen.

This would be an offence under the Motorway Regulations, which is not listed among the offences requiring a NIP.
The only applicable timescale therefore is the six months the police have to begin court proceedings.
But I agree it won't happen.

TooManyPoints

...the first thing you as keeper would get is an s172 request to identify the driver. That's what has to be posted in time to reasonably be expected to arrive in 14 days.

No it doesn't. There is no time limit within which a s172 notice must be served. The only document subject to the 14 day rule is the first NIP which usually goes to the Registered Keeper. This is in fact the only NIP required by law at all. Any subsequent NIPs are not legally required but are provided usually because the system that produces them also produces the s172 requests.

AmazonnRainforest4756

Ah right so I could get a letter anytime between now and July then as it's not an offence that would require an NIP. Going to be a long wait!

When we were talking to our neighbor about it the day it happened, he said how he'd stopped in an SOS layby as he thought he could hear a weird noise, but then drove off after 5 mins when he realised it was fine. He said he hadn't got anything through the post but guess he doesn't know it can take up to 6 months!

GrumpyDil

The odds of anything happening are tiny so I wouldn't even waste energy worrying about it. 

TooManyPoints

The odds of anything happening are tiny so I wouldn't even waste energy worrying about it. 

Indeed. Unless the police actually catch you having a barbecue on the hard shoulder it is most unlikely they will trouble you with this. There are all sorts of reasons why people need to stop on the hard shoulder and if the police took action against the driver of every car that did so they would have little time to do much else.

If they did intend to take action you would hear far sooner than six months. They firstly have to establish who was driving. Although no NIP is necessary one would usually be served along with a request for driver's details, and these usually are served quite quickly. 

AmazonnRainforest4756

Thank you all I really appreciate it. I will put this behind me now and not spend anymore time worrying/stressing about it