3 points for driving without demisting my windows?

oldernonethewiser

Demistedstranger1 said:

oldernonethewiser said:

Demistedstranger1 said:

pseudodox said:

You are unlikely to receive sympathy or support here - you were a danger to yourself & others.  A couple of weeks ago I was walking across a Tesco car park in the snow & was almost mown down by an idiot driver whose windows were all covered in snow except for a dinner plate size section he had cleared from the windscreen giving him tunnel vision.  Luckily he was going slow, seeking a parking spot judging from his nose being almost touching the windscreen, so I was able to step out of his way.  This is an all too common sight in winter.  Just be grateful the police stopped you before an accident occurred.

A few years back a motorcyclist was seriously injured when snow blew off the roof of a car into his windshield & face,  blocked his vision & he skidded into oncoming traffic.  We should always think about other road users.

I understand and completely agree with you. 

The reason I asked is because the mist on my windows weren’t that bad hence why I could see the road and ofc, I always demist my car before setting off on any journey. 

I am just abit flabbergasted with the penalty. I thought they would offer me a course or something 

Does this mean your windscreen had become misted after you started driving?  Is there an issue with the blower?

That is correct. No I had just turned it off since it’s an electric vehicle and I had a long journey to make so I was saving on electric. I now realise that was foolish of me. 

Foolish indeed. 

Iceweasel

Demistedstranger1 said:

oldernonethewiser said:

Demistedstranger1 said:

pseudodox said:

You are unlikely to receive sympathy or support here - you were a danger to yourself & others.  A couple of weeks ago I was walking across a Tesco car park in the snow & was almost mown down by an idiot driver whose windows were all covered in snow except for a dinner plate size section he had cleared from the windscreen giving him tunnel vision.  Luckily he was going slow, seeking a parking spot judging from his nose being almost touching the windscreen, so I was able to step out of his way.  This is an all too common sight in winter.  Just be grateful the police stopped you before an accident occurred.

A few years back a motorcyclist was seriously injured when snow blew off the roof of a car into his windshield & face,  blocked his vision & he skidded into oncoming traffic.  We should always think about other road users.

I understand and completely agree with you. 

The reason I asked is because the mist on my windows weren’t that bad hence why I could see the road and ofc, I always demist my car before setting off on any journey. 

I am just abit flabbergasted with the penalty. I thought they would offer me a course or something 

Does this mean your windscreen had become misted after you started driving?  Is there an issue with the blower?

That is correct. No I had just turned it off since it’s an electric vehicle and I had a long journey to make so I was saving on electric. I now realise that was foolish of me. 

So it's the fault of the car's  battery capacity?We can only conclude that EVs are dangerous in the hands of foolish people.

Emmia

Demistedstranger1 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

ahmadsaqib1 said:

Officer believes that my vision was impaired but I pointed out to him that if it was impaired how did I manage to completely spot the car in a safe way by following his instructions (he had LEDs on that said ‘follow me’) 

yes windows weren’t demisted but as long as I could see, it was fine for me to drive which means I wasn’t intentionally being unsafe in the road and was well below the speed limit hence why I am wondering that I am hard done by this 

Cars have a lot of glass to give the driver a good view of the road and the surrounding area, if some of that glass is misted your vision is restricted so you may not see potencial hazard such as a child about to step into the road.

The Highway Code stipulates that if driving in adverse weather conditions you must, by law, be able to see out of every glass panel in your vehicle.

This is supported by the section 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, meaning it is a legal requirement to have a clear view of the road ahead before you set off.

Just take the fine and points and don’t forget to inform your insurance company. Depending on the policy you may have to do this now or at renewal, so you can expect an increase to your premiums with a CD10 endorsement on your licence.

I really appreciate this and am now reconsidering my decision. I asked chatgpt and it hyped me up that there are several reasons as to why I have a chance of winning this in court lol 

Chat GPT like all AI can hallucinate, and may have given you rubbish information. I wouldn't rely on it for legal advice. 

Demistedstranger1

DullGreyGuy said:

Demistedstranger1 said:

Officer believes that my vision was impaired but I pointed out to him that if it was impaired how did I manage to completely spot the car in a safe way by following his instructions (he had LEDs on that said ‘follow me’) 

yes windows weren’t demisted but as long as I could see, it was fine for me to drive which means I wasn’t intentionally being unsafe in the road and was well below the speed limit hence why I am wondering that I am hard done by this 

You are aware that there is more than one window in a car? That just because you have a small clear patch right in front of your face that you can see a bright sign straight ahead doesn't mean you would have seen something off to the far left etc?

There is a raft of news articles each year about fines for not demisting or defrosting your windscreen, for example from two weeks ago https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/drivers-can-stop-car-windows-9846372. No idea if their solution helps prevent the misting up in the first place but does show that its not unheard of

You’re right and I made a manoeuvre relatively safely whilst driving. The officer decided to pull into my lane (left lane) from the right lane (two lanes on the road) and slowed his car. I went into the right lane and overtook him (staying within the speed limit ofc) and I made that manoeuvre because I could see out of my right and left windows. I wouldn’t have done it otherwise. 

Thank you for sending me that article btw, I read that already. In relation to that, I managed to find several instances where this has been contested in court and the outcome has been in defendants favour. Some of those instances are given below 

 R v. D (1999): A motorist was charged with driving with insufficient visibility due to misted windows. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, acknowledging that, while the windows were misted, the driver’s **perfect vision** and ability to drive safely on an **empty road** made the charge unjustified.

  

R v. S (2006): The defendant was charged for driving with frosted windows. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, who argued that, despite the frosted windows, their **vision was not impaired**, and they were able to navigate the vehicle safely. The **low traffic volume** and **immediate corrective action** (demisting the windows) were factors that led to the case being dismissed.

R v. T (2012): The court ruled in favor of the defendant who demonstrated that, despite the misted windows, they had **clear visibility** and could safely follow the officer’s **LED lights**. The **empty road conditions** and the **driver’s ability to safely follow instructions** contributed to the favorable outcome.

R v. B (2014): In this case, the defendant argued that the **weather conditions** were not the cause of impaired visibility but that they could still see clearly enough to drive safely. The **low traffic conditions** and immediate corrective action were considered by the court, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

TheSpectator

Emmia said:

Demistedstranger1 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

ahmadsaqib1 said:

Officer believes that my vision was impaired but I pointed out to him that if it was impaired how did I manage to completely spot the car in a safe way by following his instructions (he had LEDs on that said ‘follow me’) 

yes windows weren’t demisted but as long as I could see, it was fine for me to drive which means I wasn’t intentionally being unsafe in the road and was well below the speed limit hence why I am wondering that I am hard done by this 

Cars have a lot of glass to give the driver a good view of the road and the surrounding area, if some of that glass is misted your vision is restricted so you may not see potencial hazard such as a child about to step into the road.

The Highway Code stipulates that if driving in adverse weather conditions you must, by law, be able to see out of every glass panel in your vehicle.

This is supported by the section 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, meaning it is a legal requirement to have a clear view of the road ahead before you set off.

Just take the fine and points and don’t forget to inform your insurance company. Depending on the policy you may have to do this now or at renewal, so you can expect an increase to your premiums with a CD10 endorsement on your licence.

I really appreciate this and am now reconsidering my decision. I asked chatgpt and it hyped me up that there are several reasons as to why I have a chance of winning this in court lol 

Chat GPT like all AI can hallucinate, and may have given you rubbish information. I wouldn't rely on it for legal advice. 

Very much so, it made up a ficticous case that someone went to a tribunal quoting.

Emmia

Demistedstranger1 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Demistedstranger1 said:

Officer believes that my vision was impaired but I pointed out to him that if it was impaired how did I manage to completely spot the car in a safe way by following his instructions (he had LEDs on that said ‘follow me’) 

yes windows weren’t demisted but as long as I could see, it was fine for me to drive which means I wasn’t intentionally being unsafe in the road and was well below the speed limit hence why I am wondering that I am hard done by this 

You are aware that there is more than one window in a car? That just because you have a small clear patch right in front of your face that you can see a bright sign straight ahead doesn't mean you would have seen something off to the far left etc?

There is a raft of news articles each year about fines for not demisting or defrosting your windscreen, for example from two weeks ago https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/drivers-can-stop-car-windows-9846372. No idea if their solution helps prevent the misting up in the first place but does show that its not unheard of

You’re right and I made a manoeuvre relatively safely whilst driving. The officer decided to pull into my lane (left lane) from the right lane (two lanes on the road) and slowed his car. I went into the right lane and overtook him (staying within the speed limit ofc) and I made that manoeuvre because I could see out of my right and left windows. I wouldn’t have done it otherwise. 

Thank you for sending me that article btw, I read that already. In relation to that, I managed to find several instances where this has been contested in court and the outcome has been in defendants favour. Some of those instances are given below 

 R v. D (1999): A motorist was charged with driving with insufficient visibility due to misted windows. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, acknowledging that, while the windows were misted, the driver’s **perfect vision** and ability to drive safely on an **empty road** made the charge unjustified.

  

R v. S (2006): The defendant was charged for driving with frosted windows. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, who argued that, despite the frosted windows, their **vision was not impaired**, and they were able to navigate the vehicle safely. The **low traffic volume** and **immediate corrective action** (demisting the windows) were factors that led to the case being dismissed.

R v. T (2012): The court ruled in favor of the defendant who demonstrated that, despite the misted windows, they had **clear visibility** and could safely follow the officer’s **LED lights**. The **empty road conditions** and the **driver’s ability to safely follow instructions** contributed to the favorable outcome.

R v. B (2014): In this case, the defendant argued that the **weather conditions** were not the cause of impaired visibility but that they could still see clearly enough to drive safely. The **low traffic conditions** and immediate corrective action were considered by the court, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

Where did you identify these cases from? How did you identify them?

oldernonethewiser

Demistedstranger1 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Demistedstranger1 said:

Officer believes that my vision was impaired but I pointed out to him that if it was impaired how did I manage to completely spot the car in a safe way by following his instructions (he had LEDs on that said ‘follow me’) 

yes windows weren’t demisted but as long as I could see, it was fine for me to drive which means I wasn’t intentionally being unsafe in the road and was well below the speed limit hence why I am wondering that I am hard done by this 

You are aware that there is more than one window in a car? That just because you have a small clear patch right in front of your face that you can see a bright sign straight ahead doesn't mean you would have seen something off to the far left etc?

There is a raft of news articles each year about fines for not demisting or defrosting your windscreen, for example from two weeks ago https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/drivers-can-stop-car-windows-9846372. No idea if their solution helps prevent the misting up in the first place but does show that its not unheard of

You’re right and I made a manoeuvre relatively safely whilst driving. The officer decided to pull into my lane (left lane) from the right lane (two lanes on the road) and slowed his car. I went into the right lane and overtook him (staying within the speed limit ofc) and I made that manoeuvre because I could see out of my right and left windows. I wouldn’t have done it otherwise. 

Thank you for sending me that article btw, I read that already. In relation to that, I managed to find several instances where this has been contested in court and the outcome has been in defendants favour. Some of those instances are given below 

 R v. D (1999): A motorist was charged with driving with insufficient visibility due to misted windows. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, acknowledging that, while the windows were misted, the driver’s **perfect vision** and ability to drive safely on an **empty road** made the charge unjustified.

  

R v. S (2006): The defendant was charged for driving with frosted windows. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, who argued that, despite the frosted windows, their **vision was not impaired**, and they were able to navigate the vehicle safely. The **low traffic volume** and **immediate corrective action** (demisting the windows) were factors that led to the case being dismissed.

R v. T (2012): The court ruled in favor of the defendant who demonstrated that, despite the misted windows, they had **clear visibility** and could safely follow the officer’s **LED lights**. The **empty road conditions** and the **driver’s ability to safely follow instructions** contributed to the favorable outcome.

R v. B (2014): In this case, the defendant argued that the **weather conditions** were not the cause of impaired visibility but that they could still see clearly enough to drive safely. The **low traffic conditions** and immediate corrective action were considered by the court, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

Are you going to challenge the fine now?

If so please come back and let us know how it went, good or bad.

Keep_pedalling

Demistedstranger1 said:

oldernonethewiser said:

Demistedstranger1 said:

pseudodox said:

You are unlikely to receive sympathy or support here - you were a danger to yourself & others.  A couple of weeks ago I was walking across a Tesco car park in the snow & was almost mown down by an idiot driver whose windows were all covered in snow except for a dinner plate size section he had cleared from the windscreen giving him tunnel vision.  Luckily he was going slow, seeking a parking spot judging from his nose being almost touching the windscreen, so I was able to step out of his way.  This is an all too common sight in winter.  Just be grateful the police stopped you before an accident occurred.

A few years back a motorcyclist was seriously injured when snow blew off the roof of a car into his windshield & face,  blocked his vision & he skidded into oncoming traffic.  We should always think about other road users.

I understand and completely agree with you. 

The reason I asked is because the mist on my windows weren’t that bad hence why I could see the road and ofc, I always demist my car before setting off on any journey. 

I am just abit flabbergasted with the penalty. I thought they would offer me a course or something 

Does this mean your windscreen had become misted after you started driving?  Is there an issue with the blower?

That is correct. No I had just turned it off since it’s an electric vehicle and I had a long journey to make so I was saving on electric. I now realise that was foolish of me. 

If you set the departure time the car will pre heat the cabin, the traction battery and de-mist the car with little if any impact on the range especially as you will set off with a warm traction battery. 

Hoenir

Demistedstranger1 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Demistedstranger1 said:

Officer believes that my vision was impaired but I pointed out to him that if it was impaired how did I manage to completely spot the car in a safe way by following his instructions (he had LEDs on that said ‘follow me’) 

yes windows weren’t demisted but as long as I could see, it was fine for me to drive which means I wasn’t intentionally being unsafe in the road and was well below the speed limit hence why I am wondering that I am hard done by this 

You are aware that there is more than one window in a car? That just because you have a small clear patch right in front of your face that you can see a bright sign straight ahead doesn't mean you would have seen something off to the far left etc?

There is a raft of news articles each year about fines for not demisting or defrosting your windscreen, for example from two weeks ago https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/drivers-can-stop-car-windows-9846372. No idea if their solution helps prevent the misting up in the first place but does show that its not unheard of

You’re right and I made a manoeuvre relatively safely whilst driving. The officer decided to pull into my lane (left lane) from the right lane (two lanes on the road) and slowed his car. I went into the right lane and overtook him (staying within the speed limit ofc) and I made that manoeuvre because I could see out of my right and left windows. I wouldn’t have done it otherwise. 

Thank you for sending me that article btw, I read that already. In relation to that, I managed to find several instances where this has been contested in court and the outcome has been in defendants favour. Some of those instances are given below 

 R v. D (1999): A motorist was charged with driving with insufficient visibility due to misted windows. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, acknowledging that, while the windows were misted, the driver’s **perfect vision** and ability to drive safely on an **empty road** made the charge unjustified.

  

R v. S (2006): The defendant was charged for driving with frosted windows. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, who argued that, despite the frosted windows, their **vision was not impaired**, and they were able to navigate the vehicle safely. The **low traffic volume** and **immediate corrective action** (demisting the windows) were factors that led to the case being dismissed.

R v. T (2012): The court ruled in favor of the defendant who demonstrated that, despite the misted windows, they had **clear visibility** and could safely follow the officer’s **LED lights**. The **empty road conditions** and the **driver’s ability to safely follow instructions** contributed to the favorable outcome.

R v. B (2014): In this case, the defendant argued that the **weather conditions** were not the cause of impaired visibility but that they could still see clearly enough to drive safely. The **low traffic conditions** and immediate corrective action were considered by the court, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

That's why the officer concerned filmed events. To provide concrete evidence should it be required. 

pepsi1234

Demistedstranger1 said:

And evidence I was hoping to present was the fact that I saw the officer’s sign to follow him and stop my vehicle? 

a light up sign is different to a person in dark clothing that you may not have seen - that is the point. saying I saw a brightly light up sign does not prove that you could not see everything clearly.

Also for the police to have stopped you in the first place, something must have happened or it was very obvious your vision from the car was impaired