Section 59

Tute said:
It does happen, actually. Mostly just boredom, but the police do pull people over for no reason.

And it's not ridiculous, in fact i'd say it's the most likely explanation.
Click to expand...

i once got pulled over for being too young (26?) to own a nice car (a 4 year old 1.2 fiesta). I was at the side of the road for almost 30minutes while they checked my details, my GF's details, and kept telling me "i must have a reason" to be out etc. The driver of the police car was a right tool getting angry when i said we wasnt going anywhere, while the female officer in the front questioned my GF, the two other coppers checked every detail of the car like tyres numberplates etc.

But a year later i was pulled over at 3am as a quick check due to ST's getting stolen all the time. And had a nice chat with the guy.

Basically from what Fett has said hes done absolutely nothing wrong, other than maybe speeding to speed up the overtake, but that isnt the offence given. I dont understand the whole thing.

Was the bus/coach tailgating the unmarked car?
 
Fett said:
I've always been polite with the police as I've always been treated fairly but the ***** I dealt with today must be some sort of new breed.

I was issued with a Section 59 warning for overtaking a coach and a Volvo estate in front of the coach. The volvo was unmarked and he pulled me 1/2 mile later, after driving into town. Was a bit perplexed to see the lights but I had crept over 60 for the manuever so I was expecting a warning from a bored copper.

It was nothing to do with speed he said, although he knew I was over 60 as that was his speed. It was the overtake itself, which he then tried to explain could have caused distress. I asked if the manuever was safe and he said (twice actually during the conversation) that it was fine apart from the "manner" of the overtake which when pressed he could not really expand on.

When I asked if I could appeal, he offered to change it from a warning to an actual offence and have the car seized then and there, so I obviously dropped it. Signed the notice, breathalysed and left. Bit galling really as if had been around Friday he could have done some real work and maybe done something about the bloke who chucked a bottle at me (other thread).

Anyway, can these things be appealed and whats the name of the site people use for appealing motoring offences? Ta.
Click to expand...

Jealousy I think fella (if you were in the godzilla!?)

this may help??

You can ONLY be issued with a Section 59 if you have broken Section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act.

(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which - (a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and

( is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public)
Click to expand...

Notice the and is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public. You have to be doing both, not just one or the other.

Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act looks like this:-

3 Careless, and inconsiderate, driving

If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.


1. You have to be driving on a road (not parked in a car park minding your own business)
2. You have to be on a road driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road (not residents, people walking on the pavements, etc).
Click to expand...
Section 34 doesnt really come into it as this is for driving off-road on common land, etc. The main reason the law was passed. The police use it because they think we dont understand the law and to be honest, a lot of the time, we dont.

So, unless the police can categorically say that you have contravened Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act they cannot issue a Section59 warning.
Click to expand...
 
I thought these un-marked traffic cars were kitted out the same as the marked ones, with video recording. Shouldn't the Police have a recording?
 
Whats likely is next time he see's you he will give you another one and then sieze your car. Which means he gets to drive your car to wherever.

Make a complaint, when you mentioned appeal it sounds like he got scared of getting found out, as an officer cant just "upgrade" the penalty whenever they choose!
 
Dup said:
Lesson from this is: You may have underestimated the space in which you could anticipate traffic, therefore may scare people coming the other way after they have come round a bonet or over a crest which was in the distance at the time. Stupid thinking from a policemans point of view, but valid I suppose. The real lesson of course, remember the reg of the Volvo ;)
Click to expand...

Aye, I can fully appreciate they have a job to do and he was the trained driver, not I. But this happed on a wide bypass, pretty much the straightest, flattest road around here, vision for oncoming traffic does not really get any clearer. I understand your point though.

Concrete said:
Unlucky, down here on the south coast they are handing them out like confetti. I think I'm the only Skyline owner not to have recieved one yet (touch wood) but its just a matter of time.

If you do get another one, you can make them jump through hoops all day and night long if you are so inclined. Insist on a low loader, and they have to remain in attendance for it to arrive (which can take a while) and if you have any damage at all that you would like them to repair free of charge (paint chips, parking dings etc), make sure you point it out when you pick it up the next day, they don't check the cars over properly and you can say that it happened while in their posession and there is nothing they can do to refute it. Hopefully by making them waste huge amounts of their time and money they will give up on enforcing this "law".
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks. Think I'll talk to a few people tomorrow and see if this is worth pursuing, there is always the trade-off of having the thing removed and then becoming a target.
Overlag said:
But a year later i was pulled over at 3am as a quick check due to ST's getting stolen all the time. And had a nice chat with the guy.

Basically from what Fett has said hes done absolutely nothing wrong, other than maybe speeding to speed up the overtake, but that isnt the offence given. I dont understand the whole thing.

Was the bus/coach tailgating the unmarked car?
Click to expand...

This is the only time in 20 years of driving I've been stopped and left feeling something was slightly unjust about the whole thing.

The coach was fairly close to the back of the Volvo, nothing horrific but I personally wouldn't have wanted a coach that close to me. I was deliberately trying to keep it off boost after a stint over the moors as I was 2 minutes away from the forecourt and didn't want to sit there like a knob before switching the car off and they both were travelling slow enough for me to overtake without having to pull the trigger.

He reckoned he was doing 60mph bang on, I'm not going to argue, definitely guilty of not paying attention to my speed or the two vehicles in front but they did seem to be dawdling a bit. Considering I was so close to the petrol station, I should have just trundled on.
 
Last edited:
twoblacklines said:
this may help??
Click to expand...

"Notice the and is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public. You have to be doing both, not just one or the other."

Thank you...interesting. Just myself, the coach driver and the officer on the road at that time. Nothing coming towards us and a safe overtake, as confirmed by the officer.

malfunkshun said:
I thought these un-marked traffic cars were kitted out the same as the marked ones, with video recording. Shouldn't the Police have a recording?
Click to expand...

Again, hindsight. I never asked nor was offered a viewing. I'm assuming that if a warning is issued, that section of tape has to be kept for a certain duration?
 
Last edited:
twoblacklines said:
Whats likely is next time he see's you he will give you another one and then sieze your car. Which means he gets to drive your car to wherever.
Click to expand...

It would be recovered by a designated recovery company, the officer wouldnt be driving it anywhere.

Are you being entirely honest with your speed here, I certainly wouldnt be overtaking something going at 60mph at 65. I do think you have been hard done by though - S59 should be used to target yobs racing round the streets in bags of spanners and people on mini-motos on housing estates, not in this situation, a quick lecture would suffice in my opinion.
 
Defcon5 said:
Are you being entirely honest with your speed here, I certainly wouldnt be overtaking something going at 60mph at 65.
Click to expand...

I don't think I would get decent advice back if I skewed the story. I was doing more than 65, can't remember mentioning 65 but, yes, technically I was over the limit.

I didn't exactly blast by him either though, and if my speed was really an issue, I can't see why he didn't take that route (fine and points) rather than a warning that has nothing to do with my speed.

The only way I can interpret my offence by reading around and the above info posted is that I was "on a road driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road".

Considering both I and the officer agreed the overtake was safe, I'm struggling to see where I was careless or inconsiderate?
 
malfunkshun said:
I thought these un-marked traffic cars were kitted out the same as the marked ones, with video recording. Shouldn't the Police have a recording?
Click to expand...

I got pulled by an unmarked BMW yesterday, it didn't seem to have any recording equipment onboard. It had 2 systems installed, a screen which seemed solely to do the ANPR (could do more though?), and a coms device underneath which he used to call my insurer. Nothing else.
 
Clarkey said:
I got pulled by an unmarked BMW yesterday, it didn't seem to have any recording equipment onboard. It had 2 systems installed, a screen which seemed solely to do the ANPR (could do more though?), and a coms device underneath which he used to call my insurer. Nothing else.
Click to expand...

the ANPR device is a forward and rear facing camera system.

It reads numberplates but will also be set to record video as well. The driver can play it back, but wont have chosen to, and will have left it in its normal ANPR mode.
 
I didn't see a screen but then I wasn't really looking. All checks were done by radio, could you assume that there was not a camera system installed?
 
Fett said:
I didn't see a screen but then I wasn't really looking. All checks were done by radio, could you assume that there was not a camera system installed?
Click to expand...

what car stopped you

its the norm for traffic cops to carry video recording equipement. Even if they dont have any obvious signs, there is usually a camera front and back for ANPR, and these will then have their feeds recorded for later use in court.
 
Silver V50.

I can't really see why an unmarked traffic car wouldn't have a camera system. I need to check tomorrow if I do appeal, if the tape is reviewed (if it's still around), they can't charge me for speeding, a sort of double jeopardy situation.
 
psalliss said:
youll struggle to appeal mate to be quite honest with you. the problem youve got now if you are given a 2nd 59 warning your vehicle will be sezied as your details will be recorded on pnc.
Click to expand...

Is a section 59 issued against the person or the car itself? How would it work if you were to be stopped driving another car, say a mates and issued a section 59. Would that be seized or would it have to be in the gtr?

If it has to be the same vehicle would changing the registered owner avoid the possibility of it being crushed? as it could have been sold on.. :confused:
 
the video will be recording his speed.

if the video then shows him doing 55 and you flying by in a 60 limit zone, it could get ugly

Worth noting that these section 59 notices expire after a year. Personally id put down to experience, and sleep well knowing the copper was a **** end just like the one that caught me, hiding in the dark at the bottom of a very long long hill on the M1 at midnidnight, out to do nothing other than catch somebody speeding because they had an empty motorway to themselves and a had a big long downhill section to get some speed up.

Thankfully for you at least, you didnt get a 1 month ban when your **** end copper had his fun.
 
Tourmai said:
Is a section 59 issued against the person or the car itself? How would it work if you were to be stopped driving another car, say a mates and issued a section 59. Would that be seized or would it have to be in the gtr?

If it has to be the same vehicle would changing the registered owner avoid the possibility of it being crushed? as it could have been sold on.. :confused:
Click to expand...

Pretty much the first question I asked before I signed it...he wasn't sure so had to check. It's applicable to the person, not the car.
MrLOL said:
the video will be recording his speed.

if the video then shows him doing 55 and you flying by in a 60 limit zone, it could get ugly
Click to expand...

I've harked on enough about this but maybe you can see my point here. If I passed him at something approaching an unsociable speed, surely he would have done his best to nail me for the actual speed. Technically, yes I was breaking the limit, so if he was being a bit of a ****, why this car ASBO and not a fine and points? The threat of seizure is a pain in the arse but it's not prohibitively expensive (if your pockets are deep enough, it seems you can do it again and again and again) and it seems more aimed towards younger people who might struggle to get their car back immediately, pretty much what he hinted at.

Not sure why this had to come to paperwork, a good grilling would have sufficed.
 
Last edited:
Update: Denied.

His sergeant called me today after receiving my letter. Apparently the officer had to brake to allow me in which A) was not mentioned at the time and B) utter bull****.

Apparently these are usually accompanied by a court summons for careless driving so I've been "treated fairly" and I could pursue it further in a civil court where it'll come down to my word vs. his.

No interest in the fellers who lobbed a bottle at the car and since the first post I've been stopped twice as "routine". Bit odd that I've never had an issue *before* having a S59 logged against me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom