Driving disqualification - Confused
- Thread starter agnes
- Start date
Surely by that logic, it doesn't matter if you admit it at the scene, since the police officer's statement is just "hearsay"?
Of course you're going to look like a right idiot when you say "prove it" and the officer goes "OK" and shows you his GPS and onboard camera showing you driving like an idiot.
However "yes officer, sorry officer" has the potential to get you off with a slap on the wrist if the officer is having a good day, whereas "you can't prove nuffink" is more likely to result in the full weight of the law coming down on you.
But of course, if you have a problem with authority, then by all means feel free to spend thousands on legal representation to maybe get off a couple of hundred pound ticket, a few points and a short ban.
June last year, why?
i was just curious how long it took to go from the even t to court.
This is exactly it. I got caught doing 116 on a dual.
Admitted to the officer who showed me his gun reading and made no attempt to make up some rubbish justification for speeding.
I went to court, officers report stated conditions were good with low traffic, just excess speed, and that I admitted guilt at the first opportunity.
Got an SP30 with a 2 month ban and £250 fine. Which tbh just meant my next renewal did not go down, it stayed the same which I was fine with.
This is how it works, I knew I was in the wrong and took the hit. Annoys me people who don't want to take account for their actions.
There are people who have gotten away with clear ban level of speed over a short distance by just being polite and admitting being in the wrong, walking away without so much as a ticket... so I hear
If you truly think what you're doing is borderline then by all means be awkward, but be prepared to accept the consequences
If you truly think what you're doing is borderline then by all means be awkward, but be prepared to accept the consequences
Surely by that logic, it doesn't matter if you admit it at the scene, since the police officer's statement is just "hearsay"?
Of course you're going to look like a right idiot when you say "prove it" and the officer goes "OK" and shows you his GPS and onboard camera showing you driving like an idiot.
However "yes officer, sorry officer" has the potential to get you off with a slap on the wrist if the officer is having a good day, whereas "you can't prove nuffink" is more likely to result in the full weight of the law coming down on you.
But of course, if you have a problem with authority, then by all means feel free to spend thousands on legal representation to maybe get off a couple of hundred pound ticket, a few points and a short ban.
Another Ocuk jump in logic, how do you get from not answering 2 specific questions to ending up spending a fortune in court?
You do not incriminate yourself EVER, if you don't answer positively or negatively to those two questions you put the ball back in his court as to whether he can be bothered to play the game or not.
You don't sit there for hours doing that freeman nonsense, you give him your name address and license card and let him decide if he wants to go through with a ticket or not, that's all.
If he has proof, he doesn't need you to confess to it, so don't answer the question on the off chance that he doesn't.
The ban code is the same as for normal speeding.
The OPs will be an SP30
Just when declaring insurance renewal he will have to put 0 points, then tick the box that says ban and state how long for. And watch as half of your potential insurers simply say good bye to you (eg direct line refused to insure anybody with a ban back when I had one)
80-100MPH? The Court should also have fined you £400-£1000 and banned you for 28-365 Days.
Why on earth did you admit it when the Plod didn't know your actual Speed? You could have walked from that with a decent Brief. Crazy.
Magistrates have very clear guidance on this. The most they can ban you for is 56 days. To be banned for more you have to be charged with a greater offence than speeding such as dangerous driving, careless driving or driving without due care and attention. People who get caught doing 140+ on the motorway etc.. usually get charged with dangerous driving.
Depends if they cancel your policy or not. If they actually cancel your policy as a result of it, you will have to declare it. Most insurance quotes will ask if you've had a policy cancelled or refused within the last x years. Hopefully your existing insurer will just charge you some money for this year and then probably give you a stupid renewal quote knowing it will make you go elsewhere.
You don't have to declare it however if when shopping around for renewal, somebody refuses to give you a quote based upon it (which lots will) Fear not however, there are plenty of mainstream insurers who will cover you and I had no issue. It just narrows down your list of possible choices when going on the comparison websites. You'll see a lot that say they declined to quote for you based upon the ban.
Or you could you know .. do the honest thing and admit the guilt if that is indeed what you were doing. Would I cave in admit if he said I was doing 80mph when it was only 65 but stil speeding ? No absolutely not. But if I was doing 80 The only decent thing to do is admit your guilt.
Last edited:
Yeah, because there's no difference between actual CCTV Footage with three Witnesses and just the 'Hearsay' of a Police Officer, right? I mean the Police would never lie or twist the truth a bit to get a Prosecution, right? They wouldn't want to trick you in to just 'Admitting' it to save them the hassle of having to prove it and all that Paperwork and stuff, right?
But, hey if 'Boot-Licking's your thing and you just like bending over to anyone with 'Authority' then I guess you deserve what you get. Just remember the next time some Plod pulls you over for something he 'Thinks' you've done (They'll even make you think they're doing you a favour!) to readily admit it then come straight Online to whine about it on Forums.
When people, who have significant experience in this sort of area, disagree with everything you say, I think the smart thing to do is stop posting.
I think your last paragraph is very telling of your attitude and you've probably got a chip on your shoulder about the judiciary as a whole, ironically, probably due to said attitude. It is as a result of this that you are making stupid comments about something you clearly know nothing about, rather than any sort of knowledge or experience.
The OP's will be an SP30.
That would be up to the individual of course.
The last run in I had was in 2007 (I posted it in on here at the time) when I had one of the lying *******s trying to give me a ticket for driving while on the phone. ( I wasnt)
It ended up with me putting him a position where he would have to arrest me and drive me 25 miles to the nearest station as I wouldn't give him any details.
I walked away from the road side with no ticket and him telling me that I was and I quote "some piece of work" after about 15 minutes of too and fro.
I got pulled over in my Impreza on the A46 many years ago (I was about 23) doing 100 (coming onto the road from a slip road and booting it between two cars and upto 100ish) I saw a silver Octavia appear in the rear view mirror immediately and as I slowed down and pulled in from the third overtaking lane he pulled in behind me, and pulled me over.
He asked how quickly I was going and I sheepishly said 90, he said and the rest, at this point he had a call on his radio, when he came back he gave me a ticking off and said next time I wont be so lucky, he got in his car and sped off with his sirens and lights going.
FWIW, I was on my way back from work dressed in a suit. So you can get very lucky on the very rare odd occassion.
Had I been in exactly your situation and genuinely not on the phone I would do exactly the same.
But i see no sense in playing games when you're guilty of what they accuse you of.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,786
SP30 eh? I see your SP30 and raise you an SP50!
I see your SP50 and raise you an MS50.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32733002 Yup always best to deny it.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Meh, he could have walked from that with a decent Brief. Crazy.
How would he have walked away from that with the evidence presented?
