Section 59

[Fett]

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.

 

[Fett]

Ahh, that's the one, cheers.

And no, no fine nor points.

 

[Fett]

Sorry if I'm being dense but what do you wish to appeal against if you received neither a finer nor points?

I'd have no problem with fine/points/Section 59 if it were warranted. The fact he said it was safe doesn't really tie in with receiving a warning for causing distress, even though I asked how and to who that distress was or could be caused.

So next time I get a ******-off copper who is a bit bored, the car will be seized. No big deal, hundred quid or so and you start again. It's more the principal. I really would not argue my case in the slightest if I thought it was a fair pinch, I usually think the police get it right.

 

[Fett]

Fett

Sounds like he was a right plonker, only problem with appealing is as you were going over the speed limit couldent it develop further because of that ?

I'm not sure they can try anything relating to speed after I've been stopped and no fine was issued. The lane ahead was empty up to the roundabout (just under half a mile) so there was zero need to gun it, the car didn't drop a cog and I was cruising in 6th so it was a leisurely overtake at maybe 70.

If I had driven away with points and a fine, I wouldn't be posting or moaning as technically I was speeding.

 

[Fett]

Did you happen to be recording at the time?

No, which I'm sort of glad about as I was returning from the Denbigh moors. Until I get something sorted, the camera goes on a tripod in the passenger seat and I knew I was picking up a mate so didn't bother. More worrying, the tripod feet are leaving indentations in the seat, so it stayed at home.

 

[Fett]

Did you get his badge number? Make a complaint.

Of course this could lead to you getting your car seized by vindictive police.

His collar number and name is on the warning notice. He wasn't overly rude or nasty until I asked about appealing, which obviously indicates I thought he was way off base.

The seizure thing is what I don't like, as mentioned, hanging over my head. What is to stop a copper from say, ignoring my speed and interpreting the speed as "careless" or "inconsiderate"? Because once that happens, I have the inconvenience of having to have to make my way home, then go and pick the car up.

The more I read about this Section 59, the more it seems aimed at mini-moto riders on footpaths and late night McDonalds attendees.

 

[Fett]

What actually is a "section 59" offence?

I think an actual explanation would be good as many people seem to be speculating. Doesn't seem to be your standard driving offence.

On my warning:

Select as appropriate: You are/have been driving in a (a) careless (b) Inconsiderate manner contrary to section 3 etc

Or

You have been driving on Common Land (etc)

Then add in either case:

In a manner in which:
Is causing
Has been causing
is likely to cause

alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public etc

 

[Fett]

If you'd have been in a GT3 he'd of given you points and added attitude

I dunno, the whole "causing alarm to the public" thing makes me think he has some pork in his garage

 

[Fett]

To be fair, how do you know it was a safe maneuver? You are relying on someones account of the incident, police don't pull people over for nothing whatsoever. Not saying Fett is lying, but the policeman must have thought there was something in it.

Accusing him of being jealous is ridiculous really.

He stated twice when I asked that the overtake was safe. He would not (or could not) expand on how the overtake was alarming, careless, distressing etc.

He made two comments about general wealth as well, one of them being that the reclaim fee would not make a difference to me but it certainly does to others.

I'm almost always on the side of the police, even if I'm in the wrong. I really think he was having a bad day.

 

[Fett]

That's what would annoy me the most. He is prepared to give you a warning, or even take it further but won't tell you exactly what you have done wrong. Surely if you were to challenge that warning it would end up in court with him standing up and giving evidence under oath.

Which sort of begs the question why would he not explain what the actual issue was?

All I had was a vague explanation that other road users *may* have become upset/surprised and thus it was warranted in his eyes.

Hindsight is always 20/20, I should have pushed him further on the explanation but he didn't seem to be kidding around about moving it up a notch and seizing the car for God knows what, hassle I could without frankly on a Sunday.

 

[Fett]

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

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

 

[Fett]

this may help??

"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.

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?

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?

 

[Fett]

Are you being entirely honest with your speed here, I certainly wouldnt be overtaking something going at 60mph at 65.

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?

 

[Fett]

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]

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.

 

[Fett]

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..

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.

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

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.

 

[Fett]

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.

 

[Fett]

I got stopped 2 days after I took delivery of my first M3 when driving late at night in Leicester because "I looked out of place" and 3 days after I got my GT3 for accelerating hard out of the toll boths on the Midlands Expressway where 2 plod spent 15 mins sitting in said car and having a chat. Both times they were fine with me to be fair and we had a crack but I could also have had Hitler who may have decided to play the ego game.

The last two stops have been fine, no attitude problems anyway, just letting me know they are around I guess. I overtook the wrong guy I think.

what a bunch of numptys clearly envy got the better of him and he has now decided to make your life hell. Can you not goto the ipc with this sort of harrasment.

Steady on squire, it's not got to the stage I would consider harrassment, they just want a little bit of Japan in their day

 

[Fett]

Are there other avenues of appeal you can try?

Might be worth waiting until 15 days after the offence before you do, so they can't then issue you with an NIP for something else?

My letter was to his Sgt to ask if the warning could be reviewed and revoked so it was the first step. the next step is through civil court which will be a complete waste of time as it's pretty obvious to me the officer is going to stretch the truth after revealing he had to brake.

The letter stated the truth and I suspect that anyone reviewing it would raise an eyebrow as to why a S59 was required, maybe that was why he felt he had to embellish his version to his sergeant.

End of the day I overtook an unmarked car. Not the brightest move, but as I've had confirmed, safe.

If anything, I'll look on future posts about unfair convictions and warnings with a little more sympathy. Not about to change my driving.

If there was a coach up close behind him doing 60 on a single carriage road he should really have been pulling the bus for doing 20mph over it's speed limit.

Give or take a few mph, I thought they were dawdling a bit, but I thought the limit was 50mph for coaches?

I was pulled over for overtaking a line of traffic on my bike. I was doing much over the limit, but I wasn't given a warning for the speed of the overtake as they understood that overtaking quickly is important, what they wanted to check was insurance, legality of the can etc... but again they said the same thing, distress caused by my manoeuvre :/ I didn't understand really but I wasn't given a section 59?!

They have taken something that was designed for groups of lads being a nuisance in car parks and mini-bike riders on footpaths and are now using it as they see fit. The officer in question said it was the "manner" of the overtake and what *could" have happened i.e I *could* have caused alarm.

I didn't understand then and I still don't understand now.

 

[Fett]

Yeah but if people just "accept" things, that's how it all starts to get out of hand.

Now this copper will just stop another motorist, who probably did nothing wrong, and have a go at them as well. Maybe even lie some more.

Is there really nothing that can be done?

He had reason to stop me, I was technically speeding. I'm not even sure he has lied exactly, maybe he did brake (christ knows why).

Never once during the stop did he mention that he had to brake, it was all about what *could* have happened. Obviously my issue is the stretch of credibility required to interpret a safe overtake as potentially inconsiderate or careless. It comes down to discretion and interpretation.

I'm not going to court over this. It's annoying but I don't really want to go any further with it now. If I did win an appeal in court, I think it would actually make matters worse anyway and it turns out I'm not the only GT-R driver in Wales with a Section 59 either.

All the cool kids have one.