So Finally The Middle Lane Might Be Cleared

[AgnessGP]

You're right, I haven't been pulled over for using a mobile. but I don't understand why you should be pulled in the first place if your phone was in the glove box. I know you stated that you didn't want to get into the legal aspect, but I can't think why you didn't elect a Court hearing. Unless you were pretty young and lacked the confidence.

I don't want to start another debate hence why I didnt say, but I will:

I went to a solicitors in November 2010, explained the situation. They as confident I had a case. However, I was denied legal aid (due to my financial situation - that did not mean I had money to spare) and was made aware that court costs would be required, in adddition to paying the solicitor.

After discussion, the solicitor STRONGLY advised that I do not pursue this, she said we would be backed into a corner, and even with call records, they would simply conclude 'he never got time to make the call but would have'. Yes I lacked confidence too.

By the time I decided not to pursue, it was march. So they wrote a letter advising that my fine was 4 months late, and charged me 4x the original £60 fine - £240. Was a lose-lose. If I had paid the £60 fine and accepted the 3 points (for doing nothing wrong) I would have come out better off. The policeman refused to check my phone on the spot and would not listen to a word I had to say. It was the first time I had been pulled, I was ****ting myself, which didn't help

He also lied about the fact that he had been driving alongside me watching me. I saw him in my rear view mirror ten minutes before that and that's where he stayed. I was also advised that I would not win a case against officer judgement.

Was all ********!

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Depending upon your insurance co if you had Legal services on your policy it would have helped there. Mine covers me for £10k to defend convictions.

 

[Liquid Knight]

yes and no, I find people cut me up less when I'm wearing my sunglasses, sometimes people assume that because they can see your eyes that they are OK to pull out in front of you, everyone should drive as if the other person hasn't seen them.

I think it's the Golden Retriever in the passenger seat as well that puts them off.


Paedo'tints annoy the geof out of me. Okay you have children and are old enough to remember Brasseye but if you don't want to see out the back of your vehicle buy a chuffin' van!

 

[AgnessGP]

Depending upon your insurance co if you had Legal services on your policy it would have helped there. Mine covers me for £10k to defend convictions.

Yeah I wasn't aware of that. If the same happened now I'd be okay I reckon, with the help from here and solicitors.

 

[StevenRB45]

Although I don't use a Sat Nav, I can understand the attraction, but, there is one particular stretch of motorway on the way to Manchester Airport which seems to exemplify one of the problems.

At the start of what is known as the Sharston Link where the M56 starts at its junction with the M60.

Here the road goes from 3 lanes to 4 as a slip road from the A34 joins on the left making 4 lanes in total. After a short distance the now left hand lane carries on, clearly signed above as A34 & M56 Airport. Lane 2 is clearly signed above as being M56 Airport and M60. So you can carry on to the airport in lane 1, and in lane 2 you can either exit onto the M56 or carry on the M60. All worked fairly well until about 3 years ago, more and more vehicles used lane 3 until almost at the last moment moving into lane 1 and getting held up behind a truck. Others travelling quite happily in lane 2 would inexplicably move out to lane 3. This causes a lot problems as HGVs now often occupy lane 3 (of 4) instead of staying in lane 2. This causes sudden congestion as faster moving traffic catches up with the slow stuff.

I asked a taxi driver once who went that way at least once a week if he could explain this problem. He said his Sat Nav had some form of lane selection advice and told him to take lane 3 until he was almost alongside the sliproad.

Sat navs aren't really the problem its people who think its a 100% infallible way of getting from A to B. These are the people you used to see on police camera action reversing up the hard shoulder cos they were on the wrong road. Now they have a sat nav and would happily follow its directions to the letter even if it took them onto the platform at kings cross.

It's not the sat navs fault, I've followed my garmin and google maps on my phone all over the country and apart from a day my garmin figured I should take M6 south for Scotland never had an issues. However I'm aware enough to actually notice when the little voice is talking crap and ignore it and let it recalculate. My fiance on the other hand used the same sat nav to get lost between Newcastle and Gateshead...not a joke.

As with all things common sense and an understanding of the limitations of the technology are required to use it safely. The same people who lurch round following sat navs would have been just as bad following maps.

 

[sludgeguts]

I don't want to start another debate hence why I didnt say, but I will:

I went to a solicitors in November 2010, explained the situation. They as confident I had a case. However, I was denied legal aid (due to my financial situation - that did not mean I had money to spare) and was made aware that court costs would be required, in adddition to paying the solicitor.

After discussion, the solicitor STRONGLY advised that I do not pursue this, she said we would be backed into a corner, and even with call records, they would simply conclude 'he never got time to make the call but would have'. Yes I lacked confidence too.

By the time I decided not to pursue, it was march. So they wrote a letter advising that my fine was 4 months late, and charged me 4x the original £60 fine - £240. Was a lose-lose. If I had paid the £60 fine and accepted the 3 points (for doing nothing wrong) I would have come out better off. The policeman refused to check my phone on the spot and would not listen to a word I had to say. It was the first time I had been pulled, I was ****ting myself, which didn't help

He also lied about the fact that he had been driving alongside me watching me. I saw him in my rear view mirror ten minutes before that and that's where he stayed. I was also advised that I would not win a case against officer judgement.

Was all ********!

What is this, Minority Report?

 

[pooroldcodger]

What is this, Minority Report?

I think you should have sacked the Solicitor.

"they would simply conclude 'he never got time to make the call but would have'.

I have heard of carrying a weapon with intent, but never carrying a telephone with intent!

When we walk down the road we are equiped with everything we need to shout abuse. It doesn't mean to say that we are going to do so does it?
What a disgrace!

 

[AgnessGP]

I think you should have sacked the Solicitor.

"they would simply conclude 'he never got time to make the call but would have'.

I have heard of carrying a weapon with intent, but never carrying a telephone with intent!

When we walk down the road we are equiped with everything we need to shout abuse. It doesn't mean to say that we are going to do so does it?
What a disgrace!

Yeah she was basically saying 'you can't take on the police'. I was proper screwed over...not again!

 

[The Beard]

I don't want to start another debate hence why I didnt say, but I will:

I went to a solicitors in November 2010, explained the situation. They as confident I had a case. However, I was denied legal aid (due to my financial situation - that did not mean I had money to spare) and was made aware that court costs would be required, in adddition to paying the solicitor.

After discussion, the solicitor STRONGLY advised that I do not pursue this, she said we would be backed into a corner, and even with call records, they would simply conclude 'he never got time to make the call but would have'. Yes I lacked confidence too.

By the time I decided not to pursue, it was march. So they wrote a letter advising that my fine was 4 months late, and charged me 4x the original £60 fine - £240. Was a lose-lose. If I had paid the £60 fine and accepted the 3 points (for doing nothing wrong) I would have come out better off. The policeman refused to check my phone on the spot and would not listen to a word I had to say. It was the first time I had been pulled, I was ****ting myself, which didn't help

He also lied about the fact that he had been driving alongside me watching me. I saw him in my rear view mirror ten minutes before that and that's where he stayed. I was also advised that I would not win a case against officer judgement.

Was all ********!

I'm very disappointed that you were treated that way, and, I have to say, very surprised that a Cop would lie over what is, relatively speaking, a minor offence. I can perhaps see a way, although I would never condone it, in which an Officer may lie to bolster what he considered a definite offence, but with at least some evidence to back it up. It's a really bizarre thing to do bearing in mind he number of recording devices such as iPhones in circulation.

I'd be interested to know if he pulled you over there and then or summonsed you later. I have to say that being a bit of an old git, I'd have fought it, but then I don't know how I would have reacted if I was only in my early twenties or late teens.

 

[The Beard]

Yeah she was basically saying 'you can't take on the police'. I was proper screwed over...not again!

For the record, although I'm obviously not a Solicitor, I would say this. In any court case, the onus is on the Prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has taken place, and then that you were the person who committed it.

The Prosecution goes first and states the circumstances of the case and will question the Police Officer who will probably quote from his/her pocket book and may also question you. You can question the Police Officer in return. Although cases are often brought with little more than the Cop's statement, without further evidence the more serious the offence, the more evidence is usually required.

For instance, a non-endorsable FPN for Unnecessary Obstruction blocking a driveway would need certain Points to Prove. Among them would be an initial complaint from an aggrieved party, the Comms log would be a starting point, followed by a time of arrival in a pocket book along with, for instance, the presence on the driveway of a vehicle; that there is no other way of getting that vehicle off the driveway; that there is a legally constituted dropped kerb.
The Cop or TPCSO would make a note of the VRM, make, model and colour of the offending vehicle and probably ask his Comms to try and find a phone number for the keeper. While he/she was waiting for a result he/she would write down further details such as the serial number, expiry date, duration and issuing authority of the Vehicle Excise Disc.

If the driver couldn't be found a FPN would be issued and eventually permission to have the vehicle removed (at the owner's expense) would be sought from a Duty Inspector.

If the fine and cost of retrieving the vehicle were challenged you might be able to see the evidence that would be needed in such a minor offence.

1 Time of offence from the Comms log.
2 Time of arrival of the officer.
3 Confirmation of the complaint by the Aggrieved Party.
4 Presence of the obstructing vehicle.
5 Vehicle details of above.
6 Time. The fact that the vehicle was in-situ long enough for the Cop to write down all the details and wait to see if his Comms could locate the driver before issuing the ticket and getting the car removed.

That's the amount of evidence I'd like to see. For an EFPN I'd like to see a lot more
At the end of proceedings the Magistrates (usually 3) will come to a decision.

 

[AgnessGP]

I'm very disappointed that you were treated that way, and, I have to say, very surprised that a Cop would lie over what is, relatively speaking, a minor offence. I can perhaps see a way, although I would never condone it, in which an Officer may lie to bolster what he considered a definite offence, but with at least some evidence to back it up. It's a really bizarre thing to do bearing in mind he number of recording devices such as iPhones in circulation.

I'd be interested to know if he pulled you over there and then or summonsed you later. I have to say that being a bit of an old git, I'd have fought it, but then I don't know how I would have reacted if I was only in my early twenties or late teens.

Yeah, and I'm being honest mate - getting my solicitor to believe me was difficult enough (she frequently asked, are you sure you wern't on the phone?)

Actually, I will show you where he pulled me (black dot is where I saw him behind me, red dot is where he pulled me)



Apologies to take over the thread, I just wanted to make people aware that there are circumstances where if it's not handled correctly, they could be in for some crap.

 

[pooroldcodger]

Ha Ha. The Rotherway and W.Bawtry Rd. I used to live not too far from there!
When I added my 2 penny worth about S.Yorks police, I didn't realise you were speaking about the same force!
Still, any organisation that is capable of the Hillsborough campaign is capable of anything.
Don't get me wrong - the police have a tough (and sometimes dangerous) job to do as we know, but with power comes responsibility and there is absolutely no place for lies or stupidity in the ranks (or the management).

 

[The Beard]

Yeah, and I'm being honest mate - getting my solicitor to believe me was difficult enough (she frequently asked, are you sure you wern't on the phone?)

Actually, I will show you where he pulled me (black dot is where I saw him behind me, red dot is where he pulled me)

View attachment 119144

Apologies to take over the thread, I just wanted to make people aware that there are circumstances where if it's not handled correctly, they could be in for some crap.

I've no reason to doubt you, so please don't think I was doing. It's just so stupid to push something like that when, by the grace of more and more recording devices he could end up being demoted or sacked.

Mind you, as I said earlier (in hindsight I know) I would have attended Court and gone Not Guilty, mind you, I'm (probably) quite a bit older than you so he might not have bothered having a go at me in the first place.

I hope you haven't used that solicitor again.

 

[AgnessGP]

I've no reason to doubt you, so please don't think I was doing. It's just so stupid to push something like that when, by the grace of more and more recording devices he could end up being demoted or sacked.

Mind you, as I said earlier (in hindsight I know) I would have attended Court and gone Not Guilty, mind you, I'm (probably) quite a bit older than you so he might not have bothered having a go at me in the first place.

I hope you haven't used that solicitor again.

No I've not used a solicitor for anything since, not had to yet anyway.

Don't worry mate I didn't think you were doubting me

It's just one of things I won't forget, and if it happened now, armed with the information you've given and extra confidence, I would do as you said above.

Unfortunate, but hopefully someone can learn from my experience

 

[The Beard]

No I've not used a solicitor for anything since, not had to yet anyway.

Don't worry mate I didn't think you were doubting me

It's just one of things I won't forget, and if it happened now, armed with the information you've given and extra confidence, I would do as you said above.

Unfortunate, but hopefully someone can learn from my experience

Glad to be of service.

So if you'd like to send your cheque to the "Distressed Middle Aged Men with Facial Hair No.2 Swiss Account", Ridiculously expensive 25metre Princess motor yacht, Berth 50, Grand Harbour, Monaco.

 

[grr666]

Paedo'tints annoy the geof out of me. Okay you have children and are old enough to remember Brasseye but if you don't want to see out the back of your vehicle buy a chuffin' van!

Both my cars have paedo tints. The 100% legal, within the law
factory fitted type and as for my van... Obviously no windows there either.
And I don't even have kids. But view out isn't really hampered even
at night although I do have to switch off the dimming rear view mirror and
door mirrors if I'm on a completely dark road in my car cos they are a bit
unnecessary, but I didn't spec the mirrors, the original purchaser did.
I mostly have tints because I think it looks cool especially on my black car
and the wifes yellow one. But the front windows on both cars have
just normal glass on them. I don't agree with tints all round.

 

[Liquid Knight]

There is no legal issue it's one of idiocracy. Nine out of ten drivers who pull out of parking spaces, junctions or driveways and nearly hit me either in my bright green (invisible) Panda or especially when I'm on my bike have "Soccer Mom" tinted rear windows. They're either too lazy to check their blind spots or can't see through the film.

And another thing; Why do these idiots with "Soccer Mom" tints insist on wearing sun glasses as well? They may as well drive wearing a bloody welding mask.

 

[Ziggy122]

There is no legal issue it's one of idiocracy. Nine out of ten drivers who pull out of parking spaces, junctions or driveways and nearly hit me either in my bright green (invisible) Panda or especially when I'm on my bike have paedo' tinted rear windows. They're either too lazy to check their blind spots or can't see through the film.

And another thing; Why do these idiots with paedo' tints insist on wearing sun glasses as well? They may as well drive wearing a bloody welding mask.[/QUOTE]


Is it an auto tinting mask tho?

Ziggy

 

[grr666]

Firstly thanks for calling me an idiot, much appreciated.
I could say the same about people who buy Pandas or ride bikes but it would
make me a bit of an arrogant tosser so I won't.
You obviously feel very strongly about it but unless you have driven a vehicle
with these tints, how can you say whether or not its possible to see through them.
Presumably the one out of ten who doesn't see you is driving a van so
lets ban those as well. But if that were to happen who would deliver your
werthers originals?

The 'idiots' with paedo tints and sunglasses should clearly be shot in the face in front
of their children (The tinted glass should shield their little faces from the blood spray)
I mean how dare they protect their forward vision from glare. They should get
their windscreen tinted instead perhaps...? Oh no, they can't. Because that's illegal.
Unlike wearing sunglasses which is perfectly legal, I've even seen Police
van drivers wearing sunglasses so I hope you don't encounter one of those
or you're doomed.

Even my insurance company hasn't loaded up my premium for having
tints and I'm sure if they were in any way inherently dangerous they'd
find a way of squeezing a couple of extra hundred quid out of me each
year for having them to go into the wrecked panda fund.
Has it occurred to you that you may be the one who needs extra training
or perhaps an eye test? As these things never seem to happen to me and
my car is black (with black tints) so is quite tricky to spot.

 

[Stu DemonD]

I am pretty hacked off as well - especially with the so called paedo comments So because my car has them as standard, I am being tarred as that? Pathetic.