Live from Windsor

Well you have admitted to committing the offence, got caught, so seems you have to pay the fine, no matter how harsh it seems /forums/images/icons/wink.gif Especially now after admitting it to the world on here /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=purple> "You only see what you recognise, and you only recognise what you know" <font color=purple>
 
Pardon me . I have not admitted to an offence. You are permitted by the Highway Code to cross double white lines in certain circumstances.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Err yes, but Granny's aren't one of them, trust me /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif The offence has been committed, but mitigation is still available /forums/images/icons/wink.gif Request the case to be heard at the local magistrates court, take a day off work, travel there, hang around, be treated like a criminal and put in the dock, listen to the Police's evidence, then try to explain yourself in front of the three elderly magistrates, mitigate and watch the result /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif You can't really win IMHO and could end up with the stress and aggravation for nothing, except the fact you felt better for explaining, but followed by the anger they took no notice and perhaps fined you more. You could also get a lawyer to mitigate for you, but all he will do is assist you in parting with even more cash, in his fee's. Bite the bullet IMHO and get on with your life, it is too short as it is /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

See below it may help :-

The essence of this charge is that a person driving a vehicle simply does not do what a traffic sign says.

Summary of the Law

To be guilty of an offence under s36(1), the traffic sign which was not complied with must be of the regulation size, colour and type. There is a presumption in law that the sign was “legal” unless the driver can show otherwise. This offence is one of strict liability. This means the prosecution do not need to show that the driver intended to disobey the sign (that is, he saw the sign and decided to go against it). It is enough to show that the driver simply did not comply with the sign, whether he saw it or not. The prosecution will therefore need to call evidence that a sign was in position and that the driver did not comply with it. Traffic signs apply to all vehicles, with or without engines. This offence will therefore include vehicles such as bicycles.

Failing to stop at a red traffic light This offence is committed whenever any part of the vehicle crosses the white stop line. The amber light should not be passed unless you are so close to the stop line that it would be unsafe to stop.

Maximum Sentence

This offence can be dealt with only by the Magistrates Court. The maximum penalty is a fine of up to £1000.

*****If the sign was a stop sign, no entry sign, traffic light or double white lines The Court may, if it thinks fit, disqualify you from driving for any period, and/or order a driving re-test. *****

In any event your licence will be endorsed, unless there are special reasons not to do so. Special reasons are tightly defined and in most cases they will not be applicable. This offence carries 3 penalty points. For most other signs The Court has no power to endorse the licence or disqualify from driving. The fixed penalty scheme may be used, leading to a standard fine and 3 penalty point endorsement.
Legal provision

s36 Road Traffic Act 1988; s91 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

<font color=purple> "You only see what you recognise, and you only recognise what you know" <font color=purple>
 
Read your Highway Code. it is possible that grannies may fall intoo one of the categories.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Is that under 'G' for grannies or 'E' for elderly /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif Remember the highway code is NOT the law, although I agree that there should be a law that states an age when all the old drivers and forced off the road and onto buses, they can be pests when you are in a hurry /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=purple> "You only see what you recognise, and you only recognise what you know" <font color=purple>
 
Nah, let him mitigate and explain himself in person to the three 'old' magistrates in the court /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif It would be worth a forum day out to watch /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=purple> "You only see what you recognise, and you only recognise what you know" <font color=purple>
 
Not quite live from Windsor

Just had a chance to download the pics from my phone - bit dodgy but they're <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=Thames&Number=398453&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&part=&vc=>Here</A> if you want to take a look.

BTW Happy, it was Ms DogsBody that got the snog with Mike for the prize giving NOT me (seemed fair since it was her stunning performance that made us win in the first place!

Great do and it was good to meet you all, thanks to Mike and Boatone for organising it all and when's the next one?

DogsBody.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Personally more should be done for Front fog lights on!
Bad enough the boy racer brigade doing it but it's a rapidly catching disease, even saw a learner car under instruction on a clear day with its foglights on. And even worse a lot of the white van brigade now have fitted fog lights!
In the Medway this would have been what you'd have got done for less likely the crossing the white line.

<hr width=100% size=1>Jim

Draco 2500
 
Actually agree with that, but I had just switched the lights on, the previous time they'd been on was when their had been some early morning fog and I had'nt notice the small green light on the front fog lamp switch as its almost obscured bthe steering wheel on the V70. However the volvo fog lights are low level anyway and unlikely to affect any other drivers vision.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Dad got stopped for having front fogs on at night.

Office said they should be used in poor visability.

Hummm so a dark country lane at night isn't poor visability then.

I use them in the country lanes, no white lines, no edge markers no street lights, they put the edges of the roads in and help spot stupid pederstrians and animals. Ever seen the mess a full sized deer makes to you car if you hit one /forums/images/icons/frown.gif and no not traveling at 60 mph either

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mssa.org.uk>http://www.mssa.org.uk</A> Marine Service Standards Assistance
 
The law is more defined than that it actually states Fog (visability under 100 metres) and falling snow.
Around here the morons who use them have dips and fog lights on and generally because they are stupid manage driving lights instead of fogs, so putting up a major wall of light. The lower the amount of light gives better night vision and therefore greater perception of pedestrians, dogs, deer and other things that don't have any lights.
More light doesn't equal greater safety it just means you're visible and no one else is.
In genuine country lanes with no one else around then use a genuine long range/driving light. This increases the distance you can see and means that deer etc. become visible further away.
My big issue with people driving with fogs on in country lanes etc. is that they A. can't be turned off quickly and B. hey don' get turned off when people come the other way.


<hr width=100% size=1>Jim

Draco 2500
 
Fair point, but used sensibly I don't have a problem with them and I must say that as they are mounted about 4 inches from the ground I don't find they affect my ability to see.

peter

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mssa.org.uk>http://www.mssa.org.uk</A> Marine Service Standards Assistance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top