None existing offence code entered on licence.

[andy]

speed cameras are there to make money. nothin else. the government dont care if it increases accidents.

True but then why do motorists slow down to the correct speed limit because of the cameras?

in certain places you can easily speed. i.e clear open motorway. you can safely do 80-90. after all, police get away with 160MPH, so surely if that speed is 'safe' then 8-90 is.

speed cameras should be removed and there should be more traffic police. they do a batter job at catching people who are driving dangerously/speeding excessively.

 

[Richardp]

Oh well! its only a matter of time before the oil runs out then it'll be back to shank's pony, and look at it this way, we are selfishly using up our grandchildrens oil wotsits inheritance what ever

 

[dg123]

speed cameras are there to make money. nothin else. the government dont care if it increases accidents.

True but then why do motorists slow down to the correct speed limit because of the cameras?

In my experience motorists slow down (jump on the brakes!) when they spot a camera irrespective of the speed they are travelling at - this is because they don't know what speed they are doing.

 

[andy]

low down (jump on the brakes!) when they spot a camera irrespective of the speed they are travelling at - this is because they don't know what speed they are doing.

then there is the odd driver, doin 35 in a 40 zone, spots talivan and hits the brakes to 23MPH. didnt take me long to overtake. its drivers like him hittin the brakes for no reason and driving 17MPH under the speed limit that shouldnt be on the roads.

 

[greengrass]

I said I didn't wanna waffle but for some I have to.
Thanks for your replies good and bad.

It was a static GATSO camera and the NIP came in followed by the charge with no indication of the conviction code.
SP80 does not exist. And I have a photo copy of the pictures without an explanation on how to work out how far I had travelled in the 5secs between the photos. A motor cyclist proved he was travelling at 18mph when the camera recorded 42mph... in his photos it showed a coach passing in the opposite direction and they still claim viberation doesn't interfear with the cameras even though it's proved that viberation 'bounce' does cause false readings as with the hand held jobbies.

Softus your wrong if it's their licence then why did they not DEMAND by feear of prosecution when I refused to return it. I have now but did not straight away until I made some enquiries. Of course I wont hold my breath, I am expecting it back altered.

As for the 'Clerical error' comment. Say you were in custody for a minor offence and a tiny clerical error on your charge sheet placed you in the position of a custodial sentence wouldn't that tiny clerical error bother you then?


On receipt of my returned licence I checked and accepted the code as I was unaware what a speeding code is. I searched the net for insurances and each one selected checked the 'Convictions' list and did not find SP80 so assumed it was an offence they weren't interested in.

Only telephoning the 5th one, Nationwide, did I find the code should have been SP30. and had I taken the cover on the net [you don't speak to anyone] I would have had a risky insurance cover albeit unwittingly. GET IT I WAS UNAWARE THAT THE CODE SHOULD HAVE READ SP30.

 

[masona]

I'm thinking if the SP80 should be SP30 if it's not printed correctly, have you look closely under the magnify glass?

 

[Thermo]

the licence is the property of the dvla and they can demand it back whenever they chose.

the fact that the wrong code has been placed on the licence is immaterial. the offence has been dealt with and the dvla have simply recorded it on the licence as part of a record keeping procedure, it is not part of the legal process of the case, which has been dealt with by the judicial system, be it as a court case or as a fixed penalty. even if the wrong offence code had been placed on the summons or the officers ticket it is still of no consequence. the nature of the offence is recorded in plain english on the ticket and the summons for the benefit of the person being prosecuted and the code is simply there for the data entry of the judicial systems data processing. If it had been the wrong date/time/ place etc then it could have been contested.

 

[andy]

I said I didn't wanna waffle but for some I have to.
Thanks for your replies good and bad.

It was a static GATSO camera and the NIP came in followed by the charge with no indication of the conviction code.
SP80 does not exist. And I have a photo copy of the pictures without an explanation on how to work out how far I had travelled in the 5secs between the photos. A motor cyclist proved he was travelling at 18mph when the camera recorded 42mph... in his photos it showed a coach passing in the opposite direction and they still claim viberation doesn't interfear with the cameras even though it's proved that viberation 'bounce' does cause false readings as with the hand held jobbies.

pics are either 0.5 or 0.7 seconds apart. itll probably have the gap somewhere witht he photo's. fomr the white lines you can see how far you have travelled and workout what your speed was. we all know many things can effect a camera, but to the government there fool-proof

Softus your wrong if it's their licence then why did they not DEMAND by feear of prosecution when I refused to return it. I have now but did not straight away until I made some enquiries. Of course I wont hold my breath, I am expecting it back altered.

did you have to pay for the licence? yes? then its yours. not DVLA.

As for the 'Clerical error' comment. Say you were in custody for a minor offence and a tiny clerical error on your charge sheet placed you in the position of a custodial sentence wouldn't that tiny clerical error bother you then?

i dont think youd get away with it if your complained

On receipt of my returned licence I checked and accepted the code as I was unaware what a speeding code is. I searched the net for insurances and each one selected checked the 'Convictions' list and did not find SP80 so assumed it was an offence they weren't interested in.


Only telephoning the 5th one, Nationwide, did I find the code should have been SP30. and had I taken the cover on the net [you don't speak to anyone] I would have had a risky insurance cover albeit unwittingly. GET IT I WAS UNAWARE THAT THE CODE SHOULD HAVE READ SP30.

but really, you should be covered with insurance, since you DID declare you had a conviction, and give the code what was on the licence. its not your fault they give you a false code (youd think they would be used to puttin SP30 on the licences, after all, they do give thousands of people speeding fines)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

speed cameras are there to make money. nothin else. the government dont care if it increases accidents.

True but then why do motorists slow down to the correct speed limit because of the cameras?

This is just a wild guess, but maybe because they don't want the penalty points and the fine....?

 

[Thermo]

did you have to pay for the licence? yes? then its yours. not DVLA.

sorry andy doesnt matter that youve paid for it. it remains the property of the dvla and it can be revoked and physically taken back whenevr they wish (for justifiable reasons of course!)

 

[andy]

did you have to pay for the licence? yes? then its yours. not DVLA.

sorry andy doesnt matter that youve paid for it. it remains the property of the dvla and it can be revoked and physically taken back whenevr they wish (for justifiable reasons of course!)

if you pay for something from a shop, it doesnt remain their property. if the DVLA want it to remain their property, they can give them out FOC.

then again, we are talkin about something government related. wish i didnt live in this country at times. nothin good to make people stay unless there immigrants. then they get everything

 

[Softus]

SP80 does not exist. And I have a photo copy of the pictures without an explanation on how to work out how far I had travelled in the 5secs between the photos. A motor cyclist proved he was travelling at 18mph when the camera recorded 42mph... in his photos it showed a coach passing in the opposite direction and they still claim viberation doesn't interfear with the cameras even though it's proved that viberation 'bounce' does cause false readings as with the hand held jobbies.

I suggest you get one thing straight in your mind - you were breaking the law. Everyone that happens from that point onwards results from that, so you deserve what you get.

Softus your wrong if it's their licence then why did they not DEMAND by feear of prosecution when I refused to return it.

How should I know? Perhaps you should ask the people who didn't issue the demand. Your belief that absence of a demand equates to you being the owner of the license is really quite bizarre.

I have now but did not straight away until I made some enquiries.

Bravo - I'm sure that 'they', whoever they are, are highly impressed by your refusal, and that they now hold you in very high esteem.

As for the 'Clerical error' comment. Say you were in custody for a minor offence and a tiny clerical error on your charge sheet placed you in the position of a custodial sentence wouldn't that tiny clerical error bother you then?

If I've understood you correctly, you're asking me if I would be bothered in a hypothetical scenario that would bother anyone. I've seen some fatuous questions on this forum, but that takes the biscuit.

Returning to reality, the clerical error in your case did NOT occur on the charge sheet, but on the record of the conviction, that you deserved, for a charge to which you pleaded guilty (I surmise). You've had car insurance for 40 years, but you claim that you don't know that you're supposed to notify the underwriter if you've been notified of an intended prosecution.

For some reason you're all het about this. Most likely you're just upset that your clean license is now blemished, and are closing your mind to everything that goes on around it. Well, it's time to wake up - IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT.

On receipt of my returned licence I checked and accepted the code as I was unaware what a speeding code is.

I find it hard to believe that the license was not accompanied by an explanatory document. But if it didn't, then why didn't you seek the knowledge that you lacked?

I searched the net for insurances and each one selected checked the 'Convictions' list and did not find SP80 so assumed it was an offence they weren't interested in.

A crasser assumption I cannot currently imagine. You were speeding - why would your insurers not be interested in that?

Only telephoning the 5th one, Nationwide, did I find the code should have been SP30. and had I taken the cover on the net [you don't speak to anyone] I would have had a risky insurance cover albeit unwittingly. GET IT I WAS UNAWARE THAT THE CODE SHOULD HAVE READ SP30.

Oh I certainly get it - you're not only a fool, but an ignorant fool.

 

[Softus]

did you have to pay for the licence? yes? then its yours. not DVLA.

Well I suppose you must be right - after all, you're sure, aren't you? I mean, when someone demands the licence from you, you just tell them that it's yours and they can't have it.

Yes, of course, how stupid of me - now I've seen the light. Everything for which I pay a fee becomes mine! That taxi I've used several times - that must be mine by now. And all those times I've paid to enter the cinema - I think I must co-own it with all those thousands of other customers. What a wonderful world it is now that you've shown me my mistake - thanks andy!

 

[andy]

Yes, of course, how stupid of me - now I've seen the light. Everything for which I pay a fee becomes mine! That taxi I've used several times - that must be mine by now. And all those times I've paid to enter the cinema - I think I must co-own it with all those thousands of other customers. What a wonderful world it is now that you've shown me my mistake - thanks andy!

1: i paid for the licence. so technically, its mine. get a taxi and you pay for the SERVICE. got to the cinema and you pay TO WATCH the film. not to own the building. you get what you pay for. now stop tryin to be smart with something not related. it aint gonna work.

 

[johnny_t]

greengrass,

As you know, you were speeding, and caught fair and square, but did see a chink where you could maybe weasel out of it. Given the number of times that The Man will try to separate you from your money, it is not only your right, but your duty to try and weasel out of it. Its an essential human skill that separates us from the animals, with the possible exception of the weasel ((c) Homer J.Simpson), and I applaud the gusto with which you've tried weaselling, but I think you've hit the buffers now.

Time to give up and take it on the chin !!

EDIT: Grrrrrrrrr !!!!! That AutoCensor is going to make me come over all Ban-All-Sheds in a minute. Starred out word rhymes with blink and could mean someone from China, but doesn't here. Or in most cases. Grrrrrrrrrrrr !!!!!