DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 33340--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: August 14, 2024, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bucksdriver link ---
>
> Ok well, i guess i just need tvp to get back to me with
circumstances and evidence then and see where to go from there.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
To expand on what SP says, you aren't entitled to any of that
ahead of the matter going to court, if you are likely to
plead/be found guilty you really want to avoid that happening
and take an out of court settlement (course or fixed penalty)
which will be 'less painful'. A polite request for help with
details of the allegation may well see them provide some of the
information.
For careless, that could be a close pass of a cyclist or pulling
out on another road user and may well have been reported via
'operation snap'.
#Post#: 33341--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: Bucksdriver
Date: August 14, 2024, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ManxTom link ---
>
> [quote author=Bucksdriver link=topic=2816.msg33320#msg33320
date=1723623634]
> Im the registered keeper and own the vehicle outright...
>
--- End Quote ---
Have you actually looked at your V5C to confirm that your name
and - especially - your address are both recorded correctly?
The name and address on that document are what are used to send
out the first NIP. Any discrepancy would explain delayed or
missing paperwork.
[/quote]
Yes mate its all correct on the v5.
#Post#: 33342--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: Bucksdriver
Date: August 14, 2024, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ManxTom link ---
>
> [quote author=Bucksdriver link=topic=2816.msg33317#msg33317
date=1723621720]
> ... I know i sometimes overtake traffic there, as there is a
long run up to a roundabout and usually slow moving traffic
leading up to it...
>
--- End Quote ---
If you are using the approach to the roundabout to overtake slow
moving traffic, could you possibly be using a right turn only
lane but going straight on?
[/quote]
No mate, this is a single carriageway road at national speed
limit. It doesnt have a solid line in middle. It splits into two
lanes once it reaches the roundabout and both are straight on
lanes (or left turn for left lane, right turn for right lane).
#Post#: 33368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: ManxTom
Date: August 14, 2024, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So you're overtaking (a queue of?) slower moving traffic on the
approach to a roundabout, and the approach is single
carriageway?
#Post#: 33372--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: August 14, 2024, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There are many things that could potentially constitute careless
driving. Currently they constitute idle speculation.
What is perhaps notable is that the s. 172 notice was apparently
not incorporated into a NIP. My understanding is that this is
far more prevalent when a NIP is seemingly required due to an
RTC, but beyond that, and taking the OP's claim that it was not
a NIP at face value, I would only suggest that it was unlikely
that an earlier NIP was sent anywhere. I do not recall ever
hearing of a NIP-less s. 172 for an Operation Snap or similar on
the basis that the issuer felt that no NIP was required due to
the reasonable practicability exception, or even for mobile
phone offences.
As any fule kno, the RTC exception only applies if the driver
was aware of the RTC.
In general, if a defence relies on the accused's credibility it
is helpful to set out his stall early. As the OP suggests, he
should include a covering letter with his s. 172 response,
asking for clarification of what exactly he is being accused of.
#Post#: 33378--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: Bucksdriver
Date: August 14, 2024, 1:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ManxTom link ---
>
> So you're overtaking (a queue of?) slower moving traffic on
the approach to a roundabout, and the approach is single
carriageway?
>
--- End Quote ---
Its quite a wide single carriageway road separated by normal
white road markings. When i overtake any traffic at the location
i would pull back in well before the roundabout.
#Post#: 33380--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: August 14, 2024, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Queue jumping can in and of itself constitute careless driving.
#Post#: 33388--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: tonys
Date: August 14, 2024, 3:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bucksdriver link ---
>
> I got a lovely section 172 notice (asking for driver details)
from thames valley police today. This was bare bones on any info
but basically said they were considering prosecution for
"careless driving" and the location and date and time of the
offence.
--- End Quote ---
What else would be needed for it to be an actual NIP, should
have been set out in a particular form?
#Post#: 33413--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: August 15, 2024, 1:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bucksdriver link ---
>
>
> Yes mate its all correct on the v5.
>
--- End Quote ---
And you've not recently moved or bought the car such that the
address may have been incorrect at the time the police obtained
it?
If not then on the face of it you have a defence in that the
requirement to serve a NIP on the registered Keeper within 14
days wasn't satisfied. However you really do have to be certain
of your position before taking it to court.
As AF has stated, it's not sufficient that there was a collision
due to the presence of your car on the road, but also that you
were aware of it, if the police can evidence a collision you
would have to 'prove' (I believe balance of probabilities is the
standard) you were not aware of it. Apart from your own
testimony the nature of the collision and your car's involvement
would play a key part in whether the court believes you or not.
If the front of your car was stove in and airbags deployed (as
an extreme example) they probably wouldn't accept you were
unaware!
#Post#: 33415--------------------------------------------------
Re: Section 172 notice for careless driving
DIR By: 666
Date: August 15, 2024, 2:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tonys link ---
>
> [quote author=Bucksdriver link=topic=2816.msg33297#msg33297
date=1723587828]
> I got a lovely section 172 notice (asking for driver details)
from thames valley police today. This was bare bones on any info
but basically said they were considering prosecution for
"careless driving" and the location and date and time of the
offence.
--- End Quote ---
What else would be needed for it to be an actual NIP, should
have been set out in a particular form?
[/quote]
It must tell you that the driver may be prosecuted, and specify
the alleged offence and the time and place. There's no standard
format
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page