Chris N Deuchar

SWMBO and I were somewhat surprised to receive a NIP from the
Transport Police regarding 'Failure to observe a traffic sign' at a
level crossing. She has to advise who was driving. However the truth
is we are not sure as we can't place any such 'failure' at all. So
what is this likely to be about, and how do we (respectfully!) say
'We don't know - was it a man or a woman'?

I am particularly pi$$ed off as I have literally only just passed my
LGV C+E test (hurrah!) and observation is a crucial part of all this.
(It is also why I haven't been round UKRM for the last three months.)
Neither of us have ever incurred points before in 30-40 years
driving/riding - which may sound boring, but I would really like to
keep it that way!

Cheers

Chris D
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Suzuki GS550t, Yamaha XV750SE
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

Hog

Chris N Deuchar wrote:
> SWMBO and I were somewhat surprised to receive a NIP from the
> Transport Police regarding 'Failure to observe a traffic sign' at a
> level crossing. She has to advise who was driving. However the truth
> is we are not sure as we can't place any such 'failure' at all. So
> what is this likely to be about, and how do we (respectfully!) say
> 'We don't know - was it a man or a woman'?
>
> I am particularly pi$$ed off as I have literally only just passed my
> LGV C+E test (hurrah!) and observation is a crucial part of all this.
> (It is also why I haven't been round UKRM for the last three months.)
> Neither of us have ever incurred points before in 30-40 years
> driving/riding - which may sound boring, but I would really like to
> keep it that way!

Simple, you write back and ask for the photographic evidence. The form
should have something about this in fact?

--
Hog

Chris N Deuchar

In article <5houqtF3le28rU1@mid.individual.net>,
hogSPAM@freenetCHIPS.co.uk says...
> Chris N Deuchar wrote:
> > SWMBO and I were somewhat surprised to receive a NIP from the
> > Transport Police regarding 'Failure to observe a traffic sign' at a
> > level crossing. She has to advise who was driving. However the truth
> > is we are not sure as we can't place any such 'failure' at all. So
> > what is this likely to be about, and how do we (respectfully!) say
> > 'We don't know - was it a man or a woman'?
>
> Simple, you write back and ask for the photographic evidence. The form
> should have something about this in fact?

Interesting there is no mention of this. The SAE supplied for return
of the form (to the transport police in Derby) has a different
address from the one on the letter (normal police in Beeston, Notts).
To whom do I make the request?

In fact the whole thing seems a bit dodgy. They give a specific time
of the 'offence' but do not mention which direction the vehicle (our
van) was travelling, nor what sign is supposed to have been ignored.

I have photographed and measured the site today and there are a
number of, er, safety issues since the thing was rebuilt about a year
ago - which are frankly very dangerous for pedestrians and the
hundreds of horsey girls that seem to use the roads around here. I
guess now wouldn't be a good time to point these out, although they
might have some relevance?

Chris D
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE, Suzuki GS550t, Honda CG125 (MSOHP)
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

Badger

Hog wrote:
> Chris N Deuchar wrote:
>> SWMBO and I were somewhat surprised to receive a NIP from the
>> Transport Police regarding 'Failure to observe a traffic sign' at a
>> level crossing. She has to advise who was driving. However the truth
>> is we are not sure as we can't place any such 'failure' at all. So
>> what is this likely to be about, and how do we (respectfully!) say
>> 'We don't know - was it a man or a woman'?
>
> Simple, you write back and ask for the photographic evidence. The form
> should have something about this in fact?

A former colleague of mine was in a similar position a few years back:
he and his girlfriend had been away on holiday and had been sharing the
driving. Shortly after they got back home they received an NIP for a
speed camera but as they couldn't remember who was driving at that time
they wrote back saying that they'd be happy to identify the driver but
would need the photographic evidence from the camera to assist in the
identification.

Having had no reply to that, they then received the summons for failing
to identify the driver and got taken to court, whereupon they explained
the situation to the magistrate, fully admitting that the evidence
showed the car at a given date and time exceeding the posted speed limit
and also that it would have been one or other of the two of them
driving at the time.

The photograph was eventually produced, but completely failed to assist
in identifying who had been driving.

They got let off and had all costs awarded.

Whatever you do, though, make sure it's all sent recorded so you can
wave it in court when your day comes.

--
Rick
NT650V (still)
TWA#11 BREast#6 BOTAFOT#139

Simian

sweller wrote:
>
> Given that this appears to be a level crossing, I have very little
> sympathy. The timings on crossings are tight and impacts above 40mph
> are very likely to derail the train and harm the traincrew and
> passengers.

The OP didn't appear to be looking for sympathy.

On the other hand, I feel particularly strongly about provision of
evidence in criminal cases - this question shouldn't have had to be
asked because the photo, or description of driver, should be provided
automatically.

--
"I dunno, I never met the chick."

Chris N Deuchar

In article <xn0f9mvox9zno7000@news.individual.net>,
sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
> Given that this appears to be a level crossing, I have very little
> sympathy.

With whom?

As things are, we don't even know what alleged offence has been
contravened, nor in what way!

As for tight timings, the amber displays for just two seconds before
the reds start and the barriers come down. It is then two minutes
overall before a train arrives. In one direction the lights and
barriers are 25m (I measured it!) from the tracks. A vehicle
travelling slowly (20 mph? - it is bumpy and on a bend after all)
over the crossing could therefore find itself 'locked in' on the
rails and never even see amber - and as for pedestrians or horses...!
Well it is 42m between the sets of barriers - enough for a couple of
artics or so?

....but we don't even know if its lights. It says 'sign' in the
letter. Is a traffic light a sign in this context? There is bu**er
all else to contravene - although, as a teenager 38 years ago, since
receiving a wagging finger warning from a police officer, personlly I
have religiously avoided the double white lines on the approaches.
SWMBO just doesn't do 'illegal', ok?

Chris D
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE, Suzuki GS550t, Honda CG125 (MSOHP)
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

Rope

In article <5houqtF3le28rU1@mid.individual.net>, Hog wrote:
> Simple, you write back and ask for the photographic evidence. The form
> should have something about this in fact?

I don't think the form has anything other than:
"OK It's a Fair Cop Guv, you got me bang to rights!"
or
"It was him/her wot done it!"

You have to write your own letter to them asking for a picture.

--
Rob_P
UKRM(at)indqualtec.co.uk
uppercase(d) BBIWYMC#1 BOG#11? MRO#31 IBCDBBB#1(kotl)
FJ1200, (in bits) CCM130 (need sharpening)
Atonal apples and amplified heat available now!

Ace

On 6 Aug 2007 17:20:45 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Simian wrote:

>> The OP didn't appear to be looking for sympathy.

>He wasn't and my ire wasn't directed at him. More Des with his the gov't
>are the man.

Trouble is, if you reply to the faux-yid, many sensible folk won't
realise it, as he won't appear in the thread of those sensible enough
to have kf'd him. So it only causes confusion.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`

Des

sweller <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Simian wrote:

>> > Given that this appears to be a level crossing, I have very little
>> > sympathy. The timings on crossings are tight and impacts above 40mph
>> > are very likely to derail the train and harm the traincrew and
>> > passengers.

>> The OP didn't appear to be looking for sympathy.
>>
>> On the other hand, I feel particularly strongly about provision of
>> evidence in criminal cases - this question shouldn't have had to be
>> asked because the photo, or description of driver, should be provided
>> automatically.

> He wasn't and my ire wasn't directed at him. More Des with his the gov't
> are the man.

Unless we have different definitions of the expression, 'are the man', I
fear that you have completely misunderstood what I wrote.

I don't trust governments. Our political system is inherently more
democratic than the United Kingdom's thanks to the safeguards afforded by a
written constitution, but I still wouldn't trust the French Government as
far as I could throw one of their armour-plated Safranes. Especially not
Sarkozy's UMP, which as a right-wing government exists _by_definition_ to
safeguard the interests of the few against those of the many.

Let me put it simply: my comment was aimed at someone's mentioning writing
a recorded delivery letter, and was in no way a value judgement on the
legitimacy or otherwise of the nation-state's enforcement of law.

D.
--
des | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!'
BMW K100-LT

Des

Ace <seesig@virgin.net> wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2007 17:20:45 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>Simian wrote:

>>> The OP didn't appear to be looking for sympathy.

>>He wasn't and my ire wasn't directed at him. More Des with his the gov't
>>are the man.

> Trouble is, if you reply to the faux-yid, many sensible folk

I take it all back, Ace: you _do_ have a sense of humour.

D.
--
des | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!'
BMW K100-LT

Simian

sweller wrote:
>
> He wasn't and my ire wasn't directed at him. More Des with his the
> gov't are the man.

Ah, well, I find the best thing to do is ignore him completely and so I
didn't read his post.


--
"I dunno, I never met the chick."

Des

Simian <simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wrote:
> sweller wrote:
>>
>> He wasn't and my ire wasn't directed at him. More Des with his the
>> gov't are the man.
>
> Ah, well, I find the best thing to do is ignore him completely and so I
> didn't read his post.

Quite. Except this time, I didn't mean what someone appears to have
thought I meant.

D.

--
des | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!'
BMW K100-LT

sweller

Des wrote:

> >> He wasn't and my ire wasn't directed at him. More Des with his the
> >> gov't are the man.

> Quite. Except this time, I didn't mean what someone appears to have
> thought I meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man

--
Simon

TMack

"Ace" <seesig@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:nrneb3t1qf0rc8b804qikbip2jd0kj4eu9@4ax.com
> On 6 Aug 2007 17:20:45 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote:

SNIP!

> Trouble is, if you reply to the faux-yid, many sensible folk won't
> realise it, as he won't appear in the thread of those sensible enough
> to have kf'd him. So it only causes confusion.

Ding!

--
Tony
'04 XL1200C, '95 LS650
OMF#24

R

"Chris N Deuchar" <chrisd@ukrm.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.21215526d5039cd9989963@news.individual.ne t...
> SWMBO and I were somewhat surprised to receive a NIP from the
> Transport Police regarding 'Failure to observe a traffic sign' at a
> level crossing. She has to advise who was driving. However the truth
> is we are not sure as we can't place any such 'failure' at all. So
> what is this likely to be about, and how do we (respectfully!) say
> 'We don't know - was it a man or a woman'?
>
> I am particularly pi$$ed off as I have literally only just passed my
> LGV C+E test (hurrah!) and observation is a crucial part of all this.
> (It is also why I haven't been round UKRM for the last three months.)
> Neither of us have ever incurred points before in 30-40 years
> driving/riding - which may sound boring, but I would really like to
> keep it that way!

Ask for pic evidence.
Plead that without such evidence can they prove your plate had not been
cloned?

Des

sweller <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Des wrote:
>
>> >> He wasn't and my ire wasn't directed at him. More Des with his the
>> >> gov't are the man.
>
>> Quite. Except this time, I didn't mean what someone appears to have
>> thought I meant.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man

Exactly.

D.
--
des | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!'
BMW K100-LT

Des

TMack <aonp82 AT dsl DOT pipex DOT com> wrote:
> "Ace" <seesig@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:nrneb3t1qf0rc8b804qikbip2jd0kj4eu9@4ax.com
>> On 6 Aug 2007 17:20:45 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
> SNIP!
>
>> Trouble is, if you reply to the faux-yid, many sensible folk won't
>> realise it, as he won't appear in the thread of those sensible enough
>> to have kf'd him. So it only causes confusion.
>
> Ding!

Do you people all go 'baaah!' in time or what?

D.

--
des | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!'
BMW K100-LT

Chris N Deuchar

In article <VA.00002633.000719b0@ukrm.net>, spam@ukrm.net says...
> In article <5houqtF3le28rU1@mid.individual.net>, Hog wrote:
> > Simple, you write back and ask for the photographic evidence. The form
> > should have something about this in fact?
>
> I don't think the form has anything other than:
> "OK It's a Fair Cop Guv, you got me bang to rights!"
> or
> "It was him/her wot done it!"

'ding'

> You have to write your own letter to them asking for a picture.

The transport police, or the regular police who sent the letter?

Chris D
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE, Suzuki GS550t, Honda CG125 (MSOHP)
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

Chris N Deuchar

In article <5hphetF3lqc90U1@mid.individual.net>, None@here.net
says...
> Ask for pic evidence.
> Plead that without such evidence can they prove your plate had not been
> cloned?

Good point. Noted, ta.

Chris D
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE, Suzuki GS550t, Honda CG125 (MSOHP)
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

Hog

Chris N Deuchar wrote:
> In article <VA.00002633.000719b0@ukrm.net>, spam@ukrm.net says...
>> In article <5houqtF3le28rU1@mid.individual.net>, Hog wrote:
>>> Simple, you write back and ask for the photographic evidence. The
>>> form should have something about this in fact?
>>
>> I don't think the form has anything other than:
>> "OK It's a Fair Cop Guv, you got me bang to rights!"
>> or
>> "It was him/her wot done it!"
>
> 'ding'
>
>> You have to write your own letter to them asking for a picture.
>
> The transport police, or the regular police who sent the letter?

I suggest to whoever sent you the NIP

--
Hog

Rope

In article <MPG.21224880bc170d86989968@news.individual.net> , Chris N
Deuchar wrote:
> > You have to write your own letter to them asking for a picture.
>
> The transport police, or the regular police who sent the letter?

I should think to the regular police - if they haven't got the evidence
then it's their problem.

--
Rob_P
UKRM(at)indqualtec.co.uk
uppercase(d) BBIWYMC#1 BOG#11? MRO#31 IBCDBBB#1(kotl)
FJ1200, (in bits) CCM130 (need sharpening)
Atonal apples and amplified heat available now!

Nick

In article <MPG.2121691eea283c71989965@news.individual.net> ,
Chris N Deuchar <chrisd@ukrm.net> wrote:
>...but we don't even know if its lights. It says 'sign' in the
>letter. Is a traffic light a sign in this context? There is bu**er
>all else to contravene - although, as a teenager 38 years ago, since
>receiving a wagging finger warning from a police officer, personlly I
>have religiously avoided the double white lines on the approaches.
>SWMBO just doesn't do 'illegal', ok?

I had a pretty pointless debate on usenet once with one of the chaps[1]
who runs the motorway signs about their definition of "sign".

ISTR that something can be a "sign" rather than a "message" even though
it looks like text - for instance the "Fog" sign that you see sometimes
on motorways. So a confusing definition is all too possible in your
case.

Nick

[1] He also had no answer for or indeed and opinion about the time delay
problem in "Congestion Ahead" messages (Congestion is 5 miles ahead but
has vanished by the time you get there). Which was baffling.

Badger

Chris N Deuchar wrote:
>> You have to write your own letter to them asking for a picture.
>
> The transport police, or the regular police who sent the letter?

Both. By recorded ("signed for") post. That way you can't be accused
of having sent it to the wrong place.

--
Rick
NT650V (still)
TWA#11 BREast#6 BOTAFOT#139

Chris N Deuchar

In article <13bh3s629qoebd5@corp.supernews.com>,
spam@housemartin.f9.co.uk says...
> Chris N Deuchar wrote:
> >> You have to write your own letter to them asking for a picture.
> >
> > The transport police, or the regular police who sent the letter?
>
> Both. By recorded ("signed for") post. That way you can't be accused
> of having sent it to the wrong place.

*ding*, ta

An anonymous phone call to same elicited the response (once I made it
quite clear that not only was I not going to give away who I was, but
that it was actually irrelevant to what I was asking) that we should
both put our names on and sign it.

Does the team agree?

Chris D
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE, Suzuki GS550t, Honda CG125 (MSOHP)
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk