Posted By Fran Holt Hi, About 3 weeks ago i recived a letter from norfolk constabulary a notice of intended prosecution for my car apparantly going down an access only road at 8am on a work morning. I was driving the car that day but cannot remember taking that route. So i wrote to the police asking what evidence they had that it was my car etc etc and i received a letter back saying 'the evidence is that car ---- was drving along --- road onto ---- road etc etc not as i had hoped a photograph or name of PC who spotted me etc. Am i being picky expecting more substantial evidence that it was me / my car driving that route before i send off me details saying it was me ? Can i be prosecuted by police based on evidence from memebers of public. And finally if i concede and admit it was me what is the fine or points scale for a traffic sign offence? thanks in advance fran

Posted By alex mccreadie Stick to your guns asking for evidence. On similar personal experience they got fed up first and I heard no more about it. Hope it works for you!!!

Posted By John Webster A good few years ago I received a fixed penalty notice from an area where I used to live but had not visited for some time. On enquiry, they had the right registration number, make and model of car, but the wrong colour! Conclusion, either the offender could have been a "ringer" - a stolen car that had copied my number, or that the police had taken down the number incorrectly. The ticket was dropped.

Posted By Peter Taylor14 The police must prove you were there and did the crime, you" are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so" so just say to the police, prove I was there and prove I was driving. If it then looks like they have convincing evidence admit it but mitigate by saying you were lost or were looking for a safe place to pull up as waring lights etc were flashing in you care.

Posted By Martin Kingman It seems that the police are attempting to prosecute you for failure to comply with a traffic sign. There are 3 different categories depending upon the type of sign:- (1) Failure to comply with statutory restrictions or requirements (that being local or public Act as opposed to an Order or Regulation) These are punishable under s36 Road Traffic Act 1988; (2) Failure to comply with a sign where s36 Road Traffic Act 1988 is specifically referred to as applying to that sign. (These are listed in reg. 10 of the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 1994, {as amended}). These are punishable under s36 Road Traffic Act 1988; or (3) Failure to comply with other authorised signs. (These are punishable under s91 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; The offences to which s36 RTA 88 applies are subject to the Notice of Intended Prosecution procedure, which I believe will be relevant in your case. The police and subsequently the Crown Prosecution Service would need to adduce sufficient evidence to discharge the legal burden of proof in criminal matters, that being "beyond all reasonable doubt." The offence is triable summarily only, which means that it will be in the magistrates court with a maximum fine not exceeding £1,000.00 - I would not expect it to be anywhere near that amount!! It is a TS10 Endorsement offence code (DVLA) which carries 3 penalty points on your driving license if found guilty. The problem faced by the prosecution will be that if they have no other evidence save for that of a PC, it will be your word against his/hers and they will be hard pressed to adduce sufficient evidence so as to discharge their burden. If they couldn't do this at court there would be "no case to answer" and the charges would be dropped. I would revert to Norfolk asking for documentary evidence including the PC's details and also request a copy of the relevant extract from the PC's PNB (Pocket Note Book) to show exactly what evidence they have. Be pesistant about this. If the evidence derives from a member of the public it will be hearsay - there are strict rules about the admission of hearsay in criminal matters, that I do not propose to cover here! I would stick to your guns and do not admit anything as the police often depend upon the person saying "it's a fair cop" - and admitting the offence when there is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution without this confession! This is worth remembering for all. If you ever get stopped by the police when driving, they will normally start the conversation by saying "You know why I stopped you......" Always, Always say no and ask the PC to explain exactly why. If you do this then often they will give you a talking to as there is insufficient evidence to support a successful prosecution. I hope the above assists. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesistate to contact me. Kind regards Martin

Posted By jackw. Hi. I am sure this will sound mean spirited and I don't wish to be. But really is this not out of place. This is a safety forum not CAB. Someone from IOSH respond please.

Posted By John Beadle Jack- I am sure that most of the members who have responded did so as compassionate fellow members. It also opens the mind from the day-to-day H&S drudgery from “the toilet papers to rough brigade”. By using the legal skills and experiences of the H&S community Fran maybe able put a first class case forward and obtain a fair hearing.

Posted By Martin Kingman Heather this loophole has been tightened, it is a question of fact in each particular case - and is for the magistrate to decide whether you genuinely do not know who the driver of the vehicle was at the date and time of the offence, or whether you are attempting to evade prosecution. It would be an uphill struggle in normal circumstances to prove you genuinely do not know, the named drivers on the insurance policy could also be examined. In relation to the earlier criticism about this thread, the topic clearly shows that it is "Not really H & S" therefore as professionals we can chose whether or not to read and to assist, it is voluntary and not mandatory - unlike so many things in the H&S world! Martin

Posted By Fran Holt Thank you very much to the majority for your useful replies, i will write again to the police tonight requesting more info! What really hacks me off is people clearly wasting time on the forum not being helpful in anyway, Jack quite simply if you dont like it dont post and stick with the boring brigade, and if you insist on writing something dont ask for IOSH back up when you are making yourself look a twit. And Garyh try reading the question carefully before adding your two pennyworth. thanks again guys fran

Posted By Lilian McCartney I was once advsied by an off duty policeman that they couldn't enforce a speed limit if there was only one sign at the start of that limit i.e. there has to be one at each side of the road. Not sure if this is still true P.S. I wasn't speeding, a sign had been removed by private housing developer and as i worked for the local authority it was considered my responibislity (24/7 working!!!)

Posted By Rich Hall I had a very similar incident only last week Fran. I was driving down a track that i knew full well was access only. But i was being lazy and wanted to take a photograph from some 3 miles down this track. Anyway all went well and i got the snaps, albeit a little fuzzy. On my return journey up the track back to civilisation i was stopped by a farmer type who enquired what i was doing up the track/road. I said i was visiting friends at the end, he asked what their names were I said Mr and Mrs Tranter ( the first names to come into my head) I actually mumbled them in case they were wrong. Luckily the names must have been about right as he let me past with a smile. Anyway , lets get back to H&S.

Posted By Jonathan Docherty i actually have to agree with fran and other like minded professionals on this forum. The minority who have posted unhelpful comments are the stereotyped tweed and elbow patch boring ba***rd brigade who give us health and safety professional a bad name. It was clear from the title this was not strictly a health and safety matter so you therefore chose whether to become involved within the discussion. As for commenting re people having too much time on their hands, how on earth do you know and feel able to comment on what someone does in a day? It is none of anyones business , this is after all stated as a chat forum. I am sure all fran and all other nice contributors want is pleasantries not abuse and people asking to haul them off the forum. I dont apologise for abusing all you boring do gooders who spoil it for tha majority, perhaps we could find a way of segregating you lot onto your own moaning whinging boring forum! jonathan

Posted By James M The forum is called OSH chat. Whatever next, will we be exchanging knitting patterns and asking about discount deals on cars??? Find another site to talk about your nif naf and trivia. Grumpy old man.

Posted By jackw. Hi, I don't really need to "loosen up" and i am aware of the rigours of gathering evidence etc.etc. However ,I have to reiterate my point, which is not particularly personal to the originator of this thread. This is a safety forum if we start to add threads about, speeding, or other motoring offences etc. etc were do we stop? sorry no pun intended. Cheers

Posted By Robert K Lewis MY My really is fractious Friday. I prefer to take another message out of Fran's posting - just what does the signing mean. I've seen two versions one with just the words and the second displaying the motorcycle above a car. This says to me that one is legal and correct but the other isn't, or maybe both are right or wrong! More importantly what are they intended for? I understood them to be a preventative to rat run fever which sweeps the cities. Their use in rural England puzzles me however as I have even seen them used on the sole access into a remote village. One argument seen suggests that again they are to prevent tourists taking short cuts. This can be difficult sometimes however when the main route is closed and every road off is access only. Really goes to show that we often think we are giving clear messages when in fact they are replete with hidden confusions. By the way Fran do you know yet if the PC actually followed you all the way down it, and if he was on his own who gave him authority to breach road traffic regulations, I seem to remember a constable in uniform can instruct a road user to breach any traffic regulation, but cannot instruct himself to do so. So ends Friday Bob

Posted By Stuart Nagle Fran. All very interesting stuff, but..... What EXACTLY are the charges against you here? Irrespective of the sign 'Access Only'... access only to what and where and how, what are the restrictions and why are they in force - if you know please tell us? If this is a public highway, which I presume it is, all persons have a right t pass and repass along it hindered only by obstructions that are natural or legal (Highways Act). What restictions are in force here... Please expand upon them and indicate what was done to infringe what exactly.... So far as I am aware, unless a road is closed to a certain class of traffic or stopped up either by a temporary or permanant order issued the Highway Authority for the public highway, the right to pass and re-pass exists.... The only other exception would be if a car was driven along a footpath (as opposed to a footway) or along a byway or other type of public right of way not intended to motorised traffic!! I would like you to expand on this if possible so we can provide a better informed answer... Regards.... Stuart

Posted By Stuart Nagle Hi, Nigel. just a word on public highways. An adopted highway is a public highway, constructed to a specification by a private party (e,g, contractor building a housing estate where the roads are to be 'adopted') and then adopted by the highway authority following inspection and approval - as a 'Public Highway'. Adopted highways, once adopted as public highways, have no different legal status from any other public highway.... they are public highways.... Regards.... Stuart