limeyphil:
i’d attend court. but listen carefully to the charge that they read out.
you could plead guilty to exceeding the speed limit, then go on to explain that you was aware that you was over the limit, but certainly not 98.5.
explain that you don’t want to waste the courts time with having the traffic cameras independantly checked, your vehicle/police vehicle checked.
you could ask the court to take into consideration that you are a professional driver, and you are very capable of handling the vehicle in a much safer way than a none professional driver.
Be carefull doing that, they may say “as a professional driver, you should know better and set an example for the rest to follow” blah blah… 
waynedl:
Ok, I re-read what I wrote and see what you mean.
I would STRONGLY ADVISE him, that if he doesn’t get a conditional offer through the post, and gets the court summons which he’s not required to attend, that he should attend it.
MANY people have been banned for lower speeds than that or been imposed massive fines etc.
Try re-reading the above.
He HAS been given the option of pleading guilty BY POST 
IF they were considering banning him he WOULD have to attend court and NOT have the option of pleading guilty by post
These people who have been banned for lower speeds:-
What roads were they on 
, doing 60 in a 30 is a ban
I ASSUME that they were NOT given the option of pleading guilty by post
limeyphil:
i’d attend court. but listen carefully to the charge that they read out.
you could plead guilty to exceeding the speed limit, then go on to explain that you was aware that you was over the limit, but certainly not 98.5.
explain that you don’t want to waste the courts time with having the traffic cameras independantly checked, your vehicle/police vehicle checked.
you could ask the court to take into consideration that you are a professional driver, and you are very capable of handling the vehicle in a much safer way than a none professional driver.
LimeyPhil, someone’s hacked your account and made a sensible, legible post, you’d better sort it out pronto. This is not the standard we expect from you 
This approach is known as a Newton Hearing, accept the fact you were speeding, but dispute the actual speed.
BUT… this can also backfire. As stated by the OP, 98.5 was the AVERAGE speed. If you start disputing the speed, the CPS could produce the coppers video, showing speeds in excess of 100mph.
This will most certainly result in a ban.
Newton Hearings work best where the evidence comes from Panda cars and non-traffic cops forming an opinion of your speed, rather than an actual calibrated video recording showing the average speed, or the evidence of a traffic cop with a calibrated speedo.
I’m making the assumption it was a traffic car who pulled the OP. Over 1.5 miles means it wasn’t a fixed camera, so the OP must have been followed. Panda cars wouldn’t/not permitted to keep up at that speed, and 98.5mph average seems far too exact to come from a panda/off duty/laptop.
Next up, the ‘experienced driver’ mitigation could well serve for a dangerous driving charge, but for a speeding charge it’ll be hugely irrelevent. At the end of the day, breaking the speed limit is an absolute offence, you’re either guilty or you’re not.
Personally I’d be going down the ban = hardship/loss of job/can’t support the family/grovelling type of mitigation.
redboxer850:
waynedl:
Ok, I re-read what I wrote and see what you mean.
I would STRONGLY ADVISE him, that if he doesn’t get a conditional offer through the post, and gets the court summons which he’s not required to attend, that he should attend it.
MANY people have been banned for lower speeds than that or been imposed massive fines etc.
Try re-reading the above.
He HAS been given the option of pleading guilty BY POST
IF they were considering banning him he WOULD have to attend court and NOT have the option of pleading guilty by post
These people who have been banned for lower speeds:-
What roads were they on , doing 60 in a 30 is a ban
I ASSUME that they were NOT given the option of pleading guilty by post
If he pleads not guilty, goes to court, he can still be banned.
There is no automatic ban speed like people believe 100mph to be.
Personally, as I’ve said, I’d plead guilty by post, but I’d attend the court date in person and mitigate my case to get as little punishment as possible.
My example above was slightly over 3 times the speed limit, so a very lenient punishment in my opinion.
But, it’s the OP’s choice.
I’d consider talking to a lawyer,based upon the following:
Average speed devices are,by design,more succeptable to errors i.e. 2 cameras not one.
I wouldn’t bother with the “wasn’t me” angle, as they’ll give the registered keeper the points anyway.
[ although you could pull a Chris Huhne move 
]
Guess is depends on how many points you’ll get…I think a ban is highly unlikely.
waynedl:
If he pleads not guilty, goes to court, he can still be banned.
yeah but,no but,
IF he pleads GUILTY by post he wont be banned.
waynedl:
edit
That post states that
that link wrote:
The Court cannot disqualify a driver who pleads guilty by post
He COULD plead guilty by post (in which case, he wouldn’t/couldn’t be banned), then either attend court or write a letter outlining the mitigating circumstances
redboxer850:
waynedl:
If he pleads not guilty, goes to court, he can still be banned.
yeah but,no but,
IF he pleads GUILTY by post he wont be banned.
waynedl:
edit
That post states that
that link wrote:
The Court cannot disqualify a driver who pleads guilty by post
He COULD plead guilty by post (in which case, he wouldn’t/couldn’t be banned), then either attend court or write a letter outlining the mitigating circumstances
That’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying for the last 50 frigging posts
You really are an argumentative ■■■ aren’t you?
I advise attending to reduce punishment, ie lower fine, less points. Not being banned can still get 11 points and a thousand quid fine - which isn’t good.
waynedl:
That’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying for the last 50 frigging posts
No you haven’t
By the way, this is post 28
waynedl:
You really are an argumentative ■■■ aren’t you?
Yes
cieranc:
yorkshire terrier:
cieranc:
You need to go to pepipoo.com, post it up on the forum there.
You’ll get advice from legal types (a lot of whom are specialist motoring lawyers, police officers and mags).
thanks mate
Did you?
yes i did very informative site think il be looking at 6 points and around 450 quid fine according to what i can read on there.
What did they advise (couldn’t see your case there), and what you gonna do ■■?
From my own experience, (in my younger days I was a frequent visitor to the Magistrates court for various motoring offences), I personally wouldn’t bother with a solicitor, unless you have mitigating circumstances, and even then I still wouldn’t bother. You were caught,fair and square, speeding, no point trying to argue unless you know something they don’t. From conversations with the Clerk, his advice was that you will, at Magistrate level anyway, gain more respect from the court, by representing yourself. Dress smartly, don’t be cocky, address the Magistrate when its your turn, put any points across that you may have, mitigating circumstances etc, and show some remorse for your actions, and you never know, they may be lenient with you.
In 1999, I was caught at 86mph in a Transit on the A14. My court appearance was made via an arrest warrant, which obviously didn’t look too good in front of the Magistrate. But, having made them aware of how sorry I was, that the speeding was plain bloody stupid, not tuning up to court when I should, I didn’t try and fob them off with excuses, let them know it was a genuine mistake and took responsibility for my actions. I walked out of court with a fairly large fine, I think it was close to £300, a 2 week disqualification, and costs. When the Mag’s handed out the punishment, he said they would normally have given me 4 points, which would have led to a 6 month ban for totting up, but had taken into consideration everything I had said, and had decided I’d learnt my lesson, and they were going to give me a chance, 2 week ban being better than 6 months.