Go to Pepipoo.com for more detailed advice.

The officer does not have to provide you with his details. The TOR is a way of cutting down on the many types of tickets books that have grown in the police over the years with the government and police looking for faster and easier ways to deal with matters and reduce paperwork. Typically you will be contacted by the forces central ticket office within 2-3 weeks. However, there's nothing to stop you contacting them earlier if you wish to. Just have your registration number and the date of the alleged offence to hand. In our force the ticket office decides the sanction based on driving history, basic circumstances of the offence and any aggravating factors. The outcome could be, Driver improvement course, fine or summons to court. Can't speak for Cambridgeshire. In relation to the matter itself, the only thing I would say is think about what the officer actually saw. Did he see you reversing? Did you unclip the belt early whilst still in forward motion prior to reversing? Or did he see you moving off after having reversed, with the belt not on? If he's a motorcycle cop, he's a traffic officer and they do this all day long, every day. Hence, he will know the law, so there has to be something he's seen to convince him. Hope that helps a bit.

We do have discretion, but being made up of the public, we come in all shapes and sizes with many different viewpoints too. Not being there, none of us knows quite how poor or not the driving was. In our force we have been told not to use the old FPN notice books any more, however I suspect that if he were to contest the issue they would simply withdraw the FPN and progress through summons. Feels like a tough one, but as I said, we don't know how close the incident came to causing an accident or not. Personally, I prefer to go the education route with younger drivers, but sometimes the risk / offence circumstances mean that you feel only a form of sanction will do.

This is one offence which is absolute, you either have it or you don't. So from the Police's standpoint, you didn't. Their job is to then report that matter and prevent the offence from continuing, usually by seizing the car. Have a look at this link - in particular part 3, which seems to best fit what you are describing. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI/crossheading/compulsory-insurance-or-security-against-thirdparty-risks It might be worth your while consulting a motoring solicitor to get their perspective. What goes in your favour is the fact the company still had your money. But ultimately it will be for the court to decide. I cannot see the Police dropping the matter.

More often than not we will sit with the sirens off for a minute or two and then make our way when the traffic eases. If it really is life and death, urgent assistance or the like then simple enough to hop out, direct traffic manually to create a gap and move on. Also out of courtesy, add to the incident log what's been done so there is some kind of audit trail should anyone need it. I would add not every officer does this, though most I work with would add a vehicle index to the incident log if it was seen to set off a camera at an ATS in assisting us to make progress. Best advice is to move where you can without exposing yourself to risk / danger and let us do the manourvering. If its that serious we'll make it clear what we need you to do.

You may well find in light of the OP's response when spoken to by the officer in relation to the alledged offence that the officer (s) have made comprehensive notes in relation to the matter. I would imagine the court will allow the officer (s) to refer to them in light of exactly the points you have raised re recollection etc. Personally I tend to be thorough no matter what, but you definitely dot the i's and cross the t's when you know someone is going to contest the matter. I had a red light offence on video and when I went to download it at the end of the shift the hard drive crashed on me. Fortunately the MOP was aware of the offence and had got their timing wrong on the approach, so they accepted an EFPN and that was the end of the matter. We both clearly saw the offence in any case, and had it gone to court would have said what we saw and let the court decide.

Maybe the thread title, 'Got away with......' creates an impression which is at odds with the informed / sensible spirit of your posts?

In my force the top copy is issued to the motorist and we keep the second copy. For some tickets the top copy only has day, date, time, index number of the vehicle and a space for officer details. Then on the copy we keep there is space for the driver details, address, dob etc.

Your details go on the copy of the FPN that he keeps, thats why you don't see them. Presumably he wrote the registration on the FPN if there is space for it. Others can comment further but I would suggest its a done deal.

Reziak, Well done and congratulations. It disgusts me that officers have lied to make a case against you. I was reading all the posts just now (without reading the date - doh!) and was about to suggest that you check for ANPR cameras in the approximate area the officer said you were driving. A bit of a longshot, but worth looking at under the circumstances. I hope you are at the very least considering a formal complaint over the matter. In my view officers who deliberately lie tarnish the rest of us. More than once I have been in court under oath and had to give evidence which is not compelling, but is just that, evidence. It is for the court to determine what weight to give it. I think too many officers can get caught up in trying to 'help' the case instead of just giving their evidence. Incidentally, by help, I don't mean lie, I mean present their evidence in a manner which may make the defendant look guilty. Its just not worth it. Do the job properly. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. But it's not worth your integrity, your livelyhood or liberty. I'm delighted for you! Well done! TD

I would expect you to receive an acknowledgement first, just to say they've got it. Given the potential for diversity issues you've raised they'll want to investigate. They'll have to trace the driver and other officer from the registration you gave, find out what happened, reasons for their decision etc. All that will have to flow up and down the chain and a decision made. I'd think you're looking at a couple of weeks easily. Possibly more like 3 or 4.

They're typically around 2mm. However, that varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Police forces generally change tyres out at 3mm. The performance of the tyre is siginificantly reduced in wet weather below this. I do it on my personal vehicle now. Would never forgive myself if anything happened to my wife and youngsters for the sake of a few quid. Not only that but we do a lot of motorway driving and the dangers of aquaplaning in the wet are too prevalent.

maybe something like; ....dissatisfaction of the way your force has treated me when I was stopped.... I was stopped at the roadside by two officers and one of them upon examining my vehicle.....

Well done you! I can happily spend all day at court watching the comings and goings. Its the theatre of life! Pleased it went well for you.

I can't say I agree with the method you're using, however, I do see where you're coming from based on the officers assertion that the decision is one of the fixed penalty system not being open to you rather than the seriousness of the lack of tread. That said, to me it is not the treatment by the officers that is in question. It is their knowledge of the options open to them you're calling into question. To that end I would ammend the opening line of your letter unless you feel that the personal treatment you received (rude or aggressive) was at issue. Just my thoughts

Sorry, I meant did he say; 'You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court' or similar and did he report you as per previous post?

These weren't traffic officers Crem, not that would be an excuse. The other way of looking at this is that the officers were very thorough in their approach to documentation and vehicle examination. The reality is they may have prevented an accident by detecting the tyre. Many stops are 'speculative'. (Although this one wasn't. The OP had his tax disc obscured by a pay & display from the council). You get a feeling about a car or driver, maybe the circumstances don't seem right, it can be anything. Criminals use the roads to ply their trade. Not all drivers are criminals, but nearly all criminals are drivers (experience). Secondly, its unfortunate but we deal with many drivers from outstide the UK living and working here who do not have the proper documentation and who are unaware of the standards they need to keep their vehicle to. I can say that from my experience. Many are decent people who didn't know, some didn't bother to find out and others are fully aware but are just seeing how long they can get away with it for. I actually had someone say to me!! The OP does seem decent and upstanding and aware of his responsibilities. In this case it does seem he has made a mistake. However, what is wrong with the officers being thorough? Is it them finding the tyre you don't like? Is it that they chose to deal with it via summons you don't like? Or is it juist them being thorough? Of course, we don't have the officers on here to comment or explain their course of action. So we do only have the OP's first post to take a view from, and that of course is only side of the story. You are, of course entitled to your opinion. I have found the vast majority of the public I've dealt with very respectful and friendly even in the light of offences they may or may not have committed. And thats been both before and after they've been reported. I think the complaint would go no where because I suspect the officers have not been trained on the new system. In any case as far as the officer is concerned he has a tyre which has only .66mm (as I recall) of tread on it and he may feel that warrants putting it before the court. So. personally I don't think he's been treated unfairly. But happy to debate with good humour!

Well, I do take account of all prevailing circumstances, but seatbelts are a life saver so it has to be pretty special to avoid a ticket I'm afraid. Thats assuming I don't run out - how unprofessional! What next? No tubes for the breath test machine!!

A couple of different options here I think; 1. Call the station the officer is based at and speak to an Inspector or Sergeant and have a moan. I think you're quite within your rights to do so. 2. Do nothing other than call the ticket office weekly, detail it all down, time,date, who you spoke to etc and then make a formal complaint in a few weeks. 3. Accept the points without the paperwork. I think its unlikely (but not impossible) that the ticket will be cancelled. You could consult with a lawyer, do you have household or car insurance with legal cover that you could telephone and get more info. Sorry I can't give you more advice, its not a side I deal with. Maybe the officers on a course, sick leave or holiday. Its certainly not professional to have to wait this long though. I'd be interested to see what others think.

Have to say if I'd run out of tickets / didn't have the right ones and you were quite reasonable at the roadside then it would be words of advice. I'm not sure I'd go to the trouble of a summons (unless there were aggravating factors or you had an attitude) and I don't know anyone in my neck of the woods that would write out an FPN and post it. Who knows! Time will tell. Did he/she caution you and tell you that you were being reported for the offence of failing to wear your seatbelt? Only need producers now in limited circumstances.

On the face of it I would say so. Its worth a bit of digging into just to be on the safe side - roadside lawyer or similar. I just can't see how its reasonable, so I would expect the court to see that. However, there are never any guarantees!

I would post this on Peppipoo aswell if you haven't already.

I can't speak from Camera vans, thats not my field, but we do a lot of speed enforcement on the run in to built up areas, villages etc. Typically this is because people are coming out of national speed limit areas into restricted areas and speed doesn't always come down appropriately. We get an awful lot of phone calls and letters and locals telling us they have a speeding problem. Sadly, when we go and do some enforcement, its usually the locals that contribute towards the problem. Police do not receive any proceeds from fines any more, at least where I am thats the case. There do not need to be signs indicating the presence of a camera van in law. Hope it goes well for you, and that they were just setting up when you passed.

All absolutely right, but I know few if any officers in my (not inconsiderable) time who have ever checked a tax disc by the serial numbers unless investigating some form of fraudulent use. Hence a quick check on the radio should determine whether there is anything untoward. This does seem unduly harsh in my opinion. I can see no reason for it. I think its taking failing to display a bit far.

Incidentally, you could make a complaint. I don't feel the officers here have been unreasonable or unfair. I'm not sure it would go anywhere. I would suspect any complaint would go into the 'need further training' file at best.