This was always going to end in tears: Sensible suggestions to avoid a repetition have fallen on deaf ears.

If the matter has progressed to court the chance of a course is gone. The court cannot order a course. You are not "appealing" anything (because you have not yet been convicted of anything). All you can do is to attend court, explain the circumstances and ask them to keep their sentence to the minimum. The offence carries a mandatory endorsement and three penalty points. If you are lucky you might persuade the court to sentence you at the Fixed Penalty level (£100 and three points). How long ago was the offence? (This may explain why you have not been offered a fixed penalty).

If you were doing 45 mph at the time you were clocked you should not expect enforcement to be taken. In a 40mph limit enforcement begins at 46mph. However you may have been travelling faster than 45mph when your speed was measured. A NIP must be served on the Registered Keeper within 14 days of the alleged offence but there are no time limits for subsequent NIPs if the Registered Keeper names someone else as the driver (apart from the overall limit of six months to begin a prosecution). The siting of the van is of no relevance whatsoever and even if parked illegally does not provide a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

If you look at my answers on 19th August at 16:41 and on 16th September at 18:52 you will see quite clearly that you should receive a Fixed Penalty offer for the offence. It is too fast for a speed awareness course. The "tolerance" you keep mentioning is not a tolerance at all. 42mph is the fastest speed for which a course would normally be offered. (There have been instances of them being offered for slightly higher speeds but I don't expect it). As well as that, you can only do one course in three years. It is not a tolerance, it is just an alternative way for the offence to be dealt with. When you get your offer, send off the £100 and do not forget to enclose your licence. That will be the end of the matter apart from the fact that you will have three points on your licence. They remain "active" for three years and if you accumulate 12 points in that time (with the dates of the offences being relevant for the calculation) then you face a six month ban. Also check the conditions of your insurance policy. Some insurers require you to notify them as soon as you get any points against you whilst others only insist on you doing so at renewal.

Provided you have not done one in the last three years you will be offered a Speed Awareness Course to dispose of the matter. This will cost you around £90, half a day of your time but no endorsement or points. If you are ineligible for that or don't fancy it you will be offered a Fixed Penalty of £100 and three points. If you go to court denying you were travelling at 39mph but accepting you were doing 34 or 35mph you will have no realistic option but to plead guilty to speeding. The prosecution will accept your basis of plea, you will be convicted and face a fine of a third of a week's income, £85 costs, a surcharge of 10% of the fine and three points. If you want to attempt to escape a penalty altogether you will have to plead not guilty. Then you will have to convince the court that the device was so inaccurate that it cannot be relied upon to prove you were exceeding 30mph (remembering the allegation is exceeding the speed limit, not travelling at 39mph). The prosecution will produce evidence to show that the device was approved by the Home Office and was operated in the correct manner. The onus then shifts to you to prove that it was not. Can you do that? The cost of failure is high. The fine will be half a week's income (you lose your discount for a guilty plea) and the 10% surcharge, three points and costs of at least £620 (considerably more if your defence means the prosecution have to instruct expert witnesses). In summary, four choices: 1. Speed Awareness Course (Around £90, plus half a day of your time) 2. Fixed Penalty of £100 and three points. 3. A court appearance. Plead guilty. Fine and costs of a few hundred pounds and three points (absolutely no point at all in doing this) 4. A court appearance. Plead Not Guilty. Probably be convicted. Costs of Failure probably around £1,000 and three points. So...you pays your money and takes your choice (or more properly, you makes your choice and pays your money).

Cannot comment on that only to say that it has never happened to me or anybody I know. Having said that, it must surely be easier to argue that you did not make a crossing in the same direction within a short period of time than it is to argue that you have a reasonable excuse for neglecting to pay the charge on time.

You are, strictly speaking, incorrect. Only courts can issue fines. Charges levied by other authorities and private concerns are properly “Penalty Charges”. I understand your frustration but life is how it is not how we’d like it to be. None of your arguments hold any water legally (though morally I agree with many of them). With that in mind and since you obviously lead a busy life why don’t you simply open a DartCharge account? Stick a tenner on and you get the crossing price reduced by a third and no hassle with remembering (or forgetting) to pay it. You can even arrange an auto top-up for when your credit gets low. It would take you far less time than you’ve spent explaining your plight here. I only use the crossing two or three times a year but I have an account because it makes life easy. Yes it makes life easy for “them” too but life’s a bit too short to pick fights with organisations like this who will be only too pleased to execute their expensive enforcement processes until the cows come home.

Thanks for the congratulations. I don’t know how much closer I need to get to win the cigar. The "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016” defines a dual carriageway thus: “a road which comprises a central reservation” It defines a central reservation as: (a) any land between the carriageways of a road comprising two carriageways; or (b) any permanent work (other than a traffic island) in the carriageway of a road, which separates the carriageway or, as the case may be, the part of the carriageway, which is to be used by traffic moving in one direction from the carriageway or part of the carriageway which is to be used (whether at all times or at particular times only) by traffic moving in the other direction So it can be seen that no physical barrier is required. I understand that there is confusion about the speed limit prevailing on a dual carriageway. Some people seem to believe that being a dual carriageway automatically bestows different limits on a road simply by virtue of that fact. As far as I can fathom, the only time that being a dual carriageway by itself makes any difference to a speed limit is where the National Speed Limit (NSL) is in force. The NSL (for cars) on a dual carriageway is 70mph whereas it is only 60mph on a single carriageway. There are corresponding lower limits of 60/50mph for other classes of vehicle.

Generally a road with a central reservation separating the two carriageways. But I thought we'd established that the road in question here had a 30mph limit. Being a dual carriageway (or not) has no relevance to that.

Not quite correct. For offences in a 30mph limit enforcement is not normally taken below 35mph. A Speed Awareness Course is normally offered for speeds between 35mph and 42mph (i.e. Limit +10% + 9mph. This applies to all limits). The only time this would not be the outcome is if the driver had taken part in a course in the previous three years (the dates of the offences being used to determine this). Up tp 50mph a Fixed Penalty Offer will be made. This is £100 and 3 penalty points. The only time this would not be offered is where the driver already has nine or more points (and is thus liable to a ban under the "totting up" rules). You should not expect a summons (as an aside even if court action was necessary you would almost certainly receive a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" rather than a summons). Instead you will receive an offer of a fixed penalty. You need not worry about the sentencing levels for matters that go to court because, provided you comply with the conditions of the Fixed Penalty Offer (that is, send in your payment and your driving licence) you won't be paying them a visit.

Great! Simply return the Section 172 request providing his details and let nature take its course. Make sure you do so within the 28 days allowed as you do not want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Also keep a careful note of how you came to discover he was the driver. If he denies that he was the matte may return to you and you need to have your ducks in a row. Keep some evidence that he was insured at the time but you have subsequently removed him. Provided you do not shilly-shally with that there should be no questions asked of you about permission. However, if the question of whether he was insured is asked of him (again unlikely provided he does not faff about) he will also probably be asked whether he had your permission. Personally I would tell the truth and let the little scrote suffer the consequences. He will not be offered a fixed penalty (or if he is and attempts to take it the offer will be withdrawn). He will face a court appearance and can look forward to a six month disqualification for "totting" unless he can prove he would suffer "exceptional hardship" as a result. By the sounds of it six months off the road might do him good. PS - Glad to have helped out with the "lamposts" matter! You never know, it might come in handy one day.

We're straying off topic a bit here! Leaving aside the fact that you need to provide the driver's details before you begin to worry about the niceties of the speeding allegation, you face an uphill struggle with the signage if you eventually do get to have a speeding charge put to you (or whoever else you discover was driving). First of all it seems that signage was in place if disgruntled's enquiries are anything to go by. But (and here's where the lampposts come in) if you are driving in an area with street lighting you should assume it is a 30mph limit until you see signs that tell you otherwise. The fact that you have forgotten this will cut no ice in court.

Re; Milton Keynes. Here's a "snip" from Google Streetview of Snelshall Street, MK - one of the "grid" roads which I chose at random which you say have no speed limit signs. You can see the National Speed Limit repeater sign just to the left of the estate car in the picture. This makes the road 70mph (assuming it is dual carriageway). Without that sign, because the road has street lights, it would be a 30mph limit. I do not believe the signage in MK is any different to anywhere else because if they were speed effective enforcement would be impossible. However, we digress. . It's legislation and I provided the relevant passage earlier. When learning to drive the Highway Code is the normal source. In the section explaining speed limits there is a column for "Built Up Areas". There is a footnote to that column which says this: *The 30mph limit usually applies to all traffic on all roads with street lighting unless signs show otherwise.*"

So there are terminal signs between the 30mph and 60mph limits and repeaters where the 60mph limit prevails when there is street lighting? And back to this particular road in question here, what limit did you think prevailed before all this happened?

I’ve just been having a glance back at some of your posts to see if I can help further. This grabbed me: You are not being asked to admit to anything. All you are being asked to do is to provide the details of the driver at the time of the allegation. From your posts it seems to me that you are exploring the possibility of a defence to the speeding allegation (on the basis of the signage, etc or possibly that it was not your car at all) before providing the driver’s details. This is completely the wrong approach. Even if you have an absolute cast iron defence to the speeding allegation you still have to provide the driver’s details. If you do not then prosecution under S172 beckons. Whilst it is true that if you plead not guilty to the S172 offence, the prosecution has to prove that it was your car (if you raise the issue that it was not) they will have little difficulty doing so. They have a photo of a car with your registration number and it fits the make and model. That will be proof enough unless you can bring anything to court to cast doubt. After that, the onus shifts to you to demonstrate that you have exercised all the reasonable diligence you can to establish who was driving but have still been unable to do so. So, forget the signage. It seems a dead duck anyway from what disgruntled has seen on Streetview and as I have explained, when driving on a road with street lights you should assume it is a 30mph limit unless you see signs to the contrary. You need to concentrate on identifying the driver because without doing that, 3 points and £100 will almost certainly turn into six points and a good few hundred smackeroonies.

Section 82(1)(a) (of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984)) defines a restricted road in England and Wales as a road which is provided with “a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart”. Section 81 specifically makes it an offence for a person to drive a motor vehicle at a speed of more than 30 mph on a restricted road. You can find confirmation in the form of advice here: https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/driving-law/watch-out-for-lamposts-to-avoid-a-speeding-fine and here: http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/speed_markings.html and here (among many other places): https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/top-ten-tips-to-stay-within-the-limit/lamp-posts/ Section 81 does not apply to motorways. Either the roads around Milton Keynes are derestricted by means of signs to indicate a different limit or you have been lucky. Just out of interest, what makes the roads in MK 60mph other than a 60mph sign (i.e. a "sign to the contrary)? Anyway, you keep on worrying about the signage. As I've said, no need to worry about that until you either provide the driver’s details or decide you cannot do so and opt instead to run a “reasonable diligence” defence.

Which, since I assume the road has a system of street lighting, would be 30mph in the absence of anything to the contrary. . And even if it did, your problem at the moment is to identify the driver. Until you overcome that obstacle you can forget about the intricacies of the speeding allegation.

Just too fast for a Speed Awareness Course (that is available up to 53mph). The driver would be offered a fixed penalty of £100 and three points.

At this stage the signage issue is irrelevant. You are only being asked to provide the driver’s details at present. If you return the Section 172 notice (which is what you return, not the NIP) simply saying that you do not know who was driving you will be charged under Section 172 – “Failure to provide driver’s details”. You will not get any other information (what do you have in mind?). If you argue that the car was not yours the prosecution has to prove that it was. It is unlikely that there are any other photographs available and so they will rely on the one you have seen (or one very similar to it). Simply saying “I don’t think it was my car” is unlikely to cast sufficient doubt. Being able to prove your car was elsewhere at the time would. Can you do that? Suspecting “cloning” is also unlikely to cut the mustard. First of all it is incredibly rare and also people driving with cloned plates tend not to commit a single minor offence. Have you received any other NIPs beside this one? There is a statutory defence to the charge which says that you shall not be guilty if you can show that you did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. This is a high hurdle to climb. You need to demonstrate that you have exercised all reasonable avenues to establish who was driving. You will need to show that you have eliminated yourself (obviously) and that you have comprehensively investigated the possibility that anybody else who has access to the vehicle may have been driving. The tone of your posts at the moment suggests this: “I think it might not have been my car at all. But if it was I can’t really recall driving down that road at the time”. That simply won’t cut the mustard, I’m afraid. This obviously relates to the speeding offence. However, as I said at the beginning, you need not worry about that at present. The Section 172 offence is the one you will face if you do not provide the driver’s details. The Section 172 offence carries six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for around five years (insurers hate the MS90 endorsement code that goes with it). You have not said what the alleged speed is but is very likely that the penalty for speeding will be quite a bit less. It really is in your interests to make every effort to find out who was driving.

The Road Traffic Offenders Act (Section 42) provides for any driver who has been disqualified for more than two years to apply to the court that disqualified him for the early return of his licence. He can do this: - After two years for bans of up to four years - After 50% has been served for bans of between four and ten years - After five years for bans longer than ten years. The early return of the licence is entirely a matter for the court but normally they will want to see why there is a need for them to grant the request (such as a job opportunity, deterioration in health). They do not usually accede to a request simply because the applicant feels he has served long enough and fancies driving again. In short the courts are not easily satisfied. However I believe you have little chance of having your licence returned at present for one good reason: the mandatory minimum disqualification period for a second or subsequent offence of excess alcohol within ten years of the first is three years. I believe that any court considering your application would have to bear this in mind and would be unlikely to go behind Parliament's intentions when the law was passed. I would have thought that this would have been one of the first things your expensive specialist motoring lawyers would have pointed out to you when you first spoke to them. Good luck with your application but, unless you encounter a particularly sympathetic Bench, or one which does not include the consideration I have mentioned, I fear you may be looking forward to an expensive day out.

Good. I don't know when the request for information was delivered but obviously it was on or before 19th August. It is presumed to have been delivered two days after it was sent so you need to bear in mind that you have until 16th September at the latest for a satisfactory response to that request to be made. If no such response is made by then that is when things begin to get tricky.

Don't trouble yourself about the "fronting" issue. It is unlikely to be a problem provided you get the speeding matter resolved without complications. Have you spoken to the ticket office yet?

No we do not. And we don't need it to help him with his speeding matter.

Personally I would phone them up, explain the situation and ask them what you should do. Get the name of the person who advised you. In normal circumstances you should not reply to a notice that is not addressed to you. If you really don't want to do that then complete the form, naming yourself as the driver and enclose a covering letter explaining that you are not the Registered Keeper and he is not available to deal with the matter. They are interested in getting an admission that you were driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. Keep a copy of the form you fill in and the letter you write and get a free "Proof of Posting" certificate from the Post Office.

No indeed they don’t. But I’m curious to understand what this is all about. If the OP has nominated himself as the driver then all that remains is for the process to take its course. For 40 in a 30 a Speed Awareness Course would normally be offered provided the driver was eligible for one. Failing that, the offence qualifies for a Fixed Penalty. There is no need for any correspondence to be entered into. If neither of the above is accepted and complied with then the matter goes to court. I can only imagine that the OP has disputed that the bike is his. It wold be nice if he would come back and let us know what this is really all about because his version so far as it goes makes no sense without the full story.