Stiffer speeding penalties for leading rideout. or not.

[daz3210]

pitmansboots said:

agtlaw said:

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

I see 2 bikes speeding at Similar speeds, I measure one at 96, both are speeding and my opinion of the fact rellating to both are corroborated by the one measurement.

In your humble opinion of course.

But you have then got to convince a court to agree with you that in law this is sufficient.

Which in this case it appears the officers and CPS failed to do.

[simoid]

pitmansboots said:

I see 2 bikes speeding at Similar speeds, I measure one at 96, both are speeding and my opinion of the fact rellating to both are corroborated by the one measurement.

You would be better off telling a mistruth and saying you gunned them both.

[vonhosen]

daz3210 said:

pitmansboots said:

agtlaw said:

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

I see 2 bikes speeding at Similar speeds, I measure one at 96, both are speeding and my opinion of the fact rellating to both are corroborated by the one measurement.

In your humble opinion of course.

But you have then got to convince a court to agree with you that in law this is sufficient.

Which in this case it appears the officers and CPS failed to do.

Just because a court aren't convinced in one case (perversely or not), doesn't mean another court won't be in a separate similar case.

[daz3210]

vonhosen said:

daz3210 said:

pitmansboots said:

agtlaw said:

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

I see 2 bikes speeding at Similar speeds, I measure one at 96, both are speeding and my opinion of the fact rellating to both are corroborated by the one measurement.

In your humble opinion of course.

But you have then got to convince a court to agree with you that in law this is sufficient.

Which in this case it appears the officers and CPS failed to do.

Just because a court aren't convinced in one case (perversely or not), doesn't mean another court won't be in a separate similar case.

I never said it didn't, but we are discussing the case of the OP.

But the law is the law, and if that says corroboration by two methods for speeding, then whether you like it or not, that is what you need. Your opinion is only one, whether that opinion is one of exceeding the speed limit, or that the speed matches another known vehicles speed.

[agtlaw]

daz3210 said:

And therefore if the first rider could have been identified, he would have been convicted of the speeding offence?

yes and if they identified the 1st then by default the 2nd would be identified.

but if the prosecution made the court sure of guilt of the 1st then it wouldn't necessarily follow that the 2nd was also guilty.

theoretical scenario. we have a convoy of 6 cars on an A road. the first is identified and moving at 90 mph (as confirmed by a traffic officer's opinion and a laser speed meter). the other cars are not checked using the machine. the other cars are apparently matching the speed of the first but how far back should corroboration go? car 2, car 3, car 6? is the officer's opinion corroborated by the machine or is the machine corroborated by the officer's opinion? (this is more relevant to the following cars).

[vonhosen]

daz3210 said:

vonhosen said:

daz3210 said:

pitmansboots said:

agtlaw said:

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

I see 2 bikes speeding at Similar speeds, I measure one at 96, both are speeding and my opinion of the fact rellating to both are corroborated by the one measurement.

In your humble opinion of course.

But you have then got to convince a court to agree with you that in law this is sufficient.

Which in this case it appears the officers and CPS failed to do.

Just because a court aren't convinced in one case (perversely or not), doesn't mean another court won't be in a separate similar case.

I never said it didn't, but we are discussing the case of the OP.

But the law is the law, and if that says corroboration by two methods for speeding, then whether you like it or not, that is what you need. Your opinion is only one, whether that opinion is one of exceeding the speed limit, or that the speed matches another known vehicles speed.

I haven't said corroboration isn't needed for speeding (non motorway) offences & I'm not limiting the discussion to the OP's case. That case has been lost by the prosecution so it's end of really & it moves to the next.

The discussion really is should all cases where two separate driver/riders are prosecuted resulting from the measured speed of only one of them fail (for at least one of them) ?

I don't think so personally & I think that it's probably already resulted in the full gamut of possible outcomes at different courts across the land.

[pitmansboots]

agtlaw said:

yes and if they identified the 1st then by default the 2nd would be identified.

but if the prosecution made the court sure of guilt of the 1st then it wouldn't necessarily follow that the 2nd was also guilty.

theoretical scenario. we have a convoy of 6 cars on an A road. the first is identified and moving at 90 mph (as confirmed by a traffic officer's opinion and a laser speed meter). the other cars are not checked using the machine. the other cars are apparently matching the speed of the first but how far back should corroboration go? car 2, car 3, car 6? is the officer's opinion corroborated by the machine or is the machine corroborated by the officer's opinion? (this is more relevant to the following cars).

If in the opinion of the officer the 6 cars are travelling at the same or similar speeds and the officer measures the speed of one vehicle then all vehicles are travelling at or similar to that speed.
There is sufficient evidence of the speed of all 6. What is unreasonable about that?

It matters not that whether the officer is corrorborated by the speedmeter or the speedmeter is corroborated by the officer; what does matter, in my opinion, is that the 2 events occur together and the officer agrees that the speedmeter reading is representative of the speed of the vehicle or vehicles. What is unreasonable about that?

[pitmansboots]

daz3210 said:

pitmansboots said:

agtlaw said:

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

I see 2 bikes speeding at Similar speeds, I measure one at 96, both are speeding and my opinion of the fact rellating to both are corroborated by the one measurement.

In your humble opinion of course.

But you have then got to convince a court to agree with you that in law this is sufficient.

Which in this case it appears the officers and CPS failed to do.

Well as I placed myself in the role of the speed enforcement officer, it is my opinion that is one of the key elements.

I get e idea you have not quite grasped this have you.

I agree the CPS and the officer in the case have perhaps not been quite coordinated in the clarity of the evidence. The real issue here is why have 2 guilty parties been acquitted for an irrelevant issue of which rider was which when it doesn't matter?

[10 Pence Short]

pitmansboots said:

If in the opinion of the officer the 6 cars are travelling at the same or similar speeds and the officer measures the speed of one vehicle then all vehicles are travelling at or similar to that speed.
There is sufficient evidence of the speed of all 6. What is unreasonable about that?

It matters not that whether the officer is corrorborated by the speedmeter or the speedmeter is corroborated by the officer; what does matter, in my opinion, is that the 2 events occur together and the officer agrees that the speedmeter reading is representative of the speed of the vehicle or vehicles. What is unreasonable about that?

Car 6, for example, will be some distance from the lead car, and will not benefit from accurate corroboration required from the speedmeter. It would be unreasonable then, because car 6 would be being adjudged to be breaking the limit based upon just the officer's opinion with no corroboration.

[pitmansboots]

vonhosen said:

I haven't said corroboration isn't needed for speeding (non motorway) offences & I'm not limiting the discussion to the OP's case. That case has been lost by the prosecution so it's end of really & it moves to the next.

The discussion really is should all cases where two separate driver/riders are prosecuted resulting from the measured speed of only one of them fail (for at least one of them) ?

I don't think so personally & I think that it's probably already resulted in the full gamut of possible outcomes at different courts across the land.

I think agtlaw was looking to establish his own loophole but settled for a chance acquittal by other unplannedf fortune.

It is my opinion that the planned loophole is doomed to failure but that is of course only my opinion. I am confident enough to test it as it is a reasonable measurement of speed especially when it is 36mph above the speed limit.

[pitmansboots]

10 Pence Short said:

Car 6, for example, will be some distance from the lead car, and will not benefit from accurate corroboration required from the speedmeter. It would be unreasonable then, because car 6 would be being adjudged to be breaking the limit based upon just the officer's opinion with no corroboration.

If the column of cars are travelling together, a reasonable distance and that is reasonably constant, car 6 speed will be corroborated. Why would it not be?
...and in this case we are talking about only 2 vehicles and looking at a speed that is way above the limit for both vehicles.

The only thing you need to prove is excess speed, NOT the value of that speed.

I think even the most challenged of observers can spot that 2 vehicles are at similar speeds and a few 10's of mph above a limit.

Edited by pitmansboots on Friday 27th April 17:12

[10 Pence Short]

pitmansboots said:

If the column of cars are travelling together, a reasonable distance and that is reasonably constant, car 6 speed will be corroborated. Why would it not be?

You're pushing the boundaries of what one person on a visual inspection can fairly adduce.

The law was written obliging officers to require corroboration. If that corroboration was optional, the law would say so. To follow your construction, an operator could be sat on a bridge over a motorway, ping the lead vehicle in a long line of traffic in lane 3, and report them all for excess speed. That clearly isn't how the law was intended to be operated.

I'd be willing to wager a prosecution failure when car number 6 is put through court based on the ping on car 1.

[dustybottoms]

So neither biker was prepared to admit that they were breaking the law (when at the very least one of them was) on the advice of their brief who knows that one was certainly guilty of breaking the law.

Why exactly is this considered a good result and to be congratulated by many of the PH masses?

[randlemarcus]

dustybottoms said:

So neither biker was prepared to admit that they were breaking the law (when at the very least one of them was) on the advice of their brief who knows that one was certainly guilty of breaking the law.

Why exactly is this considered a good result and to be congratulated by many of the PH masses?

Because it restores a little faith in the concept of justice. The bikers were not proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been guilty of the charges, based on the evidence provided.

It will lead to a more rigorous process when prosecuting, starting with the police being required to do their part properly, such as correctly identifying someone they are prepared to charge with an offence.

They make the rules, they follow them - we only break 'em.

[simoid]

pitmansboots said:

If the column of cars are travelling together, a reasonable distance and that is reasonably constant, car 6 speed will be corroborated. Why would it not be?
...and in this case we are talking about only 2 vehicles and looking at a speed that is way above the limit for both vehicles.

The only thing you need to prove is excess speed, NOT the value of that speed.

I think even the most challenged of observers can spot that 2 vehicles are at similar speeds and a few 10's of mph above a limit.

Edited by pitmansboots on Friday 27th April 17:12

To take it back to this case, as I've said before, the bikes were travelling away from the officer with the laser, and one was at a speed of nigh on 100mph. I believe they also went out of sight before the next officer flagged them down, so there wasn't a long sight line.

It's frankly bks that you could expect a court to convict the second motorbike 'cos it looked like he was going as fast as the first one.

As for judging the speed of 6 speeding cars in convoy, and deducing that they are keeping constant distances between all of them... wtf? Are you following them in a helicopter with a computer tracking program or something?

[pitmansboots]

10 Pence Short said:

pitmansboots said:

If the column of cars are travelling together, a reasonable distance and that is reasonably constant, car 6 speed will be corroborated. Why would it not be?

You're pushing the boundaries of what one person on a visual inspection can fairly adduce.

The law was written obliging officers to require corroboration. If that corroboration was optional, the law would say so. To follow your construction, an operator could be sat on a bridge over a motorway, ping the lead vehicle in a long line of traffic in lane 3, and report them all for excess speed. That clearly isn't how the law was intended to be operated.

I'd be willing to wager a prosecution failure when car number 6 is put through court based on the ping on car 1.

The column of 6 was a fantasy introduced by someone else that I decided to entertain. That particular scenario would be difficult to evidence in some situations but not, say, to motorway traffic from an over-bridge.
Notwithstanding the above, the case here is 2 motorcycles that have been witnessed travelling 'well' above the speed limit, even if it was a motorway, and they are isolated from other vehicles. On a 60 mph route they would be either well ahead of other traffic or passing traffic at 96mph.
In that situation measuring one vehicle and guaging the speed of the second is a perfectly reasonable method of assessing speed.
Ponder this. A traffic officer is driving down a road and is passed by 2 vehicles; the officer follows both vehicles that he observes are at or about the same speed. A VASCAR device is used on the lead vehicle of the 2 and it is found through a follow check to be going 96mph. The officer lights up the blues and pulls both motorists to the side of the road and ...
1. Does he prosecute both drivers for speeding?
2. Can he prosecute both drivers for speeding?
3. Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute both drivers for speeding?

If you don't get yes for all 3 you are wrong.

The situation is similar to that of our 2 motorcyclists so why is a routine prosecution described above different to the one that led to what may be an unjust acquittal in Leeds.

[Variomatic]

agtlaw said:

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

Although, in this case, the witness's opinion wasn't that the person "was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit".

His opinion was that "the person was driving as a speed substantially the same as another vehicle". That's a far easier matter to form an objective opinion of. In fact, anyone who drives is expected to accurately form such opinions every time they're on the road or else we'd all be driving up other peoples arses! Given that it's such a commonplace judgement to make, which all drivers routinely achieve with accuracy, it should be admissible in establishing the relative speed of the bikes.

Having established that the relative speeds were substantially the same, the question of whether or not Bike 2 was speeding is determined by objective fact from the (vastly excessive) speed of Bike 1. That's a matter of the laws of physics, not of the witness' opinion - if two objects have a speed of approximately zero relative to each other then their speed relative to another fixed point will be the same.

On the logic used in this case, if I'm towing a broken down vehicle on a rope and get flashed by a camera (from behind) doing 90mph then I can't be found guilt because the only evidence is that the "other vehicle" was speeding, not me, and the fact that our speeds are substantially the same can't be taken into account seeing as the towed car [/i]could[/i] be travelling faster than me because of the rope tow!

[pitmansboots]

Variomatic said:

agtlaw said:

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

Although, in this case, the witness's opinion wasn't that the person "was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit".

His opinion was that "the person was driving as a speed substantially the same as another vehicle". That's a far easier matter to form an objective opinion of. In fact, anyone who drives is expected to accurately form such opinions every time they're on the road or else we'd all be driving up other peoples arses! Given that it's such a commonplace judgement to make, which all drivers routinely achieve with accuracy, it should be admissible in establishing the relative speed of the bikes.

Having established that the relative speeds were substantially the same, the question of whether or not Bike 2 was speeding is determined by objective fact from the (vastly excessive) speed of Bike 1. That's a matter of the laws of physics, not of the witness' opinion - if two objects have a speed of approximately zero relative to each other then their speed relative to another fixed point will be the same.

On the logic used in this case, if I'm towing a broken down vehicle on a rope and get flashed by a camera (from behind) doing 90mph then I can't be found guilt because the only evidence is that the "other vehicle" was speeding, not me, and the fact that our speeds are substantially the same can't be taken into account seeing as the towed car [/i]could[/i] be travelling faster than me because of the rope tow!

It is admissible as long as the witness gives the evidence in a credible way. It appeared from the description he had and it was accepted. The issue of identification of which of the 2 bikers was at the front or rear of the 2 doesn't make a significant difference because it is evidenceced that both were.
I think the Magistraes may have been badly advised.

[Paul Dishman]

pitmansboots said:

[ It is admissible as long as the witness gives the evidence in a credible way. It appeared from the description he had and it was accepted. The issue of identification of which of the 2 bikers was at the front or rear of the 2 doesn't make a significant difference because it is evidenceced that both were.
I think the Magistraes may have been badly advised.

Whatever :shrugs shoulders: I don't care. I'm delighted the bikers weren't convicted. The dice have been loaded far too long in favour of parasites like you and the more times the good guys win, the happier I'll be.

[Negative Creep]

Paul Dishman said:

pitmansboots said:

[ It is admissible as long as the witness gives the evidence in a credible way. It appeared from the description he had and it was accepted. The issue of identification of which of the 2 bikers was at the front or rear of the 2 doesn't make a significant difference because it is evidenceced that both were.
I think the Magistraes may have been badly advised.

Whatever :shrugs shoulders: I don't care. I'm delighted the bikers weren't convicted. The dice have been loaded far too long in favour of parasites like you and the more times the good guys win, the happier I'll be.

Doing close to 100mph in a 60 limit makes you a good guy?