Caught Speeding by Bike Cop
Discussion
fatboy b said:
75 recorded in a 40. So that would be an indicated 80-ish?
Isn't that a bit knobby??
Not my finest moment. But it was 75 and not 80 in a 40...otherwise I would have stated 80 in a 40. That is what the policeman said but to be honest I don't think I was going that fast, was not shown any evidence of the speed so he must have come to the conclusion looking at his own speedo?? Who knows.Isn't that a bit knobby??
Rahul uk said:
fatboy b said:
75 recorded in a 40. So that would be an indicated 80-ish?
Isn't that a bit knobby??
Not my finest moment. But it was 75 and not 80 in a 40...otherwise I would have stated 80 in a 40. That is what the policeman said but to be honest I don't think I was going that fast, was not shown any evidence of the speed so he must have come to the conclusion looking at his own speedo?? Who knows.Isn't that a bit knobby??
Genuine question - but I'll probably look stupid for asking.
Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
sideways20vT said:
Genuine question - but I'll probably look stupid for asking.
Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
Needs done kind of evidence, so either speed device, calibrated speed-o etc. He can't just see a car in the distance and say "I'll have that. He looks like he's doing about 35".Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
sideways20vT said:
Genuine question - but I'll probably look stupid for asking.
Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
Speeding requires corroboration. This can be from two people but the usual method is one person and some technology. Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
He doesn't need to record your speed. Although, if the operator has a speedmeter then the last recorded speed should be on the display.
Different considerations apply to unattended speed enforcement technology. Gatsometer, SPECS ,etc.
This incident seems strange unless certain details are missing. Did you sign anything ? Were you asked to sign anything ? Did he use the phrase , " you will be reported for the question to be considered...".
Your alleged speed was too high for a "Fixed Penalty Notice" to be issued so he would have to fill out a "process book" instead. Within that is a section to write down your reply to the caution and you are then offered it to sign as correct.
If that happened , then its off to court and the summons will arrive in the later part of 6 months ( location dependent ). If that didnt happen then I would tentatively suggest you "may" be very lucky and it was a quick check and telling off and he has no intention of doing any paperwork at all - looking for bigger fish to fry or had something far more important to be getting on with.
If the bike is a traffic bike then it will have a calibrated speedo but it ideally should have been checked and corroborated before the stop and after the stop which is more time out of his day that he may or may not have had...
Your alleged speed was too high for a "Fixed Penalty Notice" to be issued so he would have to fill out a "process book" instead. Within that is a section to write down your reply to the caution and you are then offered it to sign as correct.
If that happened , then its off to court and the summons will arrive in the later part of 6 months ( location dependent ). If that didnt happen then I would tentatively suggest you "may" be very lucky and it was a quick check and telling off and he has no intention of doing any paperwork at all - looking for bigger fish to fry or had something far more important to be getting on with.
If the bike is a traffic bike then it will have a calibrated speedo but it ideally should have been checked and corroborated before the stop and after the stop which is more time out of his day that he may or may not have had...
Mk3Spitfire said:
sideways20vT said:
Genuine question - but I'll probably look stupid for asking.
Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
Needs done kind of evidence, so either speed device, calibrated speed-o etc. He can't just see a car in the distance and say "I'll have that. He looks like he's doing about 35".Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
brickwall said:
How does calibrated speedo evidence work? Assuming there is no camera in the car, then surely it comes down to BiB stating "I followed the car at a constant distance and my calibrated speedo indicated 80"? What evidence do we have that BiB was at a constant distance, or even is just telling the truth?
given the offence is exceeding the speed limit and marginal cases are rarely brought to caught , the calibrated speedometer arguments are the desperate last resort of those who think that becasue other cases get stopped on a technicality , that any technicality or any doubt means they are going to get acquitted. suggesting that police officer is deliberately fabricating evidence is also a pretty desperate tactic.
CGJJ said:
I don't think you're going to hear anything.
What do you base this on? Genuinely interested.fatboy b said:
75 recorded in a 40. So that would be an indicated 80-ish?
Isn't that a bit knobby??
Depends very much on the road.Isn't that a bit knobby??
A12 coming out of London is a 40/50 limit. 70mph is easily (and safely) do-able. Typical traffic flow is 60-65 ime.
g3org3y said:
CGJJ said:
I don't think you're going to hear anything.
What do you base this on? Genuinely interested.fatboy b said:
75 recorded in a 40. So that would be an indicated 80-ish?
Isn't that a bit knobby??
Depends very much on the road.Isn't that a bit knobby??
A12 coming out of London is a 40/50 limit. 70mph is easily (and safely) do-able. Typical traffic flow is 60-65 ime.
There are a huge amount of speed limits set so low that I'm not gong to judge the OP, it's quite possible his speed was perfectly safe.
Willy Nilly said:
^^^^
There are a huge amount of speed limits set so low that I'm not gong to judge the OP, it's quite possible his speed was perfectly safe.
That's true but the op doesn't know how fast he was going so they are not claiming they felt it was safe they are pleading ignorance as defence.There are a huge amount of speed limits set so low that I'm not gong to judge the OP, it's quite possible his speed was perfectly safe.
brickwall said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
sideways20vT said:
Genuine question - but I'll probably look stupid for asking.
Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
Needs done kind of evidence, so either speed device, calibrated speed-o etc. He can't just see a car in the distance and say "I'll have that. He looks like he's doing about 35".Does the officer need to have recorded your speed with a camera or can he just "form an opinion" that you were speeding. Something I've always wanted to know.
For example if you were driving at 30mph and the officer insisted you were going 35?
The calibration of the speed=o is for exactly the reason stated above. Someone who is trying to get off on a technicality. The calibration means that the weight of any accuracy argument is reduced.
CGJJ said:
In my experience i have always got a producer when i've been nicked for speeding.
The only times i have not heard anything after being told i would be reported was when i didn't sign anything or get a producer.
You no longer need any paper work to be reported for the offence. If you are reported, you are cautioned at the roadside and informed that the facts will be reported. The only times i have not heard anything after being told i would be reported was when i didn't sign anything or get a producer.
The officer then returns to the station and fills in the relevant offence card and submits it.
The offender then receives something in the post within 14 days.
A producer would not be issued for speeding. A producer is for insurance/licence checks. An FPN would be the paperwork you had at the roadside before. FPN's are being steadily phased out in favour of reporting for offences.
I dont know why people on here are suggesting the OP will not hear anything further. For such a breach of the speeding laws, I doubt very much the paper work will get lost on this occasion.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff