Caught Speeding by Bike Cop
Discussion
Rahul uk said:
Not planning to suggest that driving the M3 makes it safer in any way to accelerate or brake in court. The comment was aimed for others on this post who cannot understand why I didn't know my exact speed.
Question is: how did the police officer know your exact speed?If you were accelerating quickly and only very briefly before braking, the only way the officer can know your exact speed is if he is on the side of the road with a hand held speed monitoring device or he happens to be driving at the same speed as you in reasonably close proximity for more than a couple of seconds.
youngsyr said:
Rahul uk said:
Not planning to suggest that driving the M3 makes it safer in any way to accelerate or brake in court. The comment was aimed for others on this post who cannot understand why I didn't know my exact speed.
Question is: how did the police officer know your exact speed?If you were accelerating quickly and only very briefly before braking, the only way the officer can know your exact speed is if he is on the side of the road with a hand held speed monitoring device or he happens to be driving at the same speed as you in reasonably close proximity for more than a couple of seconds.
Rahul uk said:
youngsyr said:
Rahul uk said:
Not planning to suggest that driving the M3 makes it safer in any way to accelerate or brake in court. The comment was aimed for others on this post who cannot understand why I didn't know my exact speed.
Question is: how did the police officer know your exact speed?If you were accelerating quickly and only very briefly before braking, the only way the officer can know your exact speed is if he is on the side of the road with a hand held speed monitoring device or he happens to be driving at the same speed as you in reasonably close proximity for more than a couple of seconds.
Assuming your description is accurate, to my feeble little mind, it seems impossible for him (or anyone else) to narrow it down to even a 5 mph range.
I have seen it happen before though - a guy was driving an Evo on the Isle of Mann from a derestricted zone into a 40 mph zone, followed by an unmarked police bike.
The Evo driver by his own admission hit 160 mph in the derestricted zone perfectly legally, despite the fact that the bike had trouble keeping up.
However, as the Evo braked into the 40 mph zone, the bike was still doing over 100 mph and it was this speed that was used to prosecute the Evo driver, despite it being the bike's speed, not the Evo's speed.
Video:
http://vid123.photobucket.com/albums/o319/peeler_2...
Evo appears at 1m29s, enters 40 mph at 7m09s.
Edited by youngsyr on Monday 18th August 21:54
Rahul uk said:
Just to clarify
- I did not sign anything
- He did not fill anything out on the side of the road
- He cautioned me "you have the right to remain silent....."
- He also stated he would be reporting me for careless driving and it was up to someone else if they want to prosecute.
- I asked what happens next. Was told that I might get something in the post in the next 14 days and likely 3-5 points.
- I drive an M3 and that picks up speed pretty damn quickly. I would have been in the 40-75mph ish zone for not more than 150 metres before braking for a roundabout. For those short seconds I was at that speed I did not look at the speedo but more on the road ahead which for the record had no cars in front of me.
It seems to me,if i my reading comprehension is correct that you are not being prosecuted for speeding but careless driving.- I did not sign anything
- He did not fill anything out on the side of the road
- He cautioned me "you have the right to remain silent....."
- He also stated he would be reporting me for careless driving and it was up to someone else if they want to prosecute.
- I asked what happens next. Was told that I might get something in the post in the next 14 days and likely 3-5 points.
- I drive an M3 and that picks up speed pretty damn quickly. I would have been in the 40-75mph ish zone for not more than 150 metres before braking for a roundabout. For those short seconds I was at that speed I did not look at the speedo but more on the road ahead which for the record had no cars in front of me.
Edited by Rahul uk on Monday 18th August 19:57
This is sometimes used when the officer suspects speeding but did not manage to
follow for long enough or was unable for some reason to tick all the procedural boxes to prosecute for speeding.
The careless driving charge is far more subjective and magistrates tend to believe the policeman and not the accused.
Edited by CGJJ on Tuesday 19th August 08:29
agtlaw said:
Speeding requires corroboration. This can be from two people but the usual method is one person and some technology.
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.
I've never understood this, surely a metered reading should always be needed? Given the never ending stories of (some) police lying and falsifying evidence it seems odd that 2 people can say we saw him speeding with no actual evidence.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.
cb31 said:
agtlaw said:
Speeding requires corroboration. This can be from two people but the usual method is one person and some technology.
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.
I've never understood this, surely a metered reading should always be needed? Given the never ending stories of (some) police lying and falsifying evidence it seems odd that 2 people can say we saw him speeding with no actual evidence.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.
youngsyr said:
I certainly wouldn't consider it a defense strategy, it's more that I'm interested as to how he knew your exact speed under the circumstances you describe.
Assuming your description is accurate, to my feeble little mind, it seems impossible for him (or anyone else) to narrow it down to even a 5 mph range.
I have seen it happen before though - a guy was driving an Evo on the Isle of Mann from a derestricted zone into a 40 mph zone, followed by an unmarked police bike.
The Evo driver by his own admission hit 160 mph in the derestricted zone perfectly legally, despite the fact that the bike had trouble keeping up.
However, as the Evo braked into the 40 mph zone, the bike was still doing over 100 mph and it was this speed that was used to prosecute the Evo driver, despite it being the bike's speed, not the Evo's speed.
Video:
http://vid123.photobucket.com/albums/o319/peeler_2...
Evo appears at 1m29s, enters 40 mph at 7m09s.
On that video the bike is keeping pace with the Evo as it entered the 40 limit, can't see what point you're trying to make?Assuming your description is accurate, to my feeble little mind, it seems impossible for him (or anyone else) to narrow it down to even a 5 mph range.
I have seen it happen before though - a guy was driving an Evo on the Isle of Mann from a derestricted zone into a 40 mph zone, followed by an unmarked police bike.
The Evo driver by his own admission hit 160 mph in the derestricted zone perfectly legally, despite the fact that the bike had trouble keeping up.
However, as the Evo braked into the 40 mph zone, the bike was still doing over 100 mph and it was this speed that was used to prosecute the Evo driver, despite it being the bike's speed, not the Evo's speed.
Video:
http://vid123.photobucket.com/albums/o319/peeler_2...
Evo appears at 1m29s, enters 40 mph at 7m09s.
Edited by youngsyr on Monday 18th August 21:54
If the Evo had been doing 40mph and the bike over 100mph, the bike would have rear ended the Evo
FuryExocet said:
On that video the bike is keeping pace with the Evo as it entered the 40 limit, can't see what point you're trying to make?
If the Evo had been doing 40mph and the bike over 100mph, the bike would have rear ended the Evo
I can see the point - I've had the misfortune to encounter an officer who was adamant I was doing over 30mph because "I was doing 40 to catch you".If the Evo had been doing 40mph and the bike over 100mph, the bike would have rear ended the Evo
This is a simple point of physics.
If a car accelerates from 0-40mph in 2 seconds
another car trying to catch it that takes 5 seconds to accelerate
0-40mph will reach a higher speed than 40mph trying to catch the first car which is travelling at 40mph.
If a car accelerates from 0-40mph in 2 seconds
another car trying to catch it that takes 5 seconds to accelerate
0-40mph will reach a higher speed than 40mph trying to catch the first car which is travelling at 40mph.
Edited by CGJJ on Wednesday 20th August 13:51
FuryExocet said:
youngsyr said:
I certainly wouldn't consider it a defense strategy, it's more that I'm interested as to how he knew your exact speed under the circumstances you describe.
Assuming your description is accurate, to my feeble little mind, it seems impossible for him (or anyone else) to narrow it down to even a 5 mph range.
I have seen it happen before though - a guy was driving an Evo on the Isle of Mann from a derestricted zone into a 40 mph zone, followed by an unmarked police bike.
The Evo driver by his own admission hit 160 mph in the derestricted zone perfectly legally, despite the fact that the bike had trouble keeping up.
However, as the Evo braked into the 40 mph zone, the bike was still doing over 100 mph and it was this speed that was used to prosecute the Evo driver, despite it being the bike's speed, not the Evo's speed.
Video:
http://vid123.photobucket.com/albums/o319/peeler_2...
Evo appears at 1m29s, enters 40 mph at 7m09s.
On that video the bike is keeping pace with the Evo as it entered the 40 limit, can't see what point you're trying to make?Assuming your description is accurate, to my feeble little mind, it seems impossible for him (or anyone else) to narrow it down to even a 5 mph range.
I have seen it happen before though - a guy was driving an Evo on the Isle of Mann from a derestricted zone into a 40 mph zone, followed by an unmarked police bike.
The Evo driver by his own admission hit 160 mph in the derestricted zone perfectly legally, despite the fact that the bike had trouble keeping up.
However, as the Evo braked into the 40 mph zone, the bike was still doing over 100 mph and it was this speed that was used to prosecute the Evo driver, despite it being the bike's speed, not the Evo's speed.
Video:
http://vid123.photobucket.com/albums/o319/peeler_2...
Evo appears at 1m29s, enters 40 mph at 7m09s.
Edited by youngsyr on Monday 18th August 21:54
If the Evo had been doing 40mph and the bike over 100mph, the bike would have rear ended the Evo
Isn't the standard procedure for ascertaining a target vehicle's speed to maintain a constant distance behind them for a set period - the bike doesn't in this case.
CGJJ said:
Rahul uk said:
Just to clarify
- I did not sign anything
- He did not fill anything out on the side of the road
- He cautioned me "you have the right to remain silent....."
- He also stated he would be reporting me for careless driving and it was up to someone else if they want to prosecute.
- I asked what happens next. Was told that I might get something in the post in the next 14 days and likely 3-5 points.
- I drive an M3 and that picks up speed pretty damn quickly. I would have been in the 40-75mph ish zone for not more than 150 metres before braking for a roundabout. For those short seconds I was at that speed I did not look at the speedo but more on the road ahead which for the record had no cars in front of me.
It seems to me,if i my reading comprehension is correct that you are not being prosecuted for speeding but careless driving.- I did not sign anything
- He did not fill anything out on the side of the road
- He cautioned me "you have the right to remain silent....."
- He also stated he would be reporting me for careless driving and it was up to someone else if they want to prosecute.
- I asked what happens next. Was told that I might get something in the post in the next 14 days and likely 3-5 points.
- I drive an M3 and that picks up speed pretty damn quickly. I would have been in the 40-75mph ish zone for not more than 150 metres before braking for a roundabout. For those short seconds I was at that speed I did not look at the speedo but more on the road ahead which for the record had no cars in front of me.
Edited by Rahul uk on Monday 18th August 19:57
This is sometimes used when the officer suspects speeding but did not manage to
follow for long enough or was unable for some reason to tick all the procedural boxes to prosecute for speeding.
The careless driving charge is far more subjective and magistrates tend to believe the policeman and not the accused.
Edited by CGJJ on Tuesday 19th August 08:29
I don't think you will reported for speeding alone, it will be a careless driving charge - If, in 150m's, you did as you said you have, with the "m3 rasp" PC plod is likely to say you were driving carelessly and seek a prosecution on those grounds.
Unfortunately its time to play the waiting game and probably pay a little more attention to a) your right foot and b) whats around you when you use your right foot.
Best of luck.
Far Cough said:
So OP , we are well past the 14 day period. Heard anything ?
The officer warned the OP at the time that he might be prosecuted and, as such, there's no need for any further NIP or warning to be served within 14 days.The next correspondence the OPs receives in relation to this matter may well be a summons, and that could be any time within the next 6 months or so.
Rude-boy said:
SS2. said:
The next correspondence the OPs receives in relation to this matter may well be a summons, and that could be any time within the next 6 months or so.
From reading this board I would suggest month 5, week 3 and 6 days...Red 4 said:
Irrelevant. Verbal NIP at the roadside wasn't it ?
6 months to lay the information ...
6 months to lay the information ...
SS2. said:
The officer warned the OP at the time that he might be prosecuted and, as such, there's no need for any further NIP or warning to be served within 14 days.
The next correspondence the OPs receives in relation to this matter may well be a summons, and that could be any time within the next 6 months or so.
The next correspondence the OPs receives in relation to this matter may well be a summons, and that could be any time within the next 6 months or so.
agtlaw said:
Schoolboy error. See 1(1)(a) RTOA 1988.
Calm down girls, throw me another egg to suck but I am referring to the Opening Post in which the cop himself mentions the 14 day period and wondered if the poor chap has had any contact ..... I`ve made my view clear earlier in the thread.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff