Caught Speeding by Bike Cop

Caught Speeding by Bike Cop

Author
Discussion

youngsyr

14,694 posts

191 months

Monday 18th August 2014
quotequote all
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

Original Poster:

235 posts

149 months

Monday 18th August 2014
quotequote all
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.
Defo not on the side of the road, pulled out onto the road I was on and must have been behind me (playing catch up to the metallic rasp from the M3 exhaust) for a very short period at which point I was already braking. Could be he was doing 75mph to get to me?? When pulled over though the last thing on my mind was wanting to argue with a policeman.

youngsyr

14,694 posts

191 months

Monday 18th August 2014
quotequote all
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.
Defo not on the side of the road, pulled out onto the road I was on and must have been behind me (playing catch up to the metallic rasp from the M3 exhaust) for a very short period at which point I was already braking. Could be he was doing 75mph to get to me?? When pulled over though the last thing on my mind was wanting to argue with a policeman.
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.

Edited by youngsyr on Monday 18th August 21:54

CGJJ

857 posts

123 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
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.





Edited by Rahul uk on Monday 18th August 19:57
It seems to me,if i my reading comprehension is correct that you are not being prosecuted for speeding but careless driving.
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

cb31

1,135 posts

135 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
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.

youngsyr

14,694 posts

191 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
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.
Any justice system relies on the assumption that its officers are honest. If you start assuming that its officers are dishonest, then the whole system falls down.

Disastrous

10,072 posts

216 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
MM93 said:
Maybe you should retake your test it you are not aware of the speed you are doing..
Maybe you should stop stroking-off at the prospect of getting on your high-horse?

Why do these threads attract such complete throbbers?

FuryExocet

3,011 posts

180 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
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.

Edited by youngsyr on Monday 18th August 21:54
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

sideways20vT

163 posts

185 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
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".


CGJJ

857 posts

123 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
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.



Edited by CGJJ on Wednesday 20th August 13:51

youngsyr

14,694 posts

191 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
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.

Edited by youngsyr on Monday 18th August 21:54
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
My point is that the bike isn't keeping pace with the Evo - both vehicles are braking into the 40 mph zone at different rates (the Evo driver said he didn't brake as hard as he could because he didn't want the bike to rear end him) - the bike clearly closes the gap into the 40 mph zone.

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.

iggletiggle

1,380 posts

184 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
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.




Edited by Rahul uk on Monday 18th August 19:57
It seems to me,if i my reading comprehension is correct that you are not being prosecuted for speeding but careless driving.
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
This..

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

2,191 posts

167 months

Thursday 11th September 2014
quotequote all
So OP , we are well past the 14 day period. Heard anything ?

Red 4

10,744 posts

186 months

Thursday 11th September 2014
quotequote all
Far Cough said:
So OP , we are well past the 14 day period. Heard anything ?
Irrelevant. Verbal NIP at the roadside wasn't it ?

6 months to lay the information ...

SS2.

14,455 posts

237 months

Thursday 11th September 2014
quotequote all
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.

agtlaw

6,680 posts

205 months

Thursday 11th September 2014
quotequote all
Far Cough said:
So OP , we are well past the 14 day period. Heard anything ?
Schoolboy error. See 1(1)(a) RTOA 1988.

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Thursday 11th September 2014
quotequote all
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...

jhfozzy

1,345 posts

189 months

Thursday 11th September 2014
quotequote all
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...
Yep, in 2001 I was caught by a mobile camera, NIP came out of the blue in December, I returned it the next day and received my court summons almost exactly six months later in May 2002. Really thought they had forgotten about me too. frown

Far Cough

2,191 posts

167 months

Thursday 11th September 2014
quotequote all
Red 4 said:
Irrelevant. Verbal NIP at the roadside wasn't it ?

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.
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.