'No less than' 76 in a 50

[R8Steve]

Mr Trophy said:

OP I know the road very well.

Did you ask for proof of this speed?

Yes, i did. I was informed that there was no video evidence (despite being a video equipped car) and that the reading was taken via calibrated speedometer in the witness of the two officers and that was enough evidence to FPN.

As i say, if i was speeding, fair enough, i'll take the punishment but i know for a fact that a)i was not doing 76mph+ and b)the police car was not behind me at that time

[R8Steve]

Durzel said:

As regards your experience speeding aside I don't think it's particularly offensive to be asked questions that seek to ascertain whether you've stolen the car or not. You can take umbrage at that if you like but I'd much rather they be proactive in this way, and potentially catch stolen vehicles that the owner has not realised had been taken yet, even if it causes mild offence.

Ownership had been established via PNC check, affordability was questioned after the fact so not relevant

Durzel said:

As an aside I find it very hard to understand (I'm taking the OP account as read) people not having any kind of ID on them whatsoever. When I go to the gym I still have my wallet somewhere, or at least bank card in case of emergency or whatever.

It was very early morning, i’d been woken up by a phone call from a carer and thrown some clothes on to go. As i wasn’t expecting to get stopped and interrogated as to my identity i didn’t bother with wallet, etc. Appreciate it’s not the norm but it’s not that hard to understand given the circumstances

[Durzel]

Fair enough. Is it really that offensive that he asked what you did, even as idle curiosity? Is he not allowed to make any casual conversation? Assuming it was just idle curiosity could you not take it as flattering?

I don't mean to cause offence but I don't really understand why people seem to zealously seek out reasons to be offended rather than just getting on with their lives.

Incidentally for what it's worth I got pulled in a GTR a few years ago (legitimately, I had a very small front plate) and was asked how fast I had got out of it! Talk about entrapment!

[R8Steve]

Durzel said:

Fair enough. Is it really that offensive that he asked what you did, even as idle curiosity? Is he not allowed to make any casual conversation? Assuming it was just idle curiosity could you not take it as flattering?

I don't mean to cause offence but I don't really understand why people seem to zealously seek out reasons to be offended rather than just getting on with their lives.

Incidentally for what it's worth I got pulled in a GTR a few years ago (legitimately, I had a very small front plate) and was asked how fast I had got out of it! Talk about entrapment!

Don't get me wrong, the fact that he asked me doesn't particularly bother me and i'll get on with life no problem. I suppose you had to be there to understand it in context. The full stop from start to finish was truly unpleasant and obnoxious. The fact that i was getting blamed for doing 76mph when i wasn't didn't really set the tone well to start though to be honest!

[Pothole]

What are you planning to do?

[covboy]

Anther victim


"Ron Chestna 89 years of age was stopped by the police around 2 a.m. and was asked where he was going at that time of night .

Ron replied, "I'm on my way to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late."

The officer asked, "Really? Who's giving that lecture at this time of night?"

Ron replied, "That would be my wife."

[Rude-boy]

Questions sound PITA but all in the line of duty and not something I would get upset about, although I do appreciate that they are a ball ache. If it helps I got stopped so many times for being in cars 'above my station as a 17/18/19 year old' in the early 1990's so many times I lost count. It was hellishly tedious, especially when you find yourself talking to the same copper you were speaking to 3 days ago...

As for the speed. I am sorry to say that my 'bullst' detector is going off the scale based only on what has been written by you. Your problem is that it is highly likely, by your own admission, that you were speeding and that they also suspected this but just couldn't prove what speed you were doing so have gone for a nice easy 'catch all' that both officers will be able to corroborate each other on should you chose to contest. As we all know with the pressures of everyday life it is easier to take a FPN with the points and fine at that speed than it is to fight against it. Especially if you know that you were driving in excess of the posted limit anyway, it is just the amount above it that is in question.

[Durzel]

R8Steve said:

Don't get me wrong, the fact that he asked me doesn't particularly bother me and i'll get on with life no problem. I suppose you had to be there to understand it in context. The full stop from start to finish was truly unpleasant and obnoxious. The fact that i was getting blamed for doing 76mph when i wasn't didn't really set the tone well to start though to be honest!

You could fight it, but it sounds like it'll come down to your word against his. Perhaps what JustinP1 said might be of use.

I suspect if you refused the FPN you'd find a written account of how he followed you between two fixed points, had to do X to catch up, etc. His trained opinion will in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary be taken as gospel.

Unfortunately whilst "no less than 76mph" isn't a particularly strong statement I don't think it's fatal to any case. The crime is speeding, and the speed is an aggravating factor. If the court believes on the balance of probabilities that you were speeding, particularly on the testimony of someone who is assumed to be impartial, unemotional, trained and experienced, then that's the conclusion they'll likely reach. If you know you were speeding (and it sounds like you do) then you'd essentially be arguing a case on pure technical and/or credibility terms, which doesn't sound very strong to me.

IANAL though, just my 2p.

[R8Steve]

Pothole said:

What are you planning to do?

Bend over and take the 3 points and £100 fine while having a good rant about it to anyone that will listen for a week or so more probably.

It's more hassle than it's worth to fight it. Not the way it should be but there you go. I'll write it off against the loads times i actually have been speeding and haven't been caught i suppose.

Apologies, it's £100 now!

Edited by R8Steve on Friday 6th March 13:57

[R8Steve]

Durzel said:

R8Steve said:

Don't get me wrong, the fact that he asked me doesn't particularly bother me and i'll get on with life no problem. I suppose you had to be there to understand it in context. The full stop from start to finish was truly unpleasant and obnoxious. The fact that i was getting blamed for doing 76mph when i wasn't didn't really set the tone well to start though to be honest!

You could fight it, but it sounds like it'll come down to your word against his. Perhaps what JustinP1 said might be of use.

I suspect if you refused the FPN you'd find a written account of how he followed you between two fixed points, had to do X to catch up, etc. His trained opinion will in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary be taken as gospel.

Unfortunately whilst "no less than 76mph" isn't a particularly strong statement I don't think it's fatal to any case. The crime is speeding, and the speed is an aggravating factor. If the court believes on the balance of probabilities that you were speeding, particularly on the testimony of someone who is assumed to be impartial, unemotional, trained and experienced, then that's the conclusion they'll likely reach. If you know you were speeding (and it sounds like you do) then you'd essentially be arguing a case on pure technical and/or credibility terms, which doesn't sound very strong to me.

IANAL though, just my 2p.

Agreed, but in effect, i am pleading guilty to something i didn't do on this occasion.

When i say i was more than likely speeding i am saying i may have been doing approx 55mph. I know this as i had already slowed prior to the 50mph limit and drive this stretch of road hundreds of times a year.

Did i deserve an FPN, possibly. Did they need to effectively fabricate evidence to give me one, no. I find it quite concerning that they can however.

[BertBert]

R8Steve said:

Ownership had been established via PNC check, affordability was questioned after the fact so not relevant

Are you sure? If you say you are joe bloggs of "To the manor born" House and the car is owned by JB at that address, that is not conclusive that you are indeed JB. You could be the black sheep and TWOC'd the car from your bro for example.

So it is not necessarily unreasonable to go on asking qualifying questions.

It happened to me. Got stopped in my Evo. Middle aged guy in a suit having a mid-life crisis with a boy-race car. Loads of seemingly strange questions from the point of view of knowing it was my car and not stolen by me. Not knowing those as facts the questions were just fine. It's just policing, ask loads of open questions.

Bert

[Pixelpeep7r]

Got pulled up a couple of nights ago in the golf, had just gone round a roundabout and up the A12, i booted it off the roundabout for about 2 seconds but then went back into lane one. 2/3 seconds pass and then im aware of flashing blues just coming onto the a12. He eventually pulls up by the side of me telling me to pull off at the next junction.

They are in a diesel focus estate, 3 up.

'We had to boot it to catch up to you'

Well i had 1/4mile headstart and my car is a little quicker than yours - that was the response that flashed up in my head and i quickly dismissed for fear of failing the attitude test.

he said, you were traveling at 'well over' the speed limit and 'did i accept that'

I said no.

he said, we are not in the business of giving out tickets, just educating people

and then came the 'ive been to many accidents' etc

I can't help but think he was fishing for the possibility of me signing a FPN at the road side too.

[R8Steve]

Pixelpeep7r said:

Got pulled up a couple of nights ago in the golf, had just gone round a roundabout and up the A12, i booted it off the roundabout for about 2 seconds but then went back into lane one. 2/3 seconds pass and then im aware of flashing blues just coming onto the a12. He eventually pulls up by the side of me telling me to pull off at the next junction.

They are in a diesel focus estate, 3 up.

'We had to boot it to catch up to you'

Well i had 1/4mile headstart and my car is a little quicker than yours - that was the response that flashed up in my head and i quickly dismissed for fear of failing the attitude test.

he said, you were traveling at 'well over' the speed limit and 'did i accept that'

I said no.

he said, we are not in the business of giving out tickets, just educating people

and then came the 'ive been to many accidents' etc

I can't help but think he was fishing for the possibility of me signing a FPN at the road side too.

There was no fishing here unfortunately, the form was practically filled in by the time i got to the car

[R8Steve]

BertBert said:

R8Steve said:

Ownership had been established via PNC check, affordability was questioned after the fact so not relevant

Are you sure? If you say you are joe bloggs of "To the manor born" House and the car is owned by JB at that address, that is not conclusive that you are indeed JB. You could be the black sheep and TWOC'd the car from your bro for example.

So it is not necessarily unreasonable to go on asking qualifying questions.

It happened to me. Got stopped in my Evo. Middle aged guy in a suit having a mid-life crisis with a boy-race car. Loads of seemingly strange questions from the point of view of knowing it was my car and not stolen by me. Not knowing those as facts the questions were just fine. It's just policing, ask loads of open questions.

Bert

I take your point, if i've lied about who i am though it wouldn't be hard to make up an occupation. The fact that he made out that he was doing me a favour by letting me go on my way and not taken down to the station without ID i found the most odd.

[Pixelpeep7r]

R8Steve said:

There was no fishing here unfortunately, the form was practically filled in by the time i got to the car

Its a shame you accepted the FPN

have a read of this thread from 2013.

I was pulled over by a video car, no FPN offered, straight to court.

Never heard anything from it, clearly the CPS didn't agree with his evidence.

link to thread

[R8Steve]

Pixelpeep7r said:

R8Steve said:

There was no fishing here unfortunately, the form was practically filled in by the time i got to the car

Its a shame you accepted the FPN

have a read of this thread from 2013.

I was pulled over by a video car, no FPN offered, straight to court.

Never heard anything from it, clearly the CPS didn't agree with his evidence.

link to thread

I've not accepted it yet, i have 21 days to decide whether i wish to do so.

Do i want to go through the hassle of taking a day off work, hiring a solicitor, going to court, etc for a gamble on whether i win or not? No, probably not as that will all add up to about a grand in itself. As the policeman knows, i'll work this out and just pay it to avoid the hassle/cost. Sad but true.

[Rude-boy]

Pixelpeep7r said:

Its a shame you accepted the FPN

have a read of this thread from 2013.

I was pulled over by a video car, no FPN offered, straight to court.

Never heard anything from it, clearly the CPS didn't agree with his evidence.

link to thread

You have a very good point but there are a significant number of people who would rather take the pain of a fine and a few points over the days off for court, possible legal fees, and stress of such a case (and it is stressful, even if there is little more than a few affordable pounds to lose). Let us face it the alternative is that you are standing in a court room telling 1-3 people who have heard every excuse under the sun 1001 times that 2 Policemen are liars and are risking their pensions for bag a speeder...

[JustinP1]

R8Steve said:

As the policeman knows, i'll work this out and just pay it to avoid the hassle/cost. Sad but true.

It's true.

But it's more satisfying seeing them again to cross-examine them. One of them got in a right tissy when I got the chance, and the other gave an opposite account of the basic facts...

[julian64]

R8Steve said:

I agree that his job includes establishing ownership of the vehicle, no problem with this. Asking what i did to be able to afford to own it is idle curiosity on his part.

Honestly I think you're getting your knickers in a twist here. If someone had nicked your car and was stopped speeding you would hope the poilce would be asking questions to see how easily you answered them. Asking someone what they do for a living and fitting it to an expected income and then relating that to the car seems to be a reasonable thing to do.

Other than that if your car gets nicked and the scrote accidently gets pulled over for speeding you would be happy for the policeman to ask no questions for fear of making him feel awkward?

It would be tough for the police otherwise. Not allowed to profile based on age sex colour, now not allwoed to profile by asking questions!
Roll on star trek mind melding.

[R8Steve]

JustinP1 said:

One of them got in a right tissy when I got the chance, and the other gave an opposite account of the basic facts...

They will give the opposite account of the basic facts, that's the problem