Speeding Charge (Scotland) - What To Do Next?
Discussion
deckster said:
Red Devil said:
jm doc said:
...this latest about camera vans on deserted highland roads.
Where in this thread has there been any mention of this? Definitely not the case for my friend btw: double crewed car.I accept it doesn't prove anything, but I have never seen one in 7 years of visiting such roads north and west of the A82.
vonhosen said:
jith said:
janesmith1950 said:
The relevant case law in Scotland is different to that in England and Wales, hence the comments in this thread on the matter.
To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
The problem I have with these stated cases is that the concept of danger based on speed is clearly an assumption. It is a very, very bad ruling. One of these cases involved the driver being pursued and stopped by a patrol car as opposed to a camera detection. The police were obviously travelling at greater speed than the accused to catch him, but it would appear the court decided that their greater speed was not dangerous, but the lesser of the accused was. The police do not have an exemption on dangerous driving, only on speed.To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
This ruling needs challenging to disprove the concept.
J
For instance, any member of the public who drove for twenty miles through heavy slow moving traffic on a single carriageway road, often offside of the road effectively filtering between the two opposing lanes of traffic & (safely) on numerous occasions to the right of keep left bollards, would be fairly certain to be found guilty of a Sec 2/3 RTA offence. A Police officer doing the same on blues & twos without any aggravating circumstances wouldn't be getting anywhere near a court.
J
jith said:
vonhosen said:
jith said:
janesmith1950 said:
The relevant case law in Scotland is different to that in England and Wales, hence the comments in this thread on the matter.
To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
The problem I have with these stated cases is that the concept of danger based on speed is clearly an assumption. It is a very, very bad ruling. One of these cases involved the driver being pursued and stopped by a patrol car as opposed to a camera detection. The police were obviously travelling at greater speed than the accused to catch him, but it would appear the court decided that their greater speed was not dangerous, but the lesser of the accused was. The police do not have an exemption on dangerous driving, only on speed.To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
This ruling needs challenging to disprove the concept.
J
For instance, any member of the public who drove for twenty miles through heavy slow moving traffic on a single carriageway road, often offside of the road effectively filtering between the two opposing lanes of traffic & (safely) on numerous occasions to the right of keep left bollards, would be fairly certain to be found guilty of a Sec 2/3 RTA offence. A Police officer doing the same on blues & twos without any aggravating circumstances wouldn't be getting anywhere near a court.
J
What results in a Sec 2/3 RTA by a member of the public, isn't necessarily going to result in a Police officer doing the same ending up in court.
jm doc said:
Red Devil said:
jm doc said:
...this latest about camera vans on deserted highland roads.
Where in this thread has there been any mention of this? Definitely not the case for my friend btw: double crewed car.I accept it doesn't prove anything, but I have never seen one in 7 years of visiting such roads north and west of the A82.
Red Devil said in reply
I don't have any stats on the accident rate but it's definitely the most likely place in the north west Highlands to be caught.*
The section west of Achanalt station has a disproportionate number of laybys where they can lie in wait. This one of their favourites.
Note the strategically placed bushes. wink - https://goo.gl/maps/dwAZ8QcKrQm
* Another is also on the A832 near Kinlochewe - https://goo.gl/maps/zNqzNXJum4m"
Apologies for the confusion on my part. I thought these were camera van locations.
jm doc said:
Is a double crewed car on these roads really any better??
Definitely imo. I would rather take my chances with having an on the spot conversation with a human being who is aware of all the circumstances and can apply immediate discretion, than just the output from a camera in a van operated by a faceless SSCP drone and the disposal decision then made by another one in a windowless room miles from where the alleged offence occurred.Just heard from a neighbour who got caught on a section of the A1 just entering Edinburgh where there's a 50mph limit. He was doing 83mph (on his Honda Bike) and has been reported for Dangerous Driving as well as speeding. His big mistake (he admits) was undertaking the unmarked BMW !
Cops told him he will most likely lose his license unless he can come up with serious mitigating factors (which he's unlikely to, since he works in an office and can get a bus door to door).
To say he's browned off would be an understatement.
Cops told him he will most likely lose his license unless he can come up with serious mitigating factors (which he's unlikely to, since he works in an office and can get a bus door to door).
To say he's browned off would be an understatement.
Am I the only person thinking "unmarked police car" and "driver showed me a speed gun device showing speed as 93MPH"
Every vehicle I've ever seen with speed detection equipment has always been very visible. Just find it a little odd, that an unmarked car would be used on a motorway or a dual carriageway, and deployed with a speed gun. Surely they use marked cars with VASCAR.
Odd.
Every vehicle I've ever seen with speed detection equipment has always been very visible. Just find it a little odd, that an unmarked car would be used on a motorway or a dual carriageway, and deployed with a speed gun. Surely they use marked cars with VASCAR.
Odd.
Edited by delboy735 on Saturday 2nd July 21:47
delboy735 said:
Am I the only person thinking "unmarked police car" and "driver showed me a speed gun device showing speed as 93MPH"
Every vehicle I've ever seen with speed detection equipment has always been very visible. Just find it a little odd, that an unmarked car would be used on a motorway or a dual carriageway, and deployed with a speed gun. Surely they use marked cars with VASCAR.
Odd.
I am absolutely certain that you would have seen lots of police vehicles with speed detection equipment while not realising for a moment that what you had seen was a police vehicle with speed detection equipment or indeed was a police vehicle.Every vehicle I've ever seen with speed detection equipment has always been very visible. Just find it a little odd, that an unmarked car would be used on a motorway or a dual carriageway, and deployed with a speed gun. Surely they use marked cars with VASCAR.
Odd.
Edited by delboy735 on Saturday 2nd July 21:47
Police use marked and unmarked with VASCAR and they operate the same vehicles with and without laser and radar equipment.
All police cars whether marked or unmarked are equipped with speed detection capability as I understand police cars are not exempt from having a speedometer.
grumpyscot said:
Just heard from a neighbour who got caught on a section of the A1 just entering Edinburgh where there's a 50mph limit. He was doing 83mph (on his Honda Bike) and has been reported for Dangerous Driving as well as speeding. His big mistake (he admits) was undertaking the unmarked BMW !
Cops told him he will most likely lose his license unless he can come up with serious mitigating factors (which he's unlikely to, since he works in an office and can get a bus door to door).
To say he's browned off would be an understatement.
He didn't undertake, he passed a car on the left that was in the wrong lane. Cops told him he will most likely lose his license unless he can come up with serious mitigating factors (which he's unlikely to, since he works in an office and can get a bus door to door).
To say he's browned off would be an understatement.
grumpyscot said:
Cops told him he will most likely lose his license unless he can come up with serious mitigating factors (which he's unlikely to, since he works in an office and can get a bus door to door).
To say he's browned off would be an understatement.
I have some good news for him. He doesn't have a license to lose.To say he's browned off would be an understatement.
tapereel said:
delboy735 said:
Am I the only person thinking "unmarked police car" and "driver showed me a speed gun device showing speed as 93MPH"
Every vehicle I've ever seen with speed detection equipment has always been very visible. Just find it a little odd, that an unmarked car would be used on a motorway or a dual carriageway, and deployed with a speed gun. Surely they use marked cars with VASCAR.
Odd.
I am absolutely certain that you would have seen lots of police vehicles with speed detection equipment while not realising for a moment that what you had seen was a police vehicle with speed detection equipment or indeed was a police vehicle.Every vehicle I've ever seen with speed detection equipment has always been very visible. Just find it a little odd, that an unmarked car would be used on a motorway or a dual carriageway, and deployed with a speed gun. Surely they use marked cars with VASCAR.
Odd.
Edited by delboy735 on Saturday 2nd July 21:47
Police use marked and unmarked with VASCAR and they operate the same vehicles with and without laser and radar equipment.
All police cars whether marked or unmarked are equipped with speed detection capability as I understand police cars are not exempt from having a speedometer.
Just think the OP has been bloody unlucky........or maybe even scammed ?
Oh, and I live in Scotland, and regularly see police out with "speed guns", but they are highly visible.....even from a distance. That being said, the East coast could be completely different
grumpyscot said:
Just heard from a neighbour who got caught on a section of the A1 just entering Edinburgh where there's a 50mph limit. He was doing 83mph (on his Honda Bike) and has been reported for Dangerous Driving as well as speeding. His big mistake (he admits) was undertaking the unmarked BMW !
Cops told him he will most likely lose his license unless he can come up with serious mitigating factors (which he's unlikely to, since he works in an office and can get a bus door to door).
To say he's browned off would be an understatement.
At first read - this sounds like over-zealous policing. But I don't know the full circumstances. Maybe your neighbour has been stopped before? The police could have stopped him, bCops told him he will most likely lose his license unless he can come up with serious mitigating factors (which he's unlikely to, since he works in an office and can get a bus door to door).
To say he's browned off would be an understatement.
ked him about his shoddy riding, warned him that it potentially weighed up to a DD charge and sent him on his way with just a fixed penalty for speeding. Just seems like massive overkill. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff