calibrated speedometers
Discussion
I would ask the mods on this forum to read this post carefully and consider making it a sticky to allow time for appropriate feedback on it; even if it is just on a temporary basis.
I have been asked yet again to defend someone who is accused of speeding on the basis of the reading on a calibrated speedometer. This is a practice I have always been concerned over, but is now occurring with increasing frequency, but in circumstances that are totally unacceptable. To let you understand I will give you a bit of background on how this is done, and why it was replaced by much more accurate and evidentially acceptable methods.
In the days before VASCAR when the speedo was the only in-car device for the police to use it took the form of a large mechanical device situated, in the case of a Jaguar for example, in the glove box lid directly in front of the passenger. It was manufactured by Smiths or British Jaeger and very precisely calibrated on the bench before being fitted to the vehicle and was checked before and after every shift by the officers in charge of the vehicle using an extremely accurate stop watch on a measured mile. The driver's speedometer was also calibrated, but situated in the normal place in the binnacle.
The technique of using this device was to pursue a vehicle that was thought to be speeding and maintain a precise distance between the police vehicle and the pursued vehicle for a legal minimum of two tenths of a mile. The reading on both speedos would then be corroborated by the officers and the passenger would push a trip button on the calibrated speedometer that would freeze the reading. This reading could then be shown to the accused as the evidence of his speed.
In reality of course, it is a very accurately measured reading of the police vehicle's speed and nothing else. It is assumed that it is the accused's speed if the two vehicles were travelling at exactly the same speed and distance apart. This can only be taken from the testimony of the two officers, something of which there is no material evidence whatever, only spoken testimony.
As time went on it became evident that this was no longer acceptable, particularly in the light of the advancements in technology, and this actually became the subject of much debate and many trials in court. This is a link to an all night sitting of the House of Commons on the 26th of July, 1979 when Mr. Peter Snape, the member for West Bromwich East raised concerns over the methods and accuracy of certain detection equipment the police were using at that time.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1979/ju...
This makes extremely interesting reading, but relative to the assertions here is the remarks at section 1118 by the then Minister for State Leon Brittan who states, "In modern traffic conditions it is no longer practical to follow a speeding vehicle for a reasonable distance while checking its speed on an accurately calibrated speedometer." Bearing in mind that this remark was made in 1979, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is much more difficult today.
With the advent of VASCAR, a device was available that, at least theoretically, could give a much more accurate reading without the requirement for the police vehicle to be kept at any particular distance or indeed even to be moving at all in order to acquire a speed reading for the target vehicle. But sadly, there was a snag in this also. In order for VASCAR to be utilised accurately, particularly whilst on the move, it requires precise observation of datum points for input and output for both vehicles, and the actions required to do so are manually operated.
So we had reached a point where the police have the ability to more accurately calculate speed and show the calculation to the accused in the police vehicle on the VDU of the VASCAR system, but it required correct operation and the calculated result could be manipulated by simply pushing the buttons at the incorrect or inappropriate time.
Finally along came Provida, a lightweight video recording system that is directly linked to the VASCAR unit and shows an image of the police vehicle's speed, the pursued vehicle, and the calculation as it is made complete with audio inputs as the particular buttons are being pushed. This then provides wholly acceptable evidence, because for the first time the police could stand up in court and verify their statements absolutely. But importantly, the defence also had the means whereby they could question any unreasonable claims of for example, careless driving and also erroneous calculations in the process of speed detection.
The cases I have become involved in recently are those where the police have stopped a driver and accused them of speeding in a fully equipped, usually unmarked traffic car, and they have switched off all the equipment and implied that they detected the speed using a calibrated speedometer.
This is not a post about dishonest policemen or what has been accepted by lower courts as evidence of speeding in the past, it is simply a question of what is now acceptable in the eyes of the public as a method of prosecution. Why would a police officer or, in cases in Scotland two officers, switch off all the detection equipment in a modern police vehicle and attempt to rely on a fifty year old method to gain a prosecution? These officers have a duty of care to use ALL of the equipment that has been developed at great cost to the taxpayer to ensure that both accuracy and integrity in material evidence is presented to the accused and the courts.
Here is a case that bears remarkable similarities to the one I am defending at the moment, but is from 2008.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/community/Forums...
It occurred on the same motorway and the vehicle used, contrary to what the poster thinks actually does have full equipment, including Provida. Once again, why would the police do this? It is clearly not acceptable to the poster, as it is not acceptable to every single person I have addressed with these cases. In this case the target vehicle is a motorcycle, and it takes virtually no imagination to realise that it is almost an impossibility to maintain a constant distance behind a bike such as this one to get an accurate reading. The detected reading, according to the police was exactly 100 MPH. I can reveal that the alleged detected reading in the case I am defending strangely enough is precisely the same.
Most of these cases if defended come before magistrates. These judges, without any legal precedent or statute whatever, are following their own guidelines and banning at 100 MPH. The requirement therefore for accuracy in the detected readings has never been greater. Even if you are guilty of exceeding the limit, it is vital that the extent of the contravention is accurately recorded. The practice of throwing the clock back fifty years and switching off the means of accruing video evidence is not acceptable by any standards, and leaves the police wide open to accusations of incompetence and dishonesty. It must stop now.
I would like to hear comments from everyone with a vested interest in this, whether you be a police officer or a driver who is or has been accused of speeding by this method. I want to build a portfolio of these cases and present them to members of parliament with a view to having legislation introduced to strictly control the method by which evidence of speeding is accrued by police vehicles.
If you want to comment as a police officer, please be objective and attempt to view this as a member of the public does. If you want to remain anonymous you can e mail me direct, I will guarantee your anonymity.
I have been asked yet again to defend someone who is accused of speeding on the basis of the reading on a calibrated speedometer. This is a practice I have always been concerned over, but is now occurring with increasing frequency, but in circumstances that are totally unacceptable. To let you understand I will give you a bit of background on how this is done, and why it was replaced by much more accurate and evidentially acceptable methods.
In the days before VASCAR when the speedo was the only in-car device for the police to use it took the form of a large mechanical device situated, in the case of a Jaguar for example, in the glove box lid directly in front of the passenger. It was manufactured by Smiths or British Jaeger and very precisely calibrated on the bench before being fitted to the vehicle and was checked before and after every shift by the officers in charge of the vehicle using an extremely accurate stop watch on a measured mile. The driver's speedometer was also calibrated, but situated in the normal place in the binnacle.
The technique of using this device was to pursue a vehicle that was thought to be speeding and maintain a precise distance between the police vehicle and the pursued vehicle for a legal minimum of two tenths of a mile. The reading on both speedos would then be corroborated by the officers and the passenger would push a trip button on the calibrated speedometer that would freeze the reading. This reading could then be shown to the accused as the evidence of his speed.
In reality of course, it is a very accurately measured reading of the police vehicle's speed and nothing else. It is assumed that it is the accused's speed if the two vehicles were travelling at exactly the same speed and distance apart. This can only be taken from the testimony of the two officers, something of which there is no material evidence whatever, only spoken testimony.
As time went on it became evident that this was no longer acceptable, particularly in the light of the advancements in technology, and this actually became the subject of much debate and many trials in court. This is a link to an all night sitting of the House of Commons on the 26th of July, 1979 when Mr. Peter Snape, the member for West Bromwich East raised concerns over the methods and accuracy of certain detection equipment the police were using at that time.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1979/ju...
This makes extremely interesting reading, but relative to the assertions here is the remarks at section 1118 by the then Minister for State Leon Brittan who states, "In modern traffic conditions it is no longer practical to follow a speeding vehicle for a reasonable distance while checking its speed on an accurately calibrated speedometer." Bearing in mind that this remark was made in 1979, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is much more difficult today.
With the advent of VASCAR, a device was available that, at least theoretically, could give a much more accurate reading without the requirement for the police vehicle to be kept at any particular distance or indeed even to be moving at all in order to acquire a speed reading for the target vehicle. But sadly, there was a snag in this also. In order for VASCAR to be utilised accurately, particularly whilst on the move, it requires precise observation of datum points for input and output for both vehicles, and the actions required to do so are manually operated.
So we had reached a point where the police have the ability to more accurately calculate speed and show the calculation to the accused in the police vehicle on the VDU of the VASCAR system, but it required correct operation and the calculated result could be manipulated by simply pushing the buttons at the incorrect or inappropriate time.
Finally along came Provida, a lightweight video recording system that is directly linked to the VASCAR unit and shows an image of the police vehicle's speed, the pursued vehicle, and the calculation as it is made complete with audio inputs as the particular buttons are being pushed. This then provides wholly acceptable evidence, because for the first time the police could stand up in court and verify their statements absolutely. But importantly, the defence also had the means whereby they could question any unreasonable claims of for example, careless driving and also erroneous calculations in the process of speed detection.
The cases I have become involved in recently are those where the police have stopped a driver and accused them of speeding in a fully equipped, usually unmarked traffic car, and they have switched off all the equipment and implied that they detected the speed using a calibrated speedometer.
This is not a post about dishonest policemen or what has been accepted by lower courts as evidence of speeding in the past, it is simply a question of what is now acceptable in the eyes of the public as a method of prosecution. Why would a police officer or, in cases in Scotland two officers, switch off all the detection equipment in a modern police vehicle and attempt to rely on a fifty year old method to gain a prosecution? These officers have a duty of care to use ALL of the equipment that has been developed at great cost to the taxpayer to ensure that both accuracy and integrity in material evidence is presented to the accused and the courts.
Here is a case that bears remarkable similarities to the one I am defending at the moment, but is from 2008.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/community/Forums...
It occurred on the same motorway and the vehicle used, contrary to what the poster thinks actually does have full equipment, including Provida. Once again, why would the police do this? It is clearly not acceptable to the poster, as it is not acceptable to every single person I have addressed with these cases. In this case the target vehicle is a motorcycle, and it takes virtually no imagination to realise that it is almost an impossibility to maintain a constant distance behind a bike such as this one to get an accurate reading. The detected reading, according to the police was exactly 100 MPH. I can reveal that the alleged detected reading in the case I am defending strangely enough is precisely the same.
Most of these cases if defended come before magistrates. These judges, without any legal precedent or statute whatever, are following their own guidelines and banning at 100 MPH. The requirement therefore for accuracy in the detected readings has never been greater. Even if you are guilty of exceeding the limit, it is vital that the extent of the contravention is accurately recorded. The practice of throwing the clock back fifty years and switching off the means of accruing video evidence is not acceptable by any standards, and leaves the police wide open to accusations of incompetence and dishonesty. It must stop now.
I would like to hear comments from everyone with a vested interest in this, whether you be a police officer or a driver who is or has been accused of speeding by this method. I want to build a portfolio of these cases and present them to members of parliament with a view to having legislation introduced to strictly control the method by which evidence of speeding is accrued by police vehicles.
If you want to comment as a police officer, please be objective and attempt to view this as a member of the public does. If you want to remain anonymous you can e mail me direct, I will guarantee your anonymity.
Edited by jith on Wednesday 11th November 12:39
The majority of Police vehicles are neither equipped with VASCAR or PILOT, that should not exclude them from dealing with offences where they are apparent & they have sufficient evidence.
In any case where they are available but are not used, it is a matter that the defence are at liberty to question in court as to why not.
Spoken testimony is accepted for what it is (& is often good enough) in a court for assaults etc. Why should it not be OK in traffic matters in those circumstances ?
I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.
Not only is a calibrated speedo & witness testimony acceptable evidence, so is (& should be) an un-calibrated speedo where the margin is not small.
It is up to the court to judge the veracity/accuracy of the evidence in traffic cases & weight it accordingly, just like it is with any other case.
In any case where they are available but are not used, it is a matter that the defence are at liberty to question in court as to why not.
Spoken testimony is accepted for what it is (& is often good enough) in a court for assaults etc. Why should it not be OK in traffic matters in those circumstances ?
I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.
Not only is a calibrated speedo & witness testimony acceptable evidence, so is (& should be) an un-calibrated speedo where the margin is not small.
It is up to the court to judge the veracity/accuracy of the evidence in traffic cases & weight it accordingly, just like it is with any other case.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th April 19:41
Calibrated separate speedo in glove box. That's a new one on me. (20 years service 1979 to 1999).
Traffic cars I drove had had the vehicle's own speedo calibrated at the IRS (Instrument Repair Service) which was I think in Nottingham.
Speedo would subsequently be checked over one of the measured 1/2 miles at 30 & 60 against a certificated stop watch. Prior to (and after) using Muniquip KGP or Pro-laser the devices would be checked against the vehicle speedo reading, the vehicle having been checked by us on the 1/2 mile.
The ex Lincs Police Ford Granada I owned in the early 80's had a sticker on the vehicle's speedo with when & where it was calibrated by the IRS. (purely out of personal interest I did check it over the distance & it was accurate)
VASCAR was fitted to very few vehicles, I was not trained in its use - I do know how it could be used - & therefore never used it.
Those I did for speeding by following them were quite at liberty to challenge in court but nobody ever did. Possibly because I never usually bothered reporting anyone who wasn't way over the limit. I would add that I usually recorded that their speed varied between x & y, the only times I had a particular speed was when using a device that froze the display when the trigger was operated.
I have also on a couple of occasions reported people by evidence of opinion - which required the opinion of two officers, my crewmate & I - & they weren't challenged either, but the alternative for those would have been a report for low flying!
Traffic cars I drove had had the vehicle's own speedo calibrated at the IRS (Instrument Repair Service) which was I think in Nottingham.
Speedo would subsequently be checked over one of the measured 1/2 miles at 30 & 60 against a certificated stop watch. Prior to (and after) using Muniquip KGP or Pro-laser the devices would be checked against the vehicle speedo reading, the vehicle having been checked by us on the 1/2 mile.
The ex Lincs Police Ford Granada I owned in the early 80's had a sticker on the vehicle's speedo with when & where it was calibrated by the IRS. (purely out of personal interest I did check it over the distance & it was accurate)
VASCAR was fitted to very few vehicles, I was not trained in its use - I do know how it could be used - & therefore never used it.
Those I did for speeding by following them were quite at liberty to challenge in court but nobody ever did. Possibly because I never usually bothered reporting anyone who wasn't way over the limit. I would add that I usually recorded that their speed varied between x & y, the only times I had a particular speed was when using a device that froze the display when the trigger was operated.
I have also on a couple of occasions reported people by evidence of opinion - which required the opinion of two officers, my crewmate & I - & they weren't challenged either, but the alternative for those would have been a report for low flying!
Edited by paintman on Sunday 26th April 20:05
paintman said:
I have also on a couple of occasions reported people by evidence of opinion - which required the opinion of two officers, my crewmate & I - & they weren't challenged either, but the alternative for those would have been a report for low flying!
Hmmm.Edited by paintman on Sunday 26th April 20:05
Yes your honour, the defendant was in my opinion speeding, at a speed I would estimate to be in excess of 80 MPH.
I noted the vehicle following following me, and checked my speedometer, and I was actually travelling at 70 MPH.
Would it really go any further?
Can evidence by opinion really get to court? because that just seems to be so wrong!
paintman said:
Calibrated separate speedo in glove box. That's a new one on me. (20 years service 1979 to 1999).
Traffic cars I drove had had the vehicle's own speedo calibrated at the IRS (Instrument Repair Service) which was I think in Nottingham.
Speedo would subsequently be checked over one of the measured 1/2 miles at 30 & 60 against a certificated stop watch. Prior to (and after) using Muniquip KGP or Pro-laser the devices would be checked against the vehicle speedo reading, the vehicle having been checked by us on the 1/2 mile.
The ex Lincs Police Ford Granada I owned in the early 80's had a sticker on the vehicle's speedo with when & where it was calibrated by the IRS. (purely out of personal interest I did check it over the distance & it was accurate)
VASCAR was fitted to very few vehicles, I was not trained in its use - I do know how it could be used - & therefore never used it.
Those I did for speeding by following them were quite at liberty to challenge in court but nobody ever did. Possibly because I never usually bothered reporting anyone who wasn't way over the limit. I would add that I usually recorded that their speed varied between x & y, the only times I had a particular speed was when using a device that froze the display when the trigger was operated.
I have also on a couple of occasions reported people by evidence of opinion - which required the opinion of two officers, my crewmate & I - & they weren't challenged either, but the alternative for those would have been a report for low flying!
Thanks for your input paintman. The calibrated speedo was fitted to the glove box lid which in the case of the Jaguars I worked on was locked in the closed position. It weas therefore very easy to remove it for re-calibration in the event of new tyres, gearbox, etc.Traffic cars I drove had had the vehicle's own speedo calibrated at the IRS (Instrument Repair Service) which was I think in Nottingham.
Speedo would subsequently be checked over one of the measured 1/2 miles at 30 & 60 against a certificated stop watch. Prior to (and after) using Muniquip KGP or Pro-laser the devices would be checked against the vehicle speedo reading, the vehicle having been checked by us on the 1/2 mile.
The ex Lincs Police Ford Granada I owned in the early 80's had a sticker on the vehicle's speedo with when & where it was calibrated by the IRS. (purely out of personal interest I did check it over the distance & it was accurate)
VASCAR was fitted to very few vehicles, I was not trained in its use - I do know how it could be used - & therefore never used it.
Those I did for speeding by following them were quite at liberty to challenge in court but nobody ever did. Possibly because I never usually bothered reporting anyone who wasn't way over the limit. I would add that I usually recorded that their speed varied between x & y, the only times I had a particular speed was when using a device that froze the display when the trigger was operated.
I have also on a couple of occasions reported people by evidence of opinion - which required the opinion of two officers, my crewmate & I - & they weren't challenged either, but the alternative for those would have been a report for low flying!
Edited by paintman on Sunday 26th April 20:05
delboy735 said:
paintman said:
I have also on a couple of occasions reported people by evidence of opinion - which required the opinion of two officers, my crewmate & I - & they weren't challenged either, but the alternative for those would have been a report for low flying!
Hmmm.Edited by paintman on Sunday 26th April 20:05
Yes your honour, the defendant was in my opinion speeding, at a speed I would estimate to be in excess of 80 MPH.
I noted the vehicle following following me, and checked my speedometer, and I was actually travelling at 70 MPH.
Would it really go any further?
Can evidence by opinion really get to court? because that just seems to be so wrong!
And just to clarify, I've never driven a pencil either
It is actually very easy, especially on motorway class roads, to follow another vehicle at a constant distance over a period of time. We are not talking about a few miles an hour over the limit and the evidence would typically be; I followed the vehicle (index) for (distance) at a constant distance of approximately ? metres. The vehicle speeds were between x mph and y mph, being mainly at z mph.
The IRS calibrated speedo is very accurate and there are many reasons why vascar or similar is not used. The operator is not certified or it is out of calibration time, typically 1 week.
The IRS calibrated speedo is very accurate and there are many reasons why vascar or similar is not used. The operator is not certified or it is out of calibration time, typically 1 week.
Who me said:
[quote=GFO875
The operator is not certified or it is out of calibration time, typically 1 week.
OUT OF CALIBRATION TIME/NOT CERTIFIED ??/?? ------SO EITHER THE PERSON DOING THE CHECKS IS NOT QUALIFIED OR THE KIT IS NOT CALIBRATED - WWWWW TTTTT FFFFF The operator is not certified or it is out of calibration time, typically 1 week.
I did actually spend two days with a Traffic officer a while back, and he spent a small part of that time with an LTI2020 at a genuine problem site; I had to giggle though as the only person who was caught exceeding his very generous threshold did so in the few minutes when I was having a play with the device, and (as I'm not trained to use it) received nothing more than words of advice
Edited by Mad Dave on Monday 27th April 11:34
In all my years on Traffic including driving Jags I never came across the dual speedo system described. In fact this is the first time I have heard of it.
Instructions to us was to allow at least 2.10th of a mile on follow after having settled down to a constant distance. This can be observed by counting the white lines but not neccessary as it is obvious whether you are catching up and in fact we observed the contrary...let then pull ahead slightly so that our speed would be lower than actual. Our evidence would state max and min recorded but there were the odd times when a constant was there.
Despite what was said by Leon Brittan and the greedy crew at H of L/H of C the law has not been changed on speeding. Corroboration required and a speedo alone plus officer still sufficient. What VH has posted is correct.
Personally I think straws are being clutched at to get a client off. There is no law that states what device should be used or if one fitted no other method can be brought into play.
dvd
Instructions to us was to allow at least 2.10th of a mile on follow after having settled down to a constant distance. This can be observed by counting the white lines but not neccessary as it is obvious whether you are catching up and in fact we observed the contrary...let then pull ahead slightly so that our speed would be lower than actual. Our evidence would state max and min recorded but there were the odd times when a constant was there.
Despite what was said by Leon Brittan and the greedy crew at H of L/H of C the law has not been changed on speeding. Corroboration required and a speedo alone plus officer still sufficient. What VH has posted is correct.
Personally I think straws are being clutched at to get a client off. There is no law that states what device should be used or if one fitted no other method can be brought into play.
dvd
I have been accused of speeding based on this. 80 in a 60 zone. That's in km/h by the way.
I know for a fact my speed over reads (64 in a 60 zone, proven) and the most my speedo ever said was 68, therefore ~63/64 in a 60 zone.
When questioned about the accuracy of his reading the police officer stated that "Ford calibrate them at the factory and we don't need to prove anything else".
Anything which puts one person at the mercy of anothers statement, without any corroborating evidence is not a healthy process to ensure a police force that is answerable to it's actions.
I know for a fact my speed over reads (64 in a 60 zone, proven) and the most my speedo ever said was 68, therefore ~63/64 in a 60 zone.
When questioned about the accuracy of his reading the police officer stated that "Ford calibrate them at the factory and we don't need to prove anything else".
Anything which puts one person at the mercy of anothers statement, without any corroborating evidence is not a healthy process to ensure a police force that is answerable to it's actions.
vonhosen said:
The majority of Police vehicles are neither equipped with VASCAR or PILOT, that should not exclude them from dealing with offences where they are apparent & they have sufficient evidence.
In any case where they are available but are not used, it is a matter that the defence are at liberty to question in court as to why not.
Spoken testimony is accepted for what it is (& is often good enough) in a court for assaults etc. Why should it not be OK in traffic matters in those circumstances ?
I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.
Not only is a calibrated speedo & witness testimony acceptable evidence, so is (& should be) an un-calibrated speedo where the margin is not small.
It is up to the court to judge the veracity/accuracy of the evidence in traffic cases & weight it accordingly, just like it is with any other case.
How often does the judge tell the witness that their evidence is just too convincing, and not backed up with other means of corroboration?In any case where they are available but are not used, it is a matter that the defence are at liberty to question in court as to why not.
Spoken testimony is accepted for what it is (& is often good enough) in a court for assaults etc. Why should it not be OK in traffic matters in those circumstances ?
I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.
Not only is a calibrated speedo & witness testimony acceptable evidence, so is (& should be) an un-calibrated speedo where the margin is not small.
It is up to the court to judge the veracity/accuracy of the evidence in traffic cases & weight it accordingly, just like it is with any other case.
I was thinking of similar circumstances to this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1114067/Ro...
Dwight VanDriver said:
In all my years on Traffic including driving Jags I never came across the dual speedo system described. In fact this is the first time I have heard of it.
I distinctly remember this being an option on the earlier Range Rovers, in the form of an extra speedo 'pod' on top of the dash.I'm sure a similar system was in place on the BMW bikes 20yrs or so ago.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Personally I think straws are being clutched at to get a client off. There is no law that states what device should be used or if one fitted no other method can be brought into play.
dvd
No one should "get off" a speeding offence, and nor am I defending those who exceed the posted limit by a huge margin. The issue is that current sentancing guidance to magistrates seems be based on bands of speed above the limit and it is therefore important to get the speed accurate since a 5 mph (or less) difference in the reported alleged vehicle speed makes such a difference to the outcome for the offending party. dvd
One has to question why, if the OP is correct, officers are reporting opinion based evidence when they have more accurate independent means at their disposal. Why wouldn't they use the higher grade evidence available - a cynic may consider that they do not consider that the punishment fits the overall crime and in that case can we please have Gene Hunt in charge because they are heading down the way to the bad old days.
I'm a great believer in being able to do the time if I'm going to do the crime, but the crime I'm found guilty of better be the one I actually did.
Edited for spellink by Collectingbrass on Monday 27th April 10:20
Edited by Collectingbrass on Monday 27th April 10:21
Dwight VanDriver said:
In all my years on Traffic including driving Jags I never came across the dual speedo system described. In fact this is the first time I have heard of it.
Instructions to us was to allow at least 2.10th of a mile on follow after having settled down to a constant distance. This can be observed by counting the white lines but not neccessary as it is obvious whether you are catching up and in fact we observed the contrary...let then pull ahead slightly so that our speed would be lower than actual. Our evidence would state max and min recorded but there were the odd times when a constant was there.
Despite what was said by Leon Brittan and the greedy crew at H of L/H of C the law has not been changed on speeding. Corroboration required and a speedo alone plus officer still sufficient. What VH has posted is correct.
Personally I think straws are being clutched at to get a client off. There is no law that states what device should be used or if one fitted no other method can be brought into play.
dvd
One of the important issues here DVD is the evidential difference between Scotland and England. In Scotland corroboration MUST be between two officers or an officer and a civilian. A single officer is not permitted to use equipment as corroboration. Even when Provida is used, there must be the testimonies also of the two officers. I could not swear to it, but I think we can assume that the dual speedo system was probably only used in Scotland due to the evidential requirement.Instructions to us was to allow at least 2.10th of a mile on follow after having settled down to a constant distance. This can be observed by counting the white lines but not neccessary as it is obvious whether you are catching up and in fact we observed the contrary...let then pull ahead slightly so that our speed would be lower than actual. Our evidence would state max and min recorded but there were the odd times when a constant was there.
Despite what was said by Leon Brittan and the greedy crew at H of L/H of C the law has not been changed on speeding. Corroboration required and a speedo alone plus officer still sufficient. What VH has posted is correct.
Personally I think straws are being clutched at to get a client off. There is no law that states what device should be used or if one fitted no other method can be brought into play.
dvd
This brings us to what is now acceptable, not when you and I were lads DVD, but now. If you permit the current practice of one officer and a calibrated speedometer, there is not only no material evidence, but the concept of using the speedometer as corroboration only exists in the officer's head, he cannot prove it. In real terms therefore there is no corroboration.
We have argued this point before and vonhosen has raised it. That is the comparison between an officer's spoken testimony in an assault case and that of a speeding case using a speedometer. In the case of an assault there is always material evidence to corroborate the very existence of the crime: a weapon, the victim's wounds, DNA from the victim on the accused, etc. In cases of assaults in busy places there are often many other witnesses, and in most cases the police did not actually witness the crime, they are there after the complaint is made. In the case of one officer and a speedo he has utterly nothing to show the court, absolutely not a thing.
I'm sorry DVD, there would be no hope of conviction in genuine criminal cases with such flimsy evidence, none whatever. Yet the lower courts and officers like yourself seem to think it is acceptable because it is a motoring offence. The penalties now are far too draconian to allow this to continue.
Point taken jith re Scottish requirements in relation to corroboration.
>>>>>I'm sorry DVD, there would be no hope of conviction in genuine criminal cases with such flimsy evidence, none whatever. Yet the lower courts and officers like yourself seem to think it is acceptable because it is a motoring offence. The penalties now are far too draconian to allow this to continue.<<<<
In this you are advocating a change in the law to prescribe how speeders should be prosecuted. Again I have no difficulty in accepting that if an officer sees a vehicle apparentlty travelling in excess of the limit (and it can be done visually) using the calibrated speedo to confirm and the device later checked to prove accuracy by stop watch/measured mile and gives evidence on oath what further evidence is required. Or are you actually saying all Plods using this method are liars?
It's a system that has been used since the early 1900's and accepted. Perhaps it is so good that Solicitors have to come up with other points away from the main argument to discredit. The only way I can see to satisfy ( and its not a dig) is to have Specs throughout the land, something certainly I do not want.
I even hate gatso's and prefer the 'follow' method as a Plod on my tail
will feature in my rear view mirror and time to ease off.
Rgds
dvd
>>>>>I'm sorry DVD, there would be no hope of conviction in genuine criminal cases with such flimsy evidence, none whatever. Yet the lower courts and officers like yourself seem to think it is acceptable because it is a motoring offence. The penalties now are far too draconian to allow this to continue.<<<<
In this you are advocating a change in the law to prescribe how speeders should be prosecuted. Again I have no difficulty in accepting that if an officer sees a vehicle apparentlty travelling in excess of the limit (and it can be done visually) using the calibrated speedo to confirm and the device later checked to prove accuracy by stop watch/measured mile and gives evidence on oath what further evidence is required. Or are you actually saying all Plods using this method are liars?
It's a system that has been used since the early 1900's and accepted. Perhaps it is so good that Solicitors have to come up with other points away from the main argument to discredit. The only way I can see to satisfy ( and its not a dig) is to have Specs throughout the land, something certainly I do not want.
I even hate gatso's and prefer the 'follow' method as a Plod on my tail
will feature in my rear view mirror and time to ease off.
Rgds
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
Point taken jith re Scottish requirements in relation to corroboration.
>>>>>I'm sorry DVD, there would be no hope of conviction in genuine criminal cases with such flimsy evidence, none whatever. Yet the lower courts and officers like yourself seem to think it is acceptable because it is a motoring offence. The penalties now are far too draconian to allow this to continue.<<<<
In this you are advocating a change in the law to prescribe how speeders should be prosecuted. Again I have no difficulty in accepting that if an officer sees a vehicle apparentlty travelling in excess of the limit (and it can be done visually) using the calibrated speedo to confirm and the device later checked to prove accuracy by stop watch/measured mile and gives evidence on oath what further evidence is required. Or are you actually saying all Plods using this method are liars?
It's a system that has been used since the early 1900's and accepted. Perhaps it is so good that Solicitors have to come up with other points away from the main argument to discredit. The only way I can see to satisfy ( and its not a dig) is to have Specs throughout the land, something certainly I do not want.
I even hate gatso's and prefer the 'follow' method as a Plod on my tail
will feature in my rear view mirror and time to ease off.
Rgds
dvd
DVD I think you are missing the point. The op isnt accusing all plod of being liars what he is saying is, there is a loophole that could be abused by unscrupulous officers to get a conviction due to lack of evidence/accountability. Ie less than decent officer feels aggrieved by the actions of a motorist who hasnt actually commited an offence but officer "makes up" a speeding offence to get revenge and it is virtually impossible for the member of public to fight it as the officers word is accepted as evidence enough of the offence.>>>>>I'm sorry DVD, there would be no hope of conviction in genuine criminal cases with such flimsy evidence, none whatever. Yet the lower courts and officers like yourself seem to think it is acceptable because it is a motoring offence. The penalties now are far too draconian to allow this to continue.<<<<
In this you are advocating a change in the law to prescribe how speeders should be prosecuted. Again I have no difficulty in accepting that if an officer sees a vehicle apparentlty travelling in excess of the limit (and it can be done visually) using the calibrated speedo to confirm and the device later checked to prove accuracy by stop watch/measured mile and gives evidence on oath what further evidence is required. Or are you actually saying all Plods using this method are liars?
It's a system that has been used since the early 1900's and accepted. Perhaps it is so good that Solicitors have to come up with other points away from the main argument to discredit. The only way I can see to satisfy ( and its not a dig) is to have Specs throughout the land, something certainly I do not want.
I even hate gatso's and prefer the 'follow' method as a Plod on my tail
will feature in my rear view mirror and time to ease off.
Rgds
dvd
This is indeed a dangerous precedent to set. There should always be clear evidence of an offence.
I dont believe he is arguing the use of the follow on system at all what he is arguing the use of unsubstantiated/evidenced methods to obtain a conviction.
jith said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
In all my years on Traffic including driving Jags I never came across the dual speedo system described. In fact this is the first time I have heard of it.
Instructions to us was to allow at least 2.10th of a mile on follow after having settled down to a constant distance. This can be observed by counting the white lines but not neccessary as it is obvious whether you are catching up and in fact we observed the contrary...let then pull ahead slightly so that our speed would be lower than actual. Our evidence would state max and min recorded but there were the odd times when a constant was there.
Despite what was said by Leon Brittan and the greedy crew at H of L/H of C the law has not been changed on speeding. Corroboration required and a speedo alone plus officer still sufficient. What VH has posted is correct.
Personally I think straws are being clutched at to get a client off. There is no law that states what device should be used or if one fitted no other method can be brought into play.
dvd
One of the important issues here DVD is the evidential difference between Scotland and England. In Scotland corroboration MUST be between two officers or an officer and a civilian. A single officer is not permitted to use equipment as corroboration. Even when Provida is used, there must be the testimonies also of the two officers. I could not swear to it, but I think we can assume that the dual speedo system was probably only used in Scotland due to the evidential requirement.Instructions to us was to allow at least 2.10th of a mile on follow after having settled down to a constant distance. This can be observed by counting the white lines but not neccessary as it is obvious whether you are catching up and in fact we observed the contrary...let then pull ahead slightly so that our speed would be lower than actual. Our evidence would state max and min recorded but there were the odd times when a constant was there.
Despite what was said by Leon Brittan and the greedy crew at H of L/H of C the law has not been changed on speeding. Corroboration required and a speedo alone plus officer still sufficient. What VH has posted is correct.
Personally I think straws are being clutched at to get a client off. There is no law that states what device should be used or if one fitted no other method can be brought into play.
dvd
This brings us to what is now acceptable, not when you and I were lads DVD, but now. If you permit the current practice of one officer and a calibrated speedometer, there is not only no material evidence, but the concept of using the speedometer as corroboration only exists in the officer's head, he cannot prove it. In real terms therefore there is no corroboration.
We have argued this point before and vonhosen has raised it. That is the comparison between an officer's spoken testimony in an assault case and that of a speeding case using a speedometer. In the case of an assault there is always material evidence to corroborate the very existence of the crime: a weapon, the victim's wounds, DNA from the victim on the accused, etc. In cases of assaults in busy places there are often many other witnesses, and in most cases the police did not actually witness the crime, they are there after the complaint is made. In the case of one officer and a speedo he has utterly nothing to show the court, absolutely not a thing.
I'm sorry DVD, there would be no hope of conviction in genuine criminal cases with such flimsy evidence, none whatever. Yet the lower courts and officers like yourself seem to think it is acceptable because it is a motoring offence. The penalties now are far too draconian to allow this to continue.
Police officer sees male throw brick throw window in early hours of the morning (no CCTV, no forensics, no independent witnesses) & you think he wouldn't get charged ?
Again the only thing linking the accused to the damage is the Police officer's testimony.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 28th April 00:18
Through all of that I can't help but get the feeling that your tactic is simply to try and discredit the police, stopping just short of directly calling them liars and to put down the mags as in your opinion they don't know what they are talking about.
I note that through your post you steer clear of saying that your client claims to be innocent or that you believe them to be. 30mph is not a small margin.
You ask for police officers to view it through the eyes of a member of the public, I would ask the type of people you represent to view it through my eyes and take responsibility for their own actions, because I have wasted enough time that could have been better spent, filling out reports on how their broken bodies ended up lying on the carriageway after the high speed ride has went wrong.
I note that through your post you steer clear of saying that your client claims to be innocent or that you believe them to be. 30mph is not a small margin.
You ask for police officers to view it through the eyes of a member of the public, I would ask the type of people you represent to view it through my eyes and take responsibility for their own actions, because I have wasted enough time that could have been better spent, filling out reports on how their broken bodies ended up lying on the carriageway after the high speed ride has went wrong.
In speeding offences accepted evidence is from
1. Opinion of two officers who saw the vehicle being driven.
2. One officer supported by approved speed detection device.
3. Approved speed detection cameras.
4. One officer supported by calibrated police vehicle speedometer.
In 1,3&4 the officers opinion is corroborated by either other officers or mechanical means.
About the only way I can see any of them no longer being accepted by the courts would be a change in the law. Anything else just strikes me as wishful thinking.
1. Opinion of two officers who saw the vehicle being driven.
2. One officer supported by approved speed detection device.
3. Approved speed detection cameras.
4. One officer supported by calibrated police vehicle speedometer.
In 1,3&4 the officers opinion is corroborated by either other officers or mechanical means.
About the only way I can see any of them no longer being accepted by the courts would be a change in the law. Anything else just strikes me as wishful thinking.
Edited by paintman on Tuesday 28th April 00:30
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff