Pulled for speeding - Question re in car video

Pulled for speeding - Question re in car video

Author
Discussion

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 7th March 2014
quotequote all
[quote=tehguy]

They don't need video evidence, the opinion of two officers alone (or just one if it's a motorway) is sufficient to convict. The point being that the police are supposed to be trusted people and there is no reason for them to lie. Why would they risk their jobs/freedom (perverting the course of justice is an imprisonable offence) just to secure a speeding conviction on someone they have never met before? They are not trying to fit you up.





it may well constitute perverting the course of justice,but in the realms of traffic offences i have never heard of any officer being convicted for it.

i have personally proven in court that two traffic officers lied in their written statements and all that happened was the case dropped.

pair of tts as they had me bang to rights on video ,and instead of just pushing on ahead with what they had tried to be smart arses and highlight a previous offence to the judge in their statement,which came back and bit them on the arse.both still serving officers.
as far as i am concerned if a police officer lies once in providing a statement or evidence he or she should be fired immediately.they can never be trusted to ever tell the truth again if they are willing to lie on ANY occasion,yet they are rarely sacked.

to the op,i would seriously consider at least talking to a specialist traffic lawyer. for one,you think you were speeding,but dont think by the amount stated.therefor ,you cannot plead guilty if you dont know what the actual speed was.
if you dont think it was 55,contest it. i had a similar incident in what i call a faux 30 limit,no paths,motorway size lights and only a 30 oppsed to a 40 due to a connected local with horse riding daughter who uses the 100 yard wide strip of grass on one side of the road to ride to a local club.

judge accepted my version of the speed which was 30mph LESS than alleged by the police,who amongst other things reckoned an LT 20 20 laser gun would flash between 2 speeds which they said was my speed and that of a car behind.
if i had known at the time that the laser gun in question would display an error message if picking up two different signals,that would have been another two proved to be lying in court.

these are obviously isolated incidents according to the poster i am quoting,because no traffic officers ever,ever tell lies. aye right.ps,i am in scotland,so accept there may be differences in how you plead etc down south.

ps ,sorry for ballsing up the quote,i am indeed stupid.

Corpulent Tosser

5,459 posts

244 months

Saturday 8th March 2014
quotequote all
Pixelpeep said:
Update:

Well, three months on from the original offence and nothing through the post. Yet.

:-/
You're not out of the woods yet but good luck.

Pooh

3,692 posts

252 months

Saturday 8th March 2014
quotequote all
ehguy said:
The point being that the police are supposed to be trusted people and there is no reason for them to lie. Why would they risk their jobs/freedom (perverting the course of justice is an imprisonable offence) just to secure a speeding conviction on someone they have never met before? They are not trying to fit you up.
Some police are quite happy to fit people up because they know that they will get away with it. Perhaps if like me, you had been on the receiving end of police officers fabricating evidence to secure a speeding conviction, you might have more of a clue about what you are on about.
I hope the op gets a just outcome in this case but I have little confidence in the police and legal system.

Edited by Pooh on Saturday 8th March 07:28

jith

2,752 posts

214 months

Saturday 8th March 2014
quotequote all
Pixelpeep said:
Update:

Well, three months on from the original offence and nothing through the post. Yet.

:-/
Let me suggest you read this and note that we won.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&...

Good luck,

J

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Saturday 8th March 2014
quotequote all
Durzel said:
The devil is in the detail really. If he was doing 55mph and not gaining on you, then by extension you must've been going at least this fast.

The question you might want to ask yourself is: would you want the video being shown in court? The notion that you weren't doing more than 40mph for 4 miles while he followed you is rather fantastical...
while ' i had to do 100 mph to catch you is widely treated with the disdain such hyperbole deserves , several minutes of video showing the officer not gaining on you despite the speeds recorded is rather more telling.

Pixelpeep

Original Poster:

8,600 posts

141 months

Wednesday 16th July 2014
quotequote all
Final update (hopefully) It's now more than 6 months after the offence and i still haven't had anything through the post.

Am i right in saying that's it now? - they have up to 6 months to start the ball rolling?

I must say if that is the case i am shocked, the time that officer took, the amount of paperwork he filled out he must have been pretty sure he had a case against me?


jbsportstech

5,069 posts

178 months

Wednesday 16th July 2014
quotequote all
Pixelpeep said:
Final update (hopefully) It's now more than 6 months after the offence and i still haven't had anything through the post.

Am i right in saying that's it now? - they have up to 6 months to start the ball rolling?

I must say if that is the case i am shocked, the time that officer took, the amount of paperwork he filled out he must have been pretty sure he had a case against me?
I think so however you were cautioned at the roadside I assume.


Very lucky unless you were going 35 and when the evidence was checked they found the cars equipment, calibrated speedo and advance police rpu driver to be incorrectly calibrated. Unusual but not unheard of.

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Wednesday 16th July 2014
quotequote all
Pixelpeep said:
Final update (hopefully) It's now more than 6 months after the offence and i still haven't had anything through the post.

Am i right in saying that's it now? - they have up to 6 months to start the ball rolling?

I must say if that is the case i am shocked, the time that officer took, the amount of paperwork he filled out he must have been pretty sure he had a case against me?
They have 6 months to give the court the file ('lay the information'). The court may take some time to process this and issue summons. It might be worth a call to the local magistrates court to see if an information has been laid.

aw51 121565

4,771 posts

232 months

Wednesday 16th July 2014
quotequote all
And in particular check the date the information was laid before the court wink .

This has to be within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence - the summons can land a couple of months later (so up to 8 months or so after the alleged offence), that's not unusual frown .

Foppo

2,344 posts

123 months

Wednesday 16th July 2014
quotequote all
About five years ago I got pulled over by the police.First they stated I went through a red which I did not.

I asked for video evidence and the answer was our word against yours.Three points 60 pounds fine.

Best to have a in car camara.A pair of arrogant tts.


Pixelpeep7r

Original Poster:

8,600 posts

141 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Pixelpeep said:
Final update (hopefully) It's now more than 6 months after the offence and i still haven't had anything through the post.

Am i right in saying that's it now? - they have up to 6 months to start the ball rolling?

I must say if that is the case i am shocked, the time that officer took, the amount of paperwork he filled out he must have been pretty sure he had a case against me?
Thought i would update again.

it is now 10 months since the original offence and i haven't heard a bean.

FurryExocet

3,011 posts

180 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Pixelpeep7r said:
Thought i would update again.

it is now 10 months since the original offence and i haven't heard a bean.
Then I doubt you will. There's some lucky sodd out there at the moment who is about to get off with a no insurance charge because the traffic process unit have failed to do their job within the 6 month limit, they gave me 3 days to write a statement, however I'm off work!

It happens a lot.

Centurion07

10,381 posts

246 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Pixelpeep7r said:
Thought i would update again.

it is now 10 months since the original offence and i haven't heard a bean.
Have you moved house in that time?

Pixelpeep7r

Original Poster:

8,600 posts

141 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Centurion07 said:
Pixelpeep7r said:
Thought i would update again.

it is now 10 months since the original offence and i haven't heard a bean.
Have you moved house in that time?
Nope.

James2593

570 posts

136 months

Saturday 1st November 2014
quotequote all
It seem as though you're in the clear OP. It's 6 months to lay the information, give a couple of months to set the date and send you a letter, say 8 or 9 months max, which it's been.

I'd take this as lesson learnt, with a nice, but lucky, escape.

Only speed where you are sure you can't (or very unlikely) to be caught.