Discussion
This morning I was coming back from Leven along the A127, Southend bound. Traffic in front of me, white van behind. The traffic in front eventually clears and I punched past (motorbike technique, accelerate past and then move over and back off again). I don't know exactly what speed but I wasn't exactly going for it (well except for the 3s or so sprint, foot to floor), as I was moving back in and slowing down I saw that the white van had moved over and what do I see..... A POLICE CRUISER. He belts up behind me and pulls in. Hovers there for a bit andthen pulled me over. Anyway he reckons he had to hit 110mph to catch me up... I'm gonna get reported but as he wasn't following me at speed, he only had to hit it to catch me... Oh bugger do we all think I may be f**ked? He didn't say a speed, only that I'd be reported for "Excessive use of speed".
Edited by V8Cerbera on Saturday 10th March 08:46
This whole "I had to do 110 mph to catch you up" stuff that I read on here is starting to do my head in - it's all to easy to say "well of course you did, because if you'd been doing 70 like me you'd have stayed the same distance behind, and if you'd done 150 you'd have caught me up in half the distance, but I'd still have only been doing 70..." Why do police do that? Is it a deliberate trained tactic to confuse the motorist and put him on the back foot? Or is it "if he argues he fails that attitude test and if he says nothing then he accepts that speed"? Why do they say it, it's totally meaningless.
Anyway back o/t, the unfortunate thing is that if in the police officer's opinion it was "excessive use of speed" then I would think it's very difficult to argue, especially if you were that far over the limit to reduce the "time exposed to danger". Perhaps it depends on what speed the rest of the convoy was doing - if they were well below the speed limit then there might be a better case.
I'm not criticising you at all, I would probaably have done the same to pass a slow moving convoy of the "No Overtaking Club", it's just bad luck sometimes.
Anyway back o/t, the unfortunate thing is that if in the police officer's opinion it was "excessive use of speed" then I would think it's very difficult to argue, especially if you were that far over the limit to reduce the "time exposed to danger". Perhaps it depends on what speed the rest of the convoy was doing - if they were well below the speed limit then there might be a better case.
I'm not criticising you at all, I would probaably have done the same to pass a slow moving convoy of the "No Overtaking Club", it's just bad luck sometimes.
It would be interesting to see if the police white van speedo had been calibrated.
If it turns pear shaped, might be worth asking the question as thought it was only the traffic patrol cars that had their speedos regularly calibrated and checked for accuracy.
Could well be wrong here?
Good luck.
If it turns pear shaped, might be worth asking the question as thought it was only the traffic patrol cars that had their speedos regularly calibrated and checked for accuracy.
Could well be wrong here?
Good luck.
b2tus said:
It would be interesting to see if the police white van speedo had been calibrated.
If it turns pear shaped, might be worth asking the question as thought it was only the traffic patrol cars that had their speedos regularly calibrated and checked for accuracy.
Could well be wrong here?
Good luck.
If it turns pear shaped, might be worth asking the question as thought it was only the traffic patrol cars that had their speedos regularly calibrated and checked for accuracy.
Could well be wrong here?
Good luck.
That might be why he's being reported for "excessive use of speed" (based on officer's opinion) rather than "speeding at xx miles per hour" (requires calibrated speedo)? If the former then caibrated speedo not required.
Seems to me that they'd find it difficult to say what speed you were doing so how can they prove it was excessive? They may report you to their senior officer but he might decide not to take it further on the basis of lack of evidence. Did they give you a ticket or ask for papers? If not I reckon they were probably trying to scare you.
Edited by cerberowner on Friday 9th March 11:56
pies said:
Is there an actual offence of "Excessive use of speed" ? 
Yes there is, and they don't have to show what the speed was, or even that it was measured - simply that in the opinion of a police officer you were going too fast for the prevailing conditions. You might not even be breaking the speed limit.
For example, 28mph past a primary school at closing time with a narrow road and kids all over the place - you're not "speeding" but your speed is excessive for the conditions. In their judgement. Solely. Defend it in court if you want to.
It wasn't a police van, it was a cruiser (omega estate) tucked up behind the van that unleashed his gas pedal to catch me up after I'd already gotten a good head start and was backing off to complete the manouvre. I told me that his "calibrated on a daily basis" speedo had registered 110 while he drove to catch me up but did not say that I'd be done for doing that speed, just that he considered that my speed during the manourvre, which he would have heard part of and seen the rest of before taking off like a greyhound to catch my already slowing car.
To55er said: "you didn't even look in your rear view before nailing it did you? I'm in a marked car". To which I replied "yes I did, there was a white van, which I presume you were behind, a cavalier and an escort in the inside lane just a little further back".
EDIT: After following me for half a mile or so, he then indicated for me to pull into a turning, which even from 70mph caused me to have to almost do an emergency stop to get into, which IMO was more dangerous than the move I'd made to overtake the slow brigade.
To55er said: "you didn't even look in your rear view before nailing it did you? I'm in a marked car". To which I replied "yes I did, there was a white van, which I presume you were behind, a cavalier and an escort in the inside lane just a little further back".
EDIT: After following me for half a mile or so, he then indicated for me to pull into a turning, which even from 70mph caused me to have to almost do an emergency stop to get into, which IMO was more dangerous than the move I'd made to overtake the slow brigade.
Edited by V8Cerbera on Friday 9th March 12:32
Did he take your details down? Did he say that you would be reported? If you are, then they have to send out the Notice of Intended Prosecution to you within 14 days. If they do and you want to, defend the case.
It will be your word against the policeman's. If he was alone, there is no one to corroborate his evidence.
Did he have a calibrated speedometer? If so, when was it last calibrated? Can the police prove evidence of calibration.
Even if they can, did he follow you for at least 2/10ths of a mile at the same distance as you to check you speed?
I think that he just watched from behind, saw that you had a powerful car and made a guess.
Remember that you do not have to prove that you were innocent. The prosecution has to prove that you are guily beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. so that the Court is sure. I suspect that they may not be able to do that in this case.
Will the policeman even turn up to give evidence? If not, the case is lost. How many times will the case have to be adjourned to allow him to turn up, because he is on night-shifts? In such circumstances the prosecution may just give up.
I suspect that the prosecution would not bring the case because the evidence is too flmsy.
It will be your word against the policeman's. If he was alone, there is no one to corroborate his evidence.
Did he have a calibrated speedometer? If so, when was it last calibrated? Can the police prove evidence of calibration.
Even if they can, did he follow you for at least 2/10ths of a mile at the same distance as you to check you speed?
I think that he just watched from behind, saw that you had a powerful car and made a guess.
Remember that you do not have to prove that you were innocent. The prosecution has to prove that you are guily beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. so that the Court is sure. I suspect that they may not be able to do that in this case.
Will the policeman even turn up to give evidence? If not, the case is lost. How many times will the case have to be adjourned to allow him to turn up, because he is on night-shifts? In such circumstances the prosecution may just give up.
I suspect that the prosecution would not bring the case because the evidence is too flmsy.
you may want to post in speed plod & law forum too. u may just get a letter to be more careful in future etc. IANAL though
edited to add www.pepipoo.co.uk is often recommended
edited to add www.pepipoo.co.uk is often recommended
Edited by Phone_Monkey on Friday 9th March 12:50
Griffter said:
My opinion has no basis in law, but here it is:
First of all, he 'saw' all this through a van did he?
Then he goes and does the very same thing. Just how excessive (ie inappropriate) was your speed if he was justified in carrying out the same manoeuvre moments later?
Good luck...
First of all, he 'saw' all this through a van did he?
Then he goes and does the very same thing. Just how excessive (ie inappropriate) was your speed if he was justified in carrying out the same manoeuvre moments later?
Good luck...
He repeated the same manouvre and at far greater speed in order to catch you up, and all without the use of blues & twos? What would his argument be to a barrister "I was driving within safe limits of road conditions at that time" "well, so was my client, and HE didn't break the speed limit". Case over i would have thought?
I had something very similar in a courtesy car, except mine was going round an island too fast in their opinion.
They didn't have enough to take me to court BUT they offered me a days driving tuition to help me become a safer driver. It cost £150 and i then had a warning. If i refused, it would go to court, where if found guilty they would double my penalty (points and fine) to reflect the fact I didnt take the easy option.
When i went on the course I found EVERY single person except me had had a crash, and had found to be driving like a tw*t. The course instructor could not believe I had been sent on the course for what I did and also for not having an accident by dangerous/crap driving.
Presumably they have asked you to take your details into the local nick?
I think you just have to wait and see but I'm sure you have to sign some ticket for the charge ie excessive use of speed and that you will be contacted direct
They didn't have enough to take me to court BUT they offered me a days driving tuition to help me become a safer driver. It cost £150 and i then had a warning. If i refused, it would go to court, where if found guilty they would double my penalty (points and fine) to reflect the fact I didnt take the easy option.
When i went on the course I found EVERY single person except me had had a crash, and had found to be driving like a tw*t. The course instructor could not believe I had been sent on the course for what I did and also for not having an accident by dangerous/crap driving.
Presumably they have asked you to take your details into the local nick?
I think you just have to wait and see but I'm sure you have to sign some ticket for the charge ie excessive use of speed and that you will be contacted direct
From what i was told by a traffic officer on a drunken night out....
1)if they are on their own and dont have it on video, they wont take action unless its some ludicrous speed
even more so if you have a witness in your car...
2)If they are not traffic cops you will get a producer at most.
If there is any doubt as to who was doing what, the CPS will throw it out.
This is the typical kind of speel you get from them when they are NOT going to take action.
I personally think you are in the clear IMHO
I have had plenty of dealings with the police on the right side and the wrong side of the law.
1)if they are on their own and dont have it on video, they wont take action unless its some ludicrous speed
even more so if you have a witness in your car...
2)If they are not traffic cops you will get a producer at most.
If there is any doubt as to who was doing what, the CPS will throw it out.
tvrgit said:
This whole "I had to do 110 mph to catch you up" stuff that I read on here is starting to do my head in - it's all to easy to say "well of course you did, because if you'd been doing 70 like me you'd have stayed the same distance behind, and if you'd done 150 you'd have caught me up in half the distance, but I'd still have only been doing 70..." Why do police do that? Is it a deliberate trained tactic to confuse the motorist and put him on the back foot? Or is it "if he argues he fails that attitude test and if he says nothing then he accepts that speed"? Why do they say it, it's totally meaningless.
This is the typical kind of speel you get from them when they are NOT going to take action.
I personally think you are in the clear IMHO
I have had plenty of dealings with the police on the right side and the wrong side of the law.
Edited by garethgtt on Friday 9th March 13:21
unfortunately, most of the "but surely" comments on the thread don't hold. All the Bib needs is his opinion that you were speeding and to have it corroborated. If his opinion was that you were 2mph over the limit, then the corroboration would have to be very accurate. If his opinion is that you were 30mph over the limit, then the corroboration of a normal speedo will do. If they decide to prosecute, then you will most probably lose especially as by your own admission you were doing that speed. You would need the help of a technicality to win. I think you will probably find you had a verbal NIP, you'll need to wait 6 months to see if anything happens.
Bert (don't shoot the messenger)
Bert (don't shoot the messenger)
If you were doing 90 to 95 when slowing down and pulling in you more than likely doing over 100 at maximum acceleration on a very busy A127. Personally I think you are very lucky not to get prosecuted and banned, so whatever you get take it on the chin. Reading between the lines i guess they were not to sure of your speed due to the white van man obstructing their view.
I accelerated flat out for a few seconds and then backed off, having got past the slow cars, he could not have followed at the same speed, even in a vauxhall omega, howsoever tuned (I checked his speedo when he pointed it out). He was over 100 yards behind and would probably heard the blast from my exhaust before the van moved and he saw the final part of my move, where I would have been backing off.
When he got up behind me I was doing 70 (I'd given the handbrake a brief tug), now given the crapness of cerbera handbrakes, I'd have never have slowed from 110+ to 70 in that time, but he would also not have seen brake lights, which would indicate that I did not have to slam the anchors on to get back to the speed limit before he reached me. He could also not stand up in court and say he saw brake lights.
He was alone.
He took my details, advised of an intention to report and that a summons would arrive in 2 to 6 weeks.
He gave me no paperwork whatsoever on the roadside, however he did PNC me and my details to see if I was telling the truth.
When he got up behind me I was doing 70 (I'd given the handbrake a brief tug), now given the crapness of cerbera handbrakes, I'd have never have slowed from 110+ to 70 in that time, but he would also not have seen brake lights, which would indicate that I did not have to slam the anchors on to get back to the speed limit before he reached me. He could also not stand up in court and say he saw brake lights.
He was alone.
He took my details, advised of an intention to report and that a summons would arrive in 2 to 6 weeks.
He gave me no paperwork whatsoever on the roadside, however he did PNC me and my details to see if I was telling the truth.
Edited by V8Cerbera on Saturday 10th March 08:48
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff