Pulled for speeding - Question re in car video

[Pixelpeep]

Hello - not going to get into the nitty gritty as not strictly relevant for the question

I was pulled yesterday by an unmarked car who had been following me for roughly 4 miles on non motorway roads and he invites me into his car to watch the video.

No part of the video shows a 'target' speed, just the speed of the unmarked police car. the section of road where he said i was committing the offence you cant even see my car until he reaches me at a roundabout.

From doing a little research i see that speeding is the opinion of the officer, which is backed up by either another officer (not present) or by a speed measuring device.

As my speed wasn't locked or measured between two points all there is is the speed the police car was traveling to back up the officers claim

The section of road, although straight has a down hill section (enough for him to lose sight of me) and also the entrance to the road is a full right handed turn at a set of lights which i entered far faster than the police car did.

So, he starts his comparison from how fast he has to go, once the right hand turn was complete to start to gain on me and then keep a level distance?

He is claiming 55 in a 30 hence no offer of fixed penalty but a summons

i do think i was above the speed limit, but not by that much - does anyone think i could question the accuracy of his reading based on the fact that i got round the corner quicker, therefore was already making ground and the fact that at some points he couldn't actually see me to know if he was gaining ?

[Pixelpeep]

herewego said:

Was 55 the max speed that showed on his speedo?

Yes, at no point did it go above 55 (GPS speed readout overlaid onto the video)

re does the speed make a difference - yes, massively. According to the magistrates court sentencing guidelines;

31-40 in a 30 - 3 points & small fine
41-50 in a 30 - 4-6 points or 7-28 day disqualification & medium fine
51-60 in a 30 - 7-56 day disqualification or 6 points & large fine

i can't be sure re speed, but if i had to guess i would say 40

[Pixelpeep]

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.

but it wasn't over the same distance - i was already a fair way down the road due to the speed difference in taking the corner and how fast i accelerated into the road - the police car did not have the same capabilities as my car therefore would have to go faster to catch up sooner ?

Durzel said:

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...

He followed me for 4 miles and is using the footage of our last 0.5 miles as the offence. - clearly this was the 'best' evidence of speeding he had captured in the entire time he had been following me.

the whole route was through backroads and country roads, most 30mph, some 50mph but the one he stopped me on was the first 0.5 miles of a 30 coming from a 50.

[Pixelpeep]

SS2. said:

A statement from the officer that he corroborated your speed using his own speedometer could be sufficient evidence to convict - there is no requirement for a video, nor for the speedo to be calibrated (or even tested).

thats for the offence of speeding - but it's the method he used to work out how fast i was going that i am questioning.

Yes, i was speeding, but i wasn't doing XX speed kind of thing.

How can nothing more than a guess based on nothing scientific be sufficient to 'prove' it was 55mph ?

[Pixelpeep]

thank you for all the replies.

I will update when i get the paperwork through.

[Pixelpeep]

Snowboy said:

REALIST123 said:

But he has said, more than once, that he wasn't doing 55mph.

Has he?
He said the police car wasn't doing more than 55, but I don't recall him mentioning his speed.

If I was a cynic I might suggest that the OP was speeding, and knows it, but is arguing against the proof, not against the crime.

Pixelpeep said:

i can't be sure re speed, but if i had to guess i would say 40

I have already said i am pretty sure i was above the speed limit, but not 55mph as claimed.

[Pixelpeep]

tehguy said:

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.

I am not suggesting they are, although if its so hard for me to prove otherwise the risk to them re losing their jobs is almost non-existent so to secure a conviction one MIGHT add 10mph to their initial 'opinion' ?

Whilst i understand the attitude test and have never been rude or aggressive when being questioned this does highlight the fact that if the officer wanted to, they could make life harder for the suspect, through various powers that are available to them (is this proper justice?)

tehguy said:

You can of course plead not guilty and opt for a Newton hearing, where you admit you are speeding but contest the actual speed. Don't forget, the offence is the same, the speed just determines the level of punishment. The court cannot offer you a speed awareness course or a fixed penalty so all you will be trying to reduce is the points and fine, if they accept that you were doing 50 instead of 55 in a 40 then the outcome will most likely be the same anyway, but you'll have wasted a lot more money by going to court because you'll have to pay costs too.

so what's the point? is that what you're asking? - how about the truth? i find it quite offensive that i have to go so far out of my way financially and mentally try and prove the offence wasn't as severe as first alleged.

tehguy said:

Follow-checks can be done over as little as 1/8 of a mile and they don't need to utilise the equipment fully in order to do it, a trained officer using a stopwatch and a calibrated speedometer is sufficient. If he drove at a constant speed and was not gaining on you, then you were obviously travelling at more than that speed.

there was no stopwatch, there was no constant speed there was no constant distance. when he entered the half mile stretch of road and accelerated to catch me i was already half way down it due to his extremely low entry speed into the road.

Why would he accelerate to 55mph and then stop trying to catch me? if i was doing over that he would have kept trying to match my speed, for a proper calculation?

tehguy said:

You'll have a very tough time fighting this, considering you don't actually have ANY evidence at all that you weren't doing 55mph, except for thinking that you weren't (which a court will not accept as evidence).

but i can question their method of speed calculation - as i believe it is wrong.

[Pixelpeep]

Rude-boy said:

CoolHands said:

everyone thought you were drunk when you posted that topic, but apparently not!

I'm going with head injury or mates dicking about with their profile at the minute...

have i missed something?!

[Pixelpeep]

Rude-boy said:

You, nope, not so far as I am aware.

Sillycone chap though appears to have a hole in the bottom of the bag that once held his marbles though.

I checked the thread, and to quote penny from BBT, "Oh, honey, the buses don't go where you live, do they?" springs to mind!

[Pixelpeep]

blindswelledrat said:

Pixelpeep, I had very similar a few years ago, where a policeman claimed I was doing 60 in a 30 from sight when I know I wasn't. But even though it went to court the charge was still only exceeding the speed limit. WHat charge have they given you? I don't see how, in this circumstance, the charge can be 55 mph because they have no way to prove that you were doing any specific speed.

FYI at the time I felt equally angered at the situation and decided to fight it and the conduct of the officers was appalling. A specialist solicitor laughed when I gave him the details and cited a reason their case didn't stand a chance (although that reason was nothing that I had even thought about). He did say that my rationale was irrelevant and to prove my thoughts would be too expensive to even consider. I also got my costs paid so its definitely worth a quick conversation with one as if they think you have a decent case then it could be free
And no, sorry, I cant remember the solicitors I used

I haven't had the paperwork through yet but i believe it will be excess speed but at the thick end of the scale - hence the straight to summons approach (over 50mph in a 30)

From what i understand, it is only their opinion that is needed, any video or photographic evidence is just there to back up their opinion to avoid any legal challenges.

I have a solicitor in mind who i have already spoken to and am just waiting for the paperwork to send over to them to see what (if any) case i have.

[Pixelpeep]

blindswelledrat said:

Good luck. Despite the "you were speeding, suck it up" sentiment I know exactly how you feel.
It's one thing holding your hands up to something you have done, but completely another if that thing has been exaggerated and is incorrect.

Thank you. It's rare on PH to find someone who can see through all the 'easy targets' in a post and actually empathise. - quite surprised by this thread actually, some really good, positive and understanding replies.

I will suck it up, absolutely, but i will fight to get a fair punishment for the actual offence i committed.

[Pixelpeep]

Update:

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

:-/

[Pixelpeep]

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?

[Pixelpeep7r]

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.

[Pixelpeep7r]

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.