'No less than' 76 in a 50

[R8Steve]

I was travelling along the M8 heading towards JCT 17 (50 mph zone) at approx 2.30am last week. As i took the cut off and stopped at traffic lights a traffic car pulled up behind me and put the lights on. I was asked if i knew why i’d been stopped to which I replied no and was informed it was for speeding. Fair enough, I possibly was, what speed? ‘No less than 76mph’ was the reply.

Few points to note here –
There was 100% no car tailing me within visibility at the point where he claims i was doing that speed.
I asked what junction he came on at and was informed JCT 15, for him to get up to speed from that junction to then record a constant speed isn't possible.
Is writing ‘at a speed no less than 76mph’ common practice? It hardly fills me with confidence that they know what I was doing at all. He may have been doing 76mph to catch up perhaps.

We then went through a rather irritating rigmarole of him questioning who’s car it was, why I was out at this time in the morning, what did i work as to afford a car like that, etc, etc. He then asked for ID which i didn’t have (this wasn’t a planned journey, i was out in my gym stuff so had no wallet, etc), I was then quizzed as to how he could be sure I am who I say I am and if we could not establish my identity we may have to go down the station – this did annoy me as there is no way I could do that nor for that matter do we legally have to carry ID cards about...yet!

After about 15 mins, PNC and person check he eventually decided all was well, gave me an FPN and sent me on my way.

I’m not moaning about the FPN, if i was speeding fair enough, the way it was handled however was out of order IMO.

Has anyone received a speeding ticket with ‘no less than’ before?

[R8Steve]

Pothole said:

Why did you say you possibly were speeding?

I am saying that now, i didn't say that to the person that stopped me.

[R8Steve]

Pothole said:

R8Steve said:

Pothole said:

Why did you say you possibly were speeding?

I am saying that now, i didn't say that to the person that stopped me.

OK. I didn't get that from what you wrote.

On reading it back it isn't clear to be fair, my only response was asking what speed.

[R8Steve]

JustinP1 said:

Speak to agtlaw on here, he's a motoring specialist solicitor.

He's very good.

Many moons ago I helped a PHer fight a charge like this. As it transpired, and when the statement came through, there was no way they could have done a follow check, he pled not guilty, defended himself and won. I'm not a pro though, and I suggest you get professional advice!

What can happen is a gamble for the police officer. I may get flamed for this, but I have been in the same situation being in a nice car.

No evidence to actually convict you with, but have a quick chase, pull him over, see if he admits, if he doesn't there's a 99% chance he'll accept the FPN which will make formally writing down what the evidence is unnecessary.

The problem arises when that evidence is actually tested. If you want to fight it though, although I've never used him, I've read a lot of his posts on here, agtlaw is your man.

Interesting, thanks for this. I was more irritated about the full ID and afforability questions than the speeding FPN to be honest.

Do i believe i was going over 50? Possibly, but not by much. Do i believe i was going more than 76mph? 100% no.

[R8Steve]

AyBee said:

Out in gym kit at 2:30am?

I had to go and attend to a relative that had fallen ill, it was the quickest thing available to throw on. I wasn't actually going to the gym.

[R8Steve]

Jasandjules said:

R8Steve said:

We then went through a rather irritating rigmarole of him questioning who’s car it was, why I was out at this time in the morning, what did i work as to afford a car like that, etc, etc. He then asked for ID which i didn’t have (this wasn’t a planned journey, i was out in my gym stuff so had no wallet, etc), I was then quizzed as to how he could be sure I am who I say I am and if we could not establish my identity we may have to go down the station – this did annoy me as there is no way I could do that nor for that matter do we legally have to carry ID cards about...yet!

I've had this several times. But it helps the officer ascertain if you've nicked it. Not been asked my job but certainly why I am out at 2am and so on..

It's a bit of a pointless conversation though, i could give my full details which in turn would correspond to the PNC check on the car/myself. Asking me to provide further details to that is a waste of time. Apart from telling him that i was actually me what was i meant to do, phone my parents? I'm not sure about how going down to the station would help either as they still wouldn't know who i was down there!

[R8Steve]

SK425 said:

R8Steve said:

Interesting, thanks for this. I was more irritated about the full ID and afforability questions than the speeding FPN to be honest.

The questions themselves don't seem that unreasonable. I certainly don't want to live in a world where we're forced to carry ID at all times and happily, we don't live in that world (at least we don't in our part of the world). So "No" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, "Have you got some ID on you?". But that's not the same as saying that when the police suspect someone of committing an offence, the suspect should be allowed to go free if they happen not to have any ID on them. Of course the police are going to want to establish whether you are who you say you are.

And if you were driving a nice car, it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to wonder whether it was yours. People nick nice cars, and when they do, they sometimes drive them fast. So I'm not surprised they wanted to establish that you hadn't stolen it.

I fully accept that the manner in which such questions are asked could be irritating.

The problem was here is that "No" was not a reasonable answer to the question. He insisted on more which i could not (and i'd imagine a lot of others couldn't) provide. I often wonder how a lot of people afford things that they have...i certainly don't question them as to how they can though, it's none of my business neither should it be any of a police officers. Fair enough, establish ownership, but query how i could afford said ownership, no.

[R8Steve]

SK425 said:

R8Steve said:

I often wonder how a lot of people afford things that they have...i certainly don't question them as to how they can though, it's none of my business neither should it be any of a police officers.

But the police officer isn't just wondering with idle curiosity like you would - they have a job to do. I'm in no position to comment on the individual officer who spoke to you as I wasn't there, but in principle it's not a question I would be that surprised to be asked if, from the police officer's point of view, I had presented them with circumstances consistent with a toerag nicking a nice car, even if the circumstances are also consistent with other explanations, and even though I know I'm not a toerag and I didn't nick it.

I agree that his job includes establishing ownership of the vehicle, no problem with this. Asking what i did to be able to afford to own it is idle curiosity on his part.

[R8Steve]

Mr Trophy said:

OP I know the road very well.

Did you ask for proof of this speed?

Yes, i did. I was informed that there was no video evidence (despite being a video equipped car) and that the reading was taken via calibrated speedometer in the witness of the two officers and that was enough evidence to FPN.

As i say, if i was speeding, fair enough, i'll take the punishment but i know for a fact that a)i was not doing 76mph+ and b)the police car was not behind me at that time

[R8Steve]

Durzel said:

As regards your experience speeding aside I don't think it's particularly offensive to be asked questions that seek to ascertain whether you've stolen the car or not. You can take umbrage at that if you like but I'd much rather they be proactive in this way, and potentially catch stolen vehicles that the owner has not realised had been taken yet, even if it causes mild offence.

Ownership had been established via PNC check, affordability was questioned after the fact so not relevant

Durzel said:

As an aside I find it very hard to understand (I'm taking the OP account as read) people not having any kind of ID on them whatsoever. When I go to the gym I still have my wallet somewhere, or at least bank card in case of emergency or whatever.

It was very early morning, i’d been woken up by a phone call from a carer and thrown some clothes on to go. As i wasn’t expecting to get stopped and interrogated as to my identity i didn’t bother with wallet, etc. Appreciate it’s not the norm but it’s not that hard to understand given the circumstances

[R8Steve]

Durzel said:

Fair enough. Is it really that offensive that he asked what you did, even as idle curiosity? Is he not allowed to make any casual conversation? Assuming it was just idle curiosity could you not take it as flattering?

I don't mean to cause offence but I don't really understand why people seem to zealously seek out reasons to be offended rather than just getting on with their lives.

Incidentally for what it's worth I got pulled in a GTR a few years ago (legitimately, I had a very small front plate) and was asked how fast I had got out of it! Talk about entrapment!

Don't get me wrong, the fact that he asked me doesn't particularly bother me and i'll get on with life no problem. I suppose you had to be there to understand it in context. The full stop from start to finish was truly unpleasant and obnoxious. The fact that i was getting blamed for doing 76mph when i wasn't didn't really set the tone well to start though to be honest!

[R8Steve]

Pothole said:

What are you planning to do?

Bend over and take the 3 points and £100 fine while having a good rant about it to anyone that will listen for a week or so more probably.

It's more hassle than it's worth to fight it. Not the way it should be but there you go. I'll write it off against the loads times i actually have been speeding and haven't been caught i suppose.

Apologies, it's £100 now!

Edited by R8Steve on Friday 6th March 13:57

[R8Steve]

Durzel said:

R8Steve said:

Don't get me wrong, the fact that he asked me doesn't particularly bother me and i'll get on with life no problem. I suppose you had to be there to understand it in context. The full stop from start to finish was truly unpleasant and obnoxious. The fact that i was getting blamed for doing 76mph when i wasn't didn't really set the tone well to start though to be honest!

You could fight it, but it sounds like it'll come down to your word against his. Perhaps what JustinP1 said might be of use.

I suspect if you refused the FPN you'd find a written account of how he followed you between two fixed points, had to do X to catch up, etc. His trained opinion will in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary be taken as gospel.

Unfortunately whilst "no less than 76mph" isn't a particularly strong statement I don't think it's fatal to any case. The crime is speeding, and the speed is an aggravating factor. If the court believes on the balance of probabilities that you were speeding, particularly on the testimony of someone who is assumed to be impartial, unemotional, trained and experienced, then that's the conclusion they'll likely reach. If you know you were speeding (and it sounds like you do) then you'd essentially be arguing a case on pure technical and/or credibility terms, which doesn't sound very strong to me.

IANAL though, just my 2p.

Agreed, but in effect, i am pleading guilty to something i didn't do on this occasion.

When i say i was more than likely speeding i am saying i may have been doing approx 55mph. I know this as i had already slowed prior to the 50mph limit and drive this stretch of road hundreds of times a year.

Did i deserve an FPN, possibly. Did they need to effectively fabricate evidence to give me one, no. I find it quite concerning that they can however.

[R8Steve]

Pixelpeep7r said:

Got pulled up a couple of nights ago in the golf, had just gone round a roundabout and up the A12, i booted it off the roundabout for about 2 seconds but then went back into lane one. 2/3 seconds pass and then im aware of flashing blues just coming onto the a12. He eventually pulls up by the side of me telling me to pull off at the next junction.

They are in a diesel focus estate, 3 up.

'We had to boot it to catch up to you'

Well i had 1/4mile headstart and my car is a little quicker than yours - that was the response that flashed up in my head and i quickly dismissed for fear of failing the attitude test.

he said, you were traveling at 'well over' the speed limit and 'did i accept that'

I said no.

he said, we are not in the business of giving out tickets, just educating people

and then came the 'ive been to many accidents' etc

I can't help but think he was fishing for the possibility of me signing a FPN at the road side too.

There was no fishing here unfortunately, the form was practically filled in by the time i got to the car

[R8Steve]

BertBert said:

R8Steve said:

Ownership had been established via PNC check, affordability was questioned after the fact so not relevant

Are you sure? If you say you are joe bloggs of "To the manor born" House and the car is owned by JB at that address, that is not conclusive that you are indeed JB. You could be the black sheep and TWOC'd the car from your bro for example.

So it is not necessarily unreasonable to go on asking qualifying questions.

It happened to me. Got stopped in my Evo. Middle aged guy in a suit having a mid-life crisis with a boy-race car. Loads of seemingly strange questions from the point of view of knowing it was my car and not stolen by me. Not knowing those as facts the questions were just fine. It's just policing, ask loads of open questions.

Bert

I take your point, if i've lied about who i am though it wouldn't be hard to make up an occupation. The fact that he made out that he was doing me a favour by letting me go on my way and not taken down to the station without ID i found the most odd.

[R8Steve]

Pixelpeep7r said:

R8Steve said:

There was no fishing here unfortunately, the form was practically filled in by the time i got to the car

Its a shame you accepted the FPN

have a read of this thread from 2013.

I was pulled over by a video car, no FPN offered, straight to court.

Never heard anything from it, clearly the CPS didn't agree with his evidence.

link to thread

I've not accepted it yet, i have 21 days to decide whether i wish to do so.

Do i want to go through the hassle of taking a day off work, hiring a solicitor, going to court, etc for a gamble on whether i win or not? No, probably not as that will all add up to about a grand in itself. As the policeman knows, i'll work this out and just pay it to avoid the hassle/cost. Sad but true.

[R8Steve]

JustinP1 said:

One of them got in a right tissy when I got the chance, and the other gave an opposite account of the basic facts...

They will give the opposite account of the basic facts, that's the problem

[R8Steve]

julian64 said:

Honestly I think you're getting your knickers in a twist here. If someone had nicked your car and was stopped speeding you would hope the poilce would be asking questions to see how easily you answered them. Asking someone what they do for a living and fitting it to an expected income and then relating that to the car seems to be a reasonable thing to do.

Other than that if your car gets nicked and the scrote accidently gets pulled over for speeding you would be happy for the policeman to ask no questions for fear of making him feel awkward?

It would be tough for the police otherwise. Not allowed to profile based on age sex colour, now not allwoed to profile by asking questions!
Roll on star trek mind melding.

You're probably right, as i said though, i'll get over it after a rant. If you had been privy to the full 'interrogation/lecture' you would see where i was coming from. It's a bit of a stereotype to assume based on the answer of job/income whether you can or can not afford something right enough.

[R8Steve]

Durzel said:

R8Steve said:

I've not accepted it yet, i have 21 days to decide whether i wish to do so.

Do i want to go through the hassle of taking a day off work, hiring a solicitor, going to court, etc for a gamble on whether i win or not? No, probably not as that will all add up to about a grand in itself. As the policeman knows, i'll work this out and just pay it to avoid the hassle/cost. Sad but true.

Tangentially related but I had a breakdown in my car once and had it recovered by the company whose name is at the start of the alphabet twice. Recovery driver - despite my expressed concerns about the fact the car was lowered - dragged it onto the flatbed and managed to scrape the front splitter quite badly. It was buckled by the time the car was on, and as I was with a girlfriend and it was cold, dark and wet out and the damage had already been done I didn't stand on ceremony and resolved to deal with it later.

Spoke to the breakdown company who said they would send their assessor out who proceeded - unsurprisingly - to back them up and claim that the damage must've been a result of my negligence, that I must've kerbed it prior to the breakdown. Claim dismissed.

Took legal advice and was straight up told that I had a fair chance of success but that the costs of litigation would likely exceed the cost of a repair or replacement of the splitter. So that's what I ultimately ended up doing, for much the same reasons - factoring in time off, loss of use of the car, etc it would've just been too much aggro.

I was in the right, but the company was never held to account.

Unfortunately the cost of seeking justice for matters such as that, and in your case, can easily exceed the cost of settlement. Even if you (or I) won on the day in court you would've expended some effort, suffered some stress, etc in getting there. I swear these things are often pitched at a level where it becomes financially imprudent to litigate - had your FPN been for £1000 I guess like most you'd have pushed it further, gummed up the legal system for a day, etc. As it is, for £100, it becomes a matter of pure principal alone to pursue litigation - and even then with the system stacked the way it is, with a statement being enough evidence to convict you, your odds of success are poor.

Exactly this. The annoying thing about it is even in these cases the police in question simply go about their day with no questions asked (or at least it seems that way). No hassle for them, plenty hassle/cost for me.

[R8Steve]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Exactly this. Does make me laugh. I wonder who would be the first to rant, had his car been stolen, stopped by police, and then let on its way through not enough questions being asked.

No idea as that situation hasn't arisen. I'll let you know if it does though.

It's a patronising question when asked in the way it was, that's my opinion whether you believe it to be justified or not.

I note you overlook the fact that they made up a speed to fit a charge and threatened to take me down to the station to 'make sure i was who i said i was'

Maybe we're closer to having ID cards than we think