Questions for BiB on estimation speed.
Discussion
1) What training do police officers receive in the estimation of vehicle speeds?
2) After initial training, are there any follow-up tests, or examinations, to confirm that you are still able to accurately estimate speed.
3) As I understand it, the word of two police officers is sufficient to secure a conviction for exceeding the speed limit, without the backup of any electronic measuring equipment. What is the charge in this case? Does a specific (estimated) figure have to be provided, or is the charge simply "exceeding the speed limit"? What is the maximum penalty in this case?
2) After initial training, are there any follow-up tests, or examinations, to confirm that you are still able to accurately estimate speed.
3) As I understand it, the word of two police officers is sufficient to secure a conviction for exceeding the speed limit, without the backup of any electronic measuring equipment. What is the charge in this case? Does a specific (estimated) figure have to be provided, or is the charge simply "exceeding the speed limit"? What is the maximum penalty in this case?
nonegreen said:
Depends on the colour of the car really red, black, red black, etc then yellow green brown blue pink and finally black are likely to be the fastest cars in vision.
Colour has a lot to do with it....Can't remember really, but certain cars seem to be doing faster than others....Silver seems very quick...
Streetcop said:
Colour has a lot to do with it....Can't remember really, but certain cars seem to be doing faster than others....Silver seems very quick...
You're joking I presume? When a BiB "forms an opinion" of speeding, he/she wouldn't be swayed by colour?
Or would he/she have to say to him/herself, "Ah, that's a silver car, I must reduce my estimation of its speed by 10% to allow for it being silver"? Is there a statutary chart of under/over-readings by colour?
I've had no training at all on assessing a vehicles speed. it comes down to personal assessment at the time, using comparisons to the basic traffic flow etc. I'm not a traffic officer (oops, roads policing officer) so they might tell you different. there is no substitute for a 'p-pilot'!
nonegreen said:
Depends on the colour of the car really red, black, red black, etc then yellow green brown blue pink and finally black are likely to be the fastest cars in vision.
Thank god for that, mine's red, and therefore only worth 1 point
........just realised, so's my bike 
Phil
Streetcop said:
Depends on the colour of the car really red, black, red black, etc then yellow green brown blue pink and finally black are likely to be the fastest cars in vision.
Colour has a lot to do with it....Can't remember really, but certain cars seem to be doing faster than others....Silver seems very quick...
Ticket snooker is what he was inferring
!Police officers have no training in speed assessment at all until they are accepted on Roads Policing departments.
The courts accept that police officers are able to give evidence of opinion on two subjects.
1. Speeding
2. Drunkeness
To give evidence of opinion in court, the witness must be an expert.
In the case of a Police officer, the swearing of the oath on day 1 of joining the Police with the issue of the warrant card gives the officer that expertise.
Two new officers straight out of the box can be driving home from their joining ceremony and make an opinion about someone elses speed and (technically) the court would accept that.
Magistrates also accept that if they are in a vehicle with a speedo which is working and it is not a calibrated speedo, the fact the subject in the dock was exceeding the mark on the uncalibrated speedo in the vehicle the Police officer was driving would be good evidence that the subject was going too fast.
Estimation of speed does not have to be exact.
The court will accept that the officers estimated the speed to be above the permitted limit and in the region of XX mph. That is enough!
They do not have to say it was 89mph for 2/10ths of a mile or even between 89mph and 94mph. Calibrated methods are better for this evidence but are available for a lone officer to use to prosecute speeding offences.
Two officers could conceivably be standing on a street corner and watch you hoon past and tell the magistrate that in their opinion the vehicle exceeded the limit for that road and was travelling at about xxmph when it was seen. That is sufficient.
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 17th February 07:11
The courts accept that police officers are able to give evidence of opinion on two subjects.
1. Speeding
2. Drunkeness
To give evidence of opinion in court, the witness must be an expert.
In the case of a Police officer, the swearing of the oath on day 1 of joining the Police with the issue of the warrant card gives the officer that expertise
. Two new officers straight out of the box can be driving home from their joining ceremony and make an opinion about someone elses speed and (technically) the court would accept that.
Magistrates also accept that if they are in a vehicle with a speedo which is working and it is not a calibrated speedo, the fact the subject in the dock was exceeding the mark on the uncalibrated speedo in the vehicle the Police officer was driving would be good evidence that the subject was going too fast.
Estimation of speed does not have to be exact.
The court will accept that the officers estimated the speed to be above the permitted limit and in the region of XX mph. That is enough!
They do not have to say it was 89mph for 2/10ths of a mile or even between 89mph and 94mph. Calibrated methods are better for this evidence but are available for a lone officer to use to prosecute speeding offences.
Two officers could conceivably be standing on a street corner and watch you hoon past and tell the magistrate that in their opinion the vehicle exceeded the limit for that road and was travelling at about xxmph when it was seen. That is sufficient.
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 17th February 07:11
This guy can estimate excess speed from over 2,000 ft away (to form prior opinion)...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4270151.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4270151.stm
nonegreen said:
Depends on the colour of the car really red, black, red black, etc then yellow green brown blue pink and finally black are likely to be the fastest cars in vision.
Cool, my current car is white! No chance of being pulled over then
My bike is orange, again no chance of being pulled
My new car will be black
Bugger!Quote:
Estimation of speed does not have to be exact.
The court will accept that the officers estimated the speed to be above the permitted limit and in the region of XX mph. That is enough!
They do not have to say it was 89mph for 2/10ths of a mile or even between 89mph and 94mph. Calibrated methods are better for this evidence but are available for a lone officer to use to prosecute speeding offences.
Two officers could conceivably be standing on a street corner and watch you hoon past and tell the magistrate that in their opinion the vehicle exceeded the limit for that road and was travelling at about xxmph when it was seen. That is sufficient.
That seems absurd if this is clear cut. Surely, you are innocent until proven guilty and the police would have to PROVE that you were exceeding the limit.
If I was in a crowded street and somebody was murdered near where I was standing and " Two officers formed the opinion" that I committed the crime (when I didn't), surely the court wouldnt accept their word alone and would require evidence?
It also poses the question, why do the police need radar speed measuring devices if they could just stand by the road and "form an opinion" that somebody was speeding?
Police are only human and to say that somebody was, say, 10mph over a limit by sight alone would be impossible to corroborate.
We might as well all give up if evidence doesnt need to be proven.
Am I wrong?
lieber gone said:
Police officers have no training in speed assessment at all until they are accepted on Roads Policing departments.
The courts accept that police officers are able to give evidence of opinion on two subjects.
1. Speeding
2. Drunkeness
To give evidence of opinion in court, the witness must be an expert.
In the case of a Police officer, the swearing of the oath on day 1 of joining the Police with the issue of the warrant card gives the officer that expertise
That makes the law a nonsense then. The Mad Doc was competent enough just out of med school but his diagnosing techniques were perfected by experience. He could not decide if someone had direst disease by just using his stethoscope. Not does a tecahing certificate equip a new teacher mit automatic classoroom management skills.
Und we will not go into what makes one a toppest scientist - apart from years of poring over books und toughest exams.
Only way they may have that rooky cop may have that kind of expertise is if they were like my cousin BiBs mit toppest degrees in Maths und Physics und were already toppest drivers before they joined up
. lieber gone said:
Two new officers straight out of the box can be driving home from their joining ceremony and make an opinion about someone elses speed and (technically) the court would accept that.
One would hope a clever lawyer may be able to place a doubt.
lieber gone said:
Two officers could conceivably be standing on a street corner and watch you hoon past and tell the magistrate that in their opinion the vehicle exceeded the limit for that road and was travelling at about xxmph when it was seen. That is sufficient.
Und again a very clever lawyer may be able to place sufficient doubt on the case. After all - the whole point of the apple fiasco mit the aerial photos was to show the court that the lay put of the road was dangerous. The policeman's video tape had run out according to the paper report. Thus they had no proof that she was eating the apple at the time - or being careless other than the policeman's opinion. The photo was thus held a justified expense to prove that it was not wise to make a left turn on that road whilst holding an apple in your hand.
Sorry BiB's, I normally agree with most of what you say ( not always ) but I find I cannot agree with an opinion(s), which, after all is subjective; especially with no other point of reference around the accused. Its like the people who live in villages who believe people to be doing insane speeds. The close proximity of houses etc tends to give the impression of speed, rather like driving a go kart, which, because of its low ground clearence gives the impression of greater speed than actual. IMO I dont think any uncorroborated speeding accusation should be accepted by a competant judge. If their is electronic backup, which is subsequently found to be ok, then thats another story; but two coppers on their own.....no way. IMH
tycho said:
Depends on the colour of the car really red, black, red black, etc then yellow green brown blue pink and finally black are likely to be the fastest cars in vision.
Cool, my current car is white! No chance of being pulled over then
Just wait for Ticket Billiards, when they're going for an in-off...
Obviously the training isn't very thorough, since they have just been caught out with their pro-laser III claiming a motorist was doing 132MPH+ when his car was limited to 107MPH....
That means that their "Expert Opinion" is only accurate to about 20%.....
So they are probably no better at guessing the speed of a car than a member of Joe public...
That means that their "Expert Opinion" is only accurate to about 20%.....
So they are probably no better at guessing the speed of a car than a member of Joe public...
WildCat said:
lieber gone said:
Police officers have no training in speed assessment at all until they are accepted on Roads Policing departments.
The courts accept that police officers are able to give evidence of opinion on two subjects.
1. Speeding
2. Drunkeness
To give evidence of opinion in court, the witness must be an expert.
In the case of a Police officer, the swearing of the oath on day 1 of joining the Police with the issue of the warrant card gives the officer that expertise
That makes the law a nonsense then.
So everyone appears to keep posting
Next time you happen to have to defend yourself against it, try "That makes the law a nonsense your honour"
Wildcat said:
The Mad Doc was competent enough just out of med school but his diagnosing techniques were perfected by experience. He could not decide if someone had direst disease by just using his stethoscope. Not does a tecahing certificate equip a new teacher mit automatic classoroom management skills.
Thank Christ for that
Wildcat said:
Und we will not go into what makes one a toppest scientist - apart from years of poring over books und toughest exams.
Does a few years of travelling in cars and driving them give someone expertise in how fast they go regardless of what oath of allegience they take at a later or sooner date?
According to 99.9% of PH contributors, it does!
There goes your arguement Wildcat
! Wildcat said:
Only way they may have that rooky cop may have that kind of expertise is if they were like my cousin BiBs mit toppest degrees in Maths und Physics und were already toppest drivers before they joined up
BolloX. They have taken the oath of allegience to Her Majesty and therefore they are experts without even having to be able to understand the significance of sitting under an apple tree and receiving a 'burmp on the heed'
! Wildcat said:
lieber gone said:
Two new officers straight out of the box can be driving home from their joining ceremony and make an opinion about someone elses speed and (technically) the court would accept that.
One would hope a clever lawyer may be able to place a doubt.
Clever lawyers are always the answer to everything
Clever lawyers come at a not so clever price
Wildcat said:
lieber gone said:
Two officers could conceivably be standing on a street corner and watch you hoon past and tell the magistrate that in their opinion the vehicle exceeded the limit for that road and was travelling at about xxmph when it was seen. That is sufficient.
Und again a very clever lawyer may be able to place sufficient doubt on the case.
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they do not. That equals clever lawyer fees
plus conviction and penalty on top 
Wildcat said:
After all - the whole point of the apple fiasco mit the aerial photos was to show the court that the lay put of the road was dangerous. The policeman's video tape had run out according to the paper report. Thus they had no proof that she was eating the apple at the time - or being careless other than the policeman's opinion. The photo was thus held a justified expense to prove that it was not wise to make a left turn on that road whilst holding an apple in your hand.
How much does a photo cost?
Bonus print do 36 for a couple of quid
The helicopter was not lifted just to take a photo of that road. It will have been tasked to take a photo at the next available oportunity when the aircraft was patrolling over the place it happened. This is routine work for Police aviators when they lift for other jobs. When they are airbourne and have finished the committment they have been dispatched to, they get the David Bailey stuff out and do the admin on the way home
. I have recently done a couple of shifts with air support and seen what they do fisrt hand and can confirm this Just starting the rotors in motion costs about £50 and would not be sanctioned by the unit supervisor for one photo about an apple
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 17th February 14:42
blademan said:
Sorry BiB's, I normally agree with most of what you say ( not always ) but I find I cannot agree with an opinion(s), which, after all is subjective;
I expect you disagree with a lot of law. I care not whether you disagree or not. I am purely telling you the facts in law as they stand
Disagreeing on a notice board about motoring issues will not change that state in law!
Next time you are prosecuted on estimated speed by two Police Officers without a measuring device, tell the Magistrates your opinion and see which opinion they listen to
You may even be lucky if they believe your opinion about the incident. Your opinion about the law will not influence them in the slightest! blademan said:
. IMO I dont think any uncorroborated speeding accusation should be accepted by a competant judge.
Write to the Lord Chancellor and the Home Office about it if you disagree. At the moment, as it stands, you could be taken to court on the opinion of 2 Police Officers. That is up to you from then on how you decide to deal with it!
blademan said:
If their is electronic backup, which is subsequently found to be ok, then thats another story; but two coppers on their own.....no way. IMH
Looks like a not guilty plea then with clever lawyer assistance
! >> Edited by gone on Thursday 17th February 14:38
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff