Videod from following car

[herby]

I was overtaking a van on the A5 dual carriageway doing about 80 mph. An unmarked black skoda accelerated up behind me and sat about 4m-5m off my rear bumber. Slightly irritated, I increased speed to about 90mph and moved over to let him pass. He then dropped back to about 100 metres behind me and followed me for about 1 mile. Traffic was light. I slowed down as we approached a roundabout and he turned on the blue lights.

The policeman said that he started following me as I passed the van and recorded me on video for 0.6 miles at an average speed of 89.5 mph. He showed me a still picture of my parked car with a corresponding mileage and speed shown on the screen. He cautioned me and issued a fixed penaly notice which he instructed me to sign and he told me that this was not an admission of guilt, merely a statement of what had been said. I have produced my documents at the local station, as requested.

My question is: Is there any point in opting to go to court or should I just pay and take the points?

[jith]

herby said:

I was overtaking a van on the A5 dual carriageway doing about 80 mph. An unmarked black skoda accelerated up behind me and sat about 4m-5m off my rear bumber. Slightly irritated, I increased speed to about 90mph and moved over to let him pass. He then dropped back to about 100 metres behind me and followed me for about 1 mile. Traffic was light. I slowed down as we approached a roundabout and he turned on the blue lights.

The policeman said that he started following me as I passed the van and recorded me on video for 0.6 miles at an average speed of 89.5 mph. He showed me a still picture of my parked car with a corresponding mileage and speed shown on the screen. He cautioned me and issued a fixed penaly notice which he instructed me to sign and he told me that this was not an admission of guilt, merely a statement of what had been said. I have produced my documents at the local station, as requested.

My question is: Is there any point in opting to go to court or should I just pay and take the points?

He showed you a picture of your parked car?
What speed was it doing then?
Why didn't he show you the whole video?
You were "detected" by VASCAR incorporated into a system called Provida.
The reading on the screen was not the speed of your vehicle, unless by coincidence; it was the answer to the VASCAR calculation, a calculation totally controlled by him, while he was following far too closely behind you.
Plead not guilty and get the video. If he doesn't have it, he has no material evidence.
The video will also show if he intimidated you by aggressive driving.
ALWAYS fight these things.

[jasandjules]

Also double check what you have signed.
Did he question you at all? Did he issue you with a caution?

[bluepolarbear]

jasandjules said:

Also double check what you have signed.
Did he question you at all? Did he issue you with a caution?

Only time I was done, we had a nice chat and then he cautioned me at the end. When I checked what I had signed I had agreed I was cautioned and that everything I said was under the caution.

I won't be falling for that little trick again.

[peacemaker]

out of interest - what would have happened if you had refused to sign?

[justinp1]

This is rather strange.

There is a video (presumably) but all you can see is a picture of your car with a number next to it with 'mph' after it.

I would be tempted to ask for the video and an explanation of how the speed was recorded.

[not applicable]

There is no requirement to play the video back and it will not normally be kept as evidence unless a charge of dangerous/careless driving is beinf preferred.

[Scraggles]

had something similair to me happen, in a 50 mph, got full beamed so instead of speeding up, dropped to 35-40mph for a few miles, plod got bored and overtook at a lot higher than 50 mph with blue lights....

usually they go away when u dont react to them

[fluffnik]

not applicable said:

There is no requirement to play the video back and it will not normally be kept as evidence unless a charge of dangerous/careless driving is beinf preferred.

Ahhh, guilty unless you bust a gut to prove your innocence...

[herby]

Thanks for the responses guys. The docket says it is a Fixed Penalty Notice (Endorsable Offence). It shows my name, address, Car make, model and registration. Date, time, location, speed (89.5) offence code (600 = excess speed (70)). Then where I have signed it says "Motorist's signature (request only)- I didn't notice the 'request only' until I got home, perhaps foolishly, I just signed as instructed. I did ask what I was signing and was told that it was an acknowledgement; not an admission of guilt. So is there a consensus whether the video would be submitted? - my guess is that it will have started after the police car dropped back because the total distance was more than the 0.6 miles that he referred to. I did the speed but feel like I was set up!

If I choose the court option will I need representation? - if so, I guess the costs begin to climb (I have 3 points already, so although galling - not critical)

[justinp1]

herby said:

Thanks for the responses guys. The docket says it is a Fixed Penalty Notice (Endorsable Offence). It shows my name, address, Car make, model and registration. Date, time, location, speed (89.5) offence code (600 = excess speed (70)). Then where I have signed it says "Motorist's signature (request only)- I didn't notice the 'request only' until I got home, perhaps foolishly, I just signed as instructed. I did ask what I was signing and was told that it was an acknowledgement; not an admission of guilt. So is there a consensus whether the video would be submitted? - my guess is that it will have started after the police car dropped back because the total distance was more than the 0.6 miles that he referred to. I did the speed but feel like I was set up!

If I choose the court option will I need representation? - if so, I guess the costs begin to climb (I have 3 points already, so although galling - not critical)

If the video is available, this will of course show exactly what you have described, and will be the evidence of your version of events.

It would produce an interesting situation in court if the video was not available for some reason...

If would seem very co-incidental that there is video evidence of a 'crime' which was not kept, similarly if you argue that the driving beforehand was intimidatory then it would also look rather suspect if the video failed to materialise!

As jith has pointed out before, it does not make much sense why if there is 'extra' evidence to support a case why it should be destroyed. It would be tantamount to you telling a court that you were not driving on a particular day as you keep excellent records, but you felt the need to destroy them after you were accused - yet you still want to rely on them and be believed!?

[jith]

justinp1 said:

herby said:

Thanks for the responses guys. The docket says it is a Fixed Penalty Notice (Endorsable Offence). It shows my name, address, Car make, model and registration. Date, time, location, speed (89.5) offence code (600 = excess speed (70)). Then where I have signed it says "Motorist's signature (request only)- I didn't notice the 'request only' until I got home, perhaps foolishly, I just signed as instructed. I did ask what I was signing and was told that it was an acknowledgement; not an admission of guilt. So is there a consensus whether the video would be submitted? - my guess is that it will have started after the police car dropped back because the total distance was more than the 0.6 miles that he referred to. I did the speed but feel like I was set up!

If I choose the court option will I need representation? - if so, I guess the costs begin to climb (I have 3 points already, so although galling - not critical)

If the video is available, this will of course show exactly what you have described, and will be the evidence of your version of events.

It would produce an interesting situation in court if the video was not available for some reason...

If would seem very co-incidental that there is video evidence of a 'crime' which was not kept, similarly if you argue that the driving beforehand was intimidatory then it would also look rather suspect if the video failed to materialise!

As jith has pointed out before, it does not make much sense why if there is 'extra' evidence to support a case why it should be destroyed. It would be tantamount to you telling a court that you were not driving on a particular day as you keep excellent records, but you felt the need to destroy them after you were accused - yet you still want to rely on them and be believed!?

I would go further than that Justin; it is tantamount to destroying evidence in a criminal trial.
Quite frankly I have lost count of the number of times I have come across this, and to me the only feasible explanation is that the police have something to hide, i.e. the video demonstrates something in the procedure that could be construed as reasonable doubt: so they erase it!!

[SpudGunner]

Oh and watchout for those unmarked Skodas in future. Theres at least 2 round my way (N.E Hants) that I see many times. There are so few skodas round my way that chances are they are bib, so always check my speed when I spot one.

Best of luck with this, sounds like he was followig pretty close - video evidence might help you here by explaining why you put your foot down.

[7db]

What did the policeman say when you said you sped up because he was dangerously close behind you?

[eccles]

herby said:

I did the speed but feel like I was set up!

Hmmm....of course, you didn't have the option to slow down instead, did you?

[freedman]

Main problem appears to be that you were already doing 80 when he pulled out behind you