Discussion
Hi one and all, let me first outline the scenario -
Driver A is returning home 'with some urgency' as his girlfriend, Miss B, is in considerable abdominal pain due to a long term but undiagnosed gynaecological condition which appears to be causing her to have contractions despite not being pregnatnt. She is in the passenger seat of the Lotus Elise.
Driver A enters a private residential area, a large plot of land with 1500 houses on it that is privately owned and maintained by an American group which has it's own 24 hr security and maintenence.
Policeman A, accompanied by Policewoman B, in a marked Octavia, claims to have followed behind (although suspiciously unseen by Driver A). Policeman A pulls over Driver A, and offers him the chance to explain himself. Driver A suspects he may have been speeding, but does not say so. Policeman A states that he had to do 60mph to keep up with Driver A through a series of bends, and while carefully never accusing Driver A of this speed, mentions it many times. Driver A is given the option of 3 points and £60 for SP30, or a charge of careless driving to be dragged through the courts.
Driver A decides at the time to not exacerbate the situation and says the former is the preferable option. He is then issued with a NIP which doesn't declare his alleged speed on it at any point, only the text "Driving Excess Speed, Max Speed 30."
Meanwhile, Policewoman B approaches Miss B who remains sat in the roofless vehicle and discovers her looking visably distressed and in pain. After a short period of discussion, she joins Policeman A with Driver A.
Driver A, being a reader of Pistonheads SP&L asks Policeman A a few questions -
"What speed are you intending to prosecute me for?"
The response is indirect and merely a repetition of Policeman A's speed he used to catch up.
"Do you have a VASCAR reading?"
No
"Are you TrafPol or standard PC?"
Standard PC but who is traffic qualified
Additionally Policeman A, who proudly and repeatedly boasts of his IAM and ROSPA (sp?) qualifications ( "I know what I'm talking about" ) admits the following -
- On the one hand he claimed to have been following Driver A at a constant distance, yet at another point he says that Driver A went out of sight for a while.
- His Octavia's traction control kept cutting in - the road he was following Driver A on is essentially a series of 4 bends and contains several concealed bumps which, in the Elise at least, upset the car's balance considerably if you're pushing on at all, even at 30mph. He was not a local PC and the road would not have been familiar to him due to the nature of the area. Driver A is certain he wasn't doing the speeds suggested because he was consciously aware of these bumps and taking care to avoid them.
- He was alerted to Driver A's fast driving by the sound of the car - he claims the noise indicated Driver A was giving it the beans, whereas I can assure you my fellow readers that Driver A's induction kitted, sports exhausted and de-catted Elise simply does not do quiet, even at a gentle pace in low revs and a high gear, which I believe Driver A was doing. As a Psychology student Driver A is well aware of the proven effect of sound affecting judgement in this scenario and can quote several studies to support the idea that Policeman A was very likely to have been misled by the noise.
Essentially the questions are -
Question 1) Does the fact this is on private land affect the legitimacy of the Police intervention?
Question 2) Is there enough evidence to convict based on the two PC's shaky sounding eyewitness statements?
Thanks for reading,
Jay
Driver A is returning home 'with some urgency' as his girlfriend, Miss B, is in considerable abdominal pain due to a long term but undiagnosed gynaecological condition which appears to be causing her to have contractions despite not being pregnatnt. She is in the passenger seat of the Lotus Elise.
Driver A enters a private residential area, a large plot of land with 1500 houses on it that is privately owned and maintained by an American group which has it's own 24 hr security and maintenence.
Policeman A, accompanied by Policewoman B, in a marked Octavia, claims to have followed behind (although suspiciously unseen by Driver A). Policeman A pulls over Driver A, and offers him the chance to explain himself. Driver A suspects he may have been speeding, but does not say so. Policeman A states that he had to do 60mph to keep up with Driver A through a series of bends, and while carefully never accusing Driver A of this speed, mentions it many times. Driver A is given the option of 3 points and £60 for SP30, or a charge of careless driving to be dragged through the courts.
Driver A decides at the time to not exacerbate the situation and says the former is the preferable option. He is then issued with a NIP which doesn't declare his alleged speed on it at any point, only the text "Driving Excess Speed, Max Speed 30."
Meanwhile, Policewoman B approaches Miss B who remains sat in the roofless vehicle and discovers her looking visably distressed and in pain. After a short period of discussion, she joins Policeman A with Driver A.
Driver A, being a reader of Pistonheads SP&L asks Policeman A a few questions -
"What speed are you intending to prosecute me for?"
The response is indirect and merely a repetition of Policeman A's speed he used to catch up.
"Do you have a VASCAR reading?"
No
"Are you TrafPol or standard PC?"
Standard PC but who is traffic qualified
Additionally Policeman A, who proudly and repeatedly boasts of his IAM and ROSPA (sp?) qualifications ( "I know what I'm talking about" ) admits the following -
- On the one hand he claimed to have been following Driver A at a constant distance, yet at another point he says that Driver A went out of sight for a while.
- His Octavia's traction control kept cutting in - the road he was following Driver A on is essentially a series of 4 bends and contains several concealed bumps which, in the Elise at least, upset the car's balance considerably if you're pushing on at all, even at 30mph. He was not a local PC and the road would not have been familiar to him due to the nature of the area. Driver A is certain he wasn't doing the speeds suggested because he was consciously aware of these bumps and taking care to avoid them.
- He was alerted to Driver A's fast driving by the sound of the car - he claims the noise indicated Driver A was giving it the beans, whereas I can assure you my fellow readers that Driver A's induction kitted, sports exhausted and de-catted Elise simply does not do quiet, even at a gentle pace in low revs and a high gear, which I believe Driver A was doing. As a Psychology student Driver A is well aware of the proven effect of sound affecting judgement in this scenario and can quote several studies to support the idea that Policeman A was very likely to have been misled by the noise.
Essentially the questions are -
Question 1) Does the fact this is on private land affect the legitimacy of the Police intervention?
Question 2) Is there enough evidence to convict based on the two PC's shaky sounding eyewitness statements?
Thanks for reading,
Jay
Edited by jaykaybi on Wednesday 25th April 22:23
Minor correction - an FPN was issued, not a NIP, if this makes any difference.
Policeman A had to do 60 to catch up. Essentially the situation was as follows -
Policeman A spots noisy Elise turning into estate at (1)mini-roundabout. There is a short straight, leading up to a (2)large roundabout. At this second roundabout the Elise turns right, which leads directly into a series of 4 bends - left into right into left into right - before reaching another (3)roundabout, at which the Elise turned left and pulled over shortly thereafter as the Police car was flashing it's blues.
It is my honest belief that Policeman A lost sight of Driver A at the large (2)roundabout. The bumpy, bendy road he then followed Driver A along is not very long, and he would have had to speed to catch up.
Of course this is purely conjecture but Driver A is certain he didn't see Policeman A behind him until the 4th of the bends on said road, leading Driver A to suspect he hadn't been followed closely at all.
Policeman A had to do 60 to catch up. Essentially the situation was as follows -
Policeman A spots noisy Elise turning into estate at (1)mini-roundabout. There is a short straight, leading up to a (2)large roundabout. At this second roundabout the Elise turns right, which leads directly into a series of 4 bends - left into right into left into right - before reaching another (3)roundabout, at which the Elise turned left and pulled over shortly thereafter as the Police car was flashing it's blues.
It is my honest belief that Policeman A lost sight of Driver A at the large (2)roundabout. The bumpy, bendy road he then followed Driver A along is not very long, and he would have had to speed to catch up.
Of course this is purely conjecture but Driver A is certain he didn't see Policeman A behind him until the 4th of the bends on said road, leading Driver A to suspect he hadn't been followed closely at all.
Edited by jaykaybi on Wednesday 25th April 22:19
streaky said:
Well, if the police officer had to do 60 to keep up, then Driver A was doing 60. However if the police officer had to do 60 to catch up, Driver A was not doing 60. Sadly, too many magistrates can't tell the difference. It's a hoary old one (as are too many magistrates) - Streaky
Unfortunately that precise distinction is what Driver A fears will lead to a massive fine if the Mags are such numpties.
If it went to court, would there need to be a charge of a particular speed against Driver A?
Edited by jaykaybi on Wednesday 25th April 22:23
jaykaybi said:
Question 1) Does the fact this is on private land affect the legitimacy of the Police intervention?
These private land questions are always tricky as you have to reach for the statutes, which are heavy and my wine-drinking hand is weak at this stage of the evening.
IIRC he is entitled to stop you on the road as it is a public place and you are required to stop for him. You did anyway, so his right to stop you isn't in question.
If it's private land, but a public place, then he can't enforce a speed limit there, so he'll need to be sure that his judgement - presumably supported by PC B - was wholly in the public area. I'm not 100% on that, but pretty sure.
If he lost sight, then he'll need to prove that it was the same vehicle that he initially acquired that was the one that he stopped. The basis for the prosecution will be the *independent* opinion formed between the two officers, unless he's claiming a calibrated speedo.
Frankly if you can't beat this one in court then you should probably hang up your SP&L login.
Road Traffic Law
Most of the provisions apply on all roads throughout Great Britain, although there are some exceptions. The definition of a road in England and Wales is 'any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes'. In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage. It is important to note that references to 'road' therefore generally include footpaths, bridle-ways and cycle tracks and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks).
Most of the provisions apply on all roads throughout Great Britain, although there are some exceptions. The definition of a road in England and Wales is 'any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes'. In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage. It is important to note that references to 'road' therefore generally include footpaths, bridle-ways and cycle tracks and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks).
7db said:
Too much wine. Still reckon he should be able to see it off in court, and if nothing else, it will give justinp a good excuse to wheel out his rather good traffic light story again.
Nah, cant be arsed.
The OP can search if he wants! Secondly, I dont want to be seen wrongly as a BiB basher as I am not - I had a bad experience, and know when other people recount their stories on here, I know that there is every possibility that they are true! It will suffice to say that I think that in these situation the police *know* if they have enought evidence to prosecute *and* they really believe it.
In my situation they were wrong and tried to bluff the whole thing.
In the OPs situation I think they know they have not really got a huge leg to stand on as:
1) If they has followed him and kept constant distance they would have told him - and done him for 60 in a 30.
2) Their opening gambit was to offer the FPN to the OP with no stated evidence under the duress that he would be 'dragged' through the courts for a more serious offence of careless driving.
2b) If they did have evidence for careless driving, why are they arsing around with a piddly 3 pointer!?
3) If the road is really that twisty it would be very difficult to keep a constant distance, and probably didnt.
But they seemingly called the OPs bluff and he went for it. Its a fightable case, and one you could win - even defending yourself.
But, if you get a particularly nasty set of magistrates then you may end up with getting the points for 50 in a 30 - which is more than 3. And about £300 in fine and costs.
The first thing I would check would be the private road issue. Is it legally a 30? I would check the 'streetlight distance' rule to see if it is to start with.
justinp1 said:
7db said:
Too much wine. Still reckon he should be able to see it off in court, and if nothing else, it will give justinp a good excuse to wheel out his rather good traffic light story again.
Nah, cant be arsed.
The OP can search if he wants! Shame, I've just settled down & was waiting for a bed time story.
NCC1701 said:
justinp1 said:
7db said:
Too much wine. Still reckon he should be able to see it off in court, and if nothing else, it will give justinp a good excuse to wheel out his rather good traffic light story again.
Nah, cant be arsed.
The OP can search if he wants! Shame, I've just settled down & was waiting for a bed time story.
You dont want nightmares!
tps said:
Road Traffic Law
Most of the provisions apply on all roads throughout Great Britain, although there are some exceptions. The definition of a road in England and Wales is 'any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes'. In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage. It is important to note that references to 'road' therefore generally include footpaths, bridle-ways and cycle tracks and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks).
Most of the provisions apply on all roads throughout Great Britain, although there are some exceptions. The definition of a road in England and Wales is 'any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes'. In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage. It is important to note that references to 'road' therefore generally include footpaths, bridle-ways and cycle tracks and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks).
It's open access, so that's that avenue closed.
7db said:
jaykaybi said:
Question 1) Does the fact this is on private land affect the legitimacy of the Police intervention?
These private land questions are always tricky as you have to reach for the statutes, which are heavy and my wine-drinking hand is weak at this stage of the evening.
IIRC he is entitled to stop you on the road as it is a public place and you are required to stop for him. You did anyway, so his right to stop you isn't in question.
If it's private land, but a public place, then he can't enforce a speed limit there, so he'll need to be sure that his judgement - presumably supported by PC B - was wholly in the public area. I'm not 100% on that, but pretty sure.
If he lost sight, then he'll need to prove that it was the same vehicle that he initially acquired that was the one that he stopped. The basis for the prosecution will be the *independent* opinion formed between the two officers, unless he's claiming a calibrated speedo.
Frankly if you can't beat this one in court then you should probably hang up your SP&L login.
He did mention a calibrated sppedo - does that mean anything?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff