Speeding evidence from GPS tracking device?
Discussion
Hello all.
I have a GPS tracking device in my car from a well known company, which came with the car and I have not activated it yet. Like other companies that offer similar products, this particular tracking device comes with a service where you can use an app on your phone to see where your car currently is as well as your previous journeys and it shows you what speed you were doing on those journeys.
I rang up the customer service team and asked them what they do with this speed information, and the lady advised me that whilst they do not actively report people, there has been one serious incident that she knows of in the past that involved a death and that they had to provide information to the police.
However, this got me thinking. If there was an incident where Mr. A (a fictional character who is a UK citizen with a British driving licence), who has a fast loud car, was absolutely ragging it down a dual carriageway and the police saw him do it but did not, for one reason or another, manage to get actual evidence of him speeding, could they approach the GPS tracking service provider and get them to release speed data for that date and time? (I appreciate that this probably won't happen in reality because the police won't readily know if his car has a GPS tracking device let alone which company provides the service, but what I am asking in principle is if it constitutes evidence of speeding or dangerous-driving-because-of-speeding provided that there isn't a serious crash?)
An alternative question would also be, if Mr. A has a crash that may or may not have been his fault and whilst nobody died, it was still serious enough for the police to take his car away for further examination. They would most probably in this case find that it has a GPS tracking device in it, and they contact the GPS tracking service provider for information and find that theres no evidence that he was speeding at/just before the accident, but they do find out that he was doing high speeds a couple of days ago. Is this enough evidence to convict him for speeding/dangerous-driving-because-of-speeding?
I know the questions that I ask are analogous to "Can dashcam evidence be used for speeding?" in that both devices are not type-approved but have nonetheless been used as part of evidence in serious accidents.
(Important: I am NOT Mr. A and do not resemble him in any way, shape or form. Mr A. is a fictional character that I used above to ask about what constitutes evidence of speeding/dangerous-driving-because-of-speeding in the two different hypothetical situations detailed above)
I have a GPS tracking device in my car from a well known company, which came with the car and I have not activated it yet. Like other companies that offer similar products, this particular tracking device comes with a service where you can use an app on your phone to see where your car currently is as well as your previous journeys and it shows you what speed you were doing on those journeys.
I rang up the customer service team and asked them what they do with this speed information, and the lady advised me that whilst they do not actively report people, there has been one serious incident that she knows of in the past that involved a death and that they had to provide information to the police.
However, this got me thinking. If there was an incident where Mr. A (a fictional character who is a UK citizen with a British driving licence), who has a fast loud car, was absolutely ragging it down a dual carriageway and the police saw him do it but did not, for one reason or another, manage to get actual evidence of him speeding, could they approach the GPS tracking service provider and get them to release speed data for that date and time? (I appreciate that this probably won't happen in reality because the police won't readily know if his car has a GPS tracking device let alone which company provides the service, but what I am asking in principle is if it constitutes evidence of speeding or dangerous-driving-because-of-speeding provided that there isn't a serious crash?)
An alternative question would also be, if Mr. A has a crash that may or may not have been his fault and whilst nobody died, it was still serious enough for the police to take his car away for further examination. They would most probably in this case find that it has a GPS tracking device in it, and they contact the GPS tracking service provider for information and find that theres no evidence that he was speeding at/just before the accident, but they do find out that he was doing high speeds a couple of days ago. Is this enough evidence to convict him for speeding/dangerous-driving-because-of-speeding?
I know the questions that I ask are analogous to "Can dashcam evidence be used for speeding?" in that both devices are not type-approved but have nonetheless been used as part of evidence in serious accidents.
(Important: I am NOT Mr. A and do not resemble him in any way, shape or form. Mr A. is a fictional character that I used above to ask about what constitutes evidence of speeding/dangerous-driving-because-of-speeding in the two different hypothetical situations detailed above)
sonnenschein3000 said:
...find that theres no evidence that he was speeding at/just before the accident, but they do find out that he was doing high speeds a couple of days ago. Is this enough evidence to convict him for speeding/dangerous-driving-because-of-speeding?
Your question is unclear but I will assume that you mean to convict re the accident and not to convict re the couple of days ago. If the former is the question then the answer is no. Evidence that you did X on date 1 is not evidence that you did X on date 2. (Wonders if some wannabe lawyer with no clue will post some misunderstood internet nonsense about similar fact evidence but hopes they won't bother).
More generally, anything that is relevant and probative may be admissible as evidence, subject to various exclusionary rules, none obviously applicable here. Evidence about something that happened two days before an event is usually neither relevant nor probative re that event.
Do you live in the real world OP?
Just to explain it to you, this is a world where police budgets are very, very tight and they are pushed to the limit. Despite the Daily Mailesque woe is me posts on here about the police prosecuting drivers for daring to go 0.0000001moh over a speed limit on a Smart Motorway, that was designed purely to entrap the innocent and turn them into career criminals, this doesn’t happen.
If you caused a serious crash where there was serious injury, or death, then the police will investigate thoroughly, anything else and they’ll leave it to the insurers to sort out.
I have (had) a shiny new M4 up until last week when some sticky fingered t
ts decided that they’d rather drive it. Getting the info from BMW to track it via the inbuilt telematics is a very longwinded process and requires me to give consent to release the data. One week on and BMW still haven’t got round to releasing it, despite my express consent. I can’t see them offering up their custoemrs to the police for fun.
Just to explain it to you, this is a world where police budgets are very, very tight and they are pushed to the limit. Despite the Daily Mailesque woe is me posts on here about the police prosecuting drivers for daring to go 0.0000001moh over a speed limit on a Smart Motorway, that was designed purely to entrap the innocent and turn them into career criminals, this doesn’t happen.
If you caused a serious crash where there was serious injury, or death, then the police will investigate thoroughly, anything else and they’ll leave it to the insurers to sort out.
I have (had) a shiny new M4 up until last week when some sticky fingered t
ts decided that they’d rather drive it. Getting the info from BMW to track it via the inbuilt telematics is a very longwinded process and requires me to give consent to release the data. One week on and BMW still haven’t got round to releasing it, despite my express consent. I can’t see them offering up their custoemrs to the police for fun. Simple solution;
1. Don't drive like a tt.
2. Live a happy, carefree life, free of worry about GPS trackers, dash cams and even your own non Home Office approved mobile phone.
Alternatively, be like this guy and enjoy your time in chokey;
Warning - de-restricted RS6 content;
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-fast...
1. Don't drive like a t
t.2. Live a happy, carefree life, free of worry about GPS trackers, dash cams and even your own non Home Office approved mobile phone.
Alternatively, be like this guy and enjoy your time in chokey;
Warning - de-restricted RS6 content;
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-fast...
I have a very expensive, professionally installed GPS tracking device fitted to my work vehicle alongside cameras that upload automatically and lots of other special gubbins which measure economy blah blah blah....
A couple times a day it records speeds 50mph above what I'm actually doing, triggering warnings off and sending reports. All 30 fitted vehicles do this, and the other fleet running a different system do the same thing too. I'd say that the technology isn't quite there as a reliable evidence base yet
A couple times a day it records speeds 50mph above what I'm actually doing, triggering warnings off and sending reports. All 30 fitted vehicles do this, and the other fleet running a different system do the same thing too. I'd say that the technology isn't quite there as a reliable evidence base yet
s p a c e m a n said:
I have a very expensive, professionally installed GPS tracking device fitted to my work vehicle alongside cameras that upload automatically and lots of other special gubbins which measure economy blah blah blah....
A couple times a day it records speeds 50mph above what I'm actually doing, triggering warnings off and sending reports. All 30 fitted vehicles do this, and the other fleet running a different system do the same thing too. I'd say that the technology isn't quite there as a reliable evidence base yet
If it's also the case that police cameras and other speed detecting equipment requires regular calibration to a particular standard in order to be credible then what are the chances that this GPS tracking equipment is up to the same level of 'admissible accuracy'?A couple times a day it records speeds 50mph above what I'm actually doing, triggering warnings off and sending reports. All 30 fitted vehicles do this, and the other fleet running a different system do the same thing too. I'd say that the technology isn't quite there as a reliable evidence base yet
Why would they go to any of this trouble when they a) have speed measurement equipment of their own and b) can just S172 the registered keeper who is obliged to respond with driver details.
If you're asking whether they will spend lots of time chasing up an offence they can't already prove - see the point made about budgets. The reality is that they would probably be cheesed off that you got away with it on that occasion, and that's it.
If you're asking whether they will spend lots of time chasing up an offence they can't already prove - see the point made about budgets. The reality is that they would probably be cheesed off that you got away with it on that occasion, and that's it.
Gavia said:
Fish said:
Also bear in mind that most modern cars will record data when they crash and airbags are fired. You crsh they will no what speed the impact is whether you were using brakes or accelerator etc etc...
So what? Nobody can get to that data without your consent. Many fleet operators get daily DPA requests from various police forces for tracking data.
It's not that unusual, and as the vehicle and tracker belongs to the fleet management company, the driver has little say over what is done with the data.
That said, DPA is mainly about "personally identifiable information". The tracker is not smart enough to know your name, or bank details etc.
It's not that unusual, and as the vehicle and tracker belongs to the fleet management company, the driver has little say over what is done with the data.
That said, DPA is mainly about "personally identifiable information". The tracker is not smart enough to know your name, or bank details etc.
I’ve just had my car stolen and BMW will not release any information at all to the police without a completed form giving my express consent. The form is a standard pro forma and the police won’t be given info without it. Whether DPA applies or not is moot if the holder of the data doesn’t wish to disclose to another source they don’t have to unless ordered to by a court.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff