Questions regarding being pulled for speeding

[possiblyscrewed212]

Hi, I was recently pulled over by a patrol car that was tailing me from a decent distance. It was a non-motorway dual carriage way, 70MPH speed limit, I got up to about 90MPH partially because I wasn't paying attention to the speedo and partially because the road was quiet so I wasn't to worried about creeping a bit over the limit (I know, no excuse and I feel like a tt), I just didn't realise I had taken a "bit" too far. When I was pulled he asked if I knew why, I said yes, he never mentioned my speed and I never mentioned it either, just that I was speeding. I think because it was one of the marked 308's he might not have had something to monitor speed, he was also in the car alone so I think using a radar gun is out the equation. He ran a check on my license and number plate, asked if I had been drinking (no) and I think he was satisfied with my answers and the check he ran on me. I don't think he gave me an official verbal warning as there was no mention of prosecution or to be expecting any post. We parted ways with him telling me to watch my speed (fair) and I left empty handed and with a sense of impending doom.

This is first time I've been pulled over and just wanted a bit of clarification as to what the result of all this is, have I just struck luck or...? He took my drivers license so probably has my address and I'm half expecting a NIP and half expecting a visit, anyone ever had anything like this before?

[Panamax]

Remarkable good fortune to be tailed at 90 mph by a one man patrol car that has no video camera system.

[BertBert]

possiblyscrewed212 said:

Hi, I was recently pulled over by a patrol car that was tailing me from a decent distance. It was a non-motorway dual carriage way, 70MPH speed limit, I got up to about 90MPH partially because I wasn't paying attention to the speedo and partially because the road was quiet so I wasn't to worried about creeping a bit over the limit (I know, no excuse and I feel like a tt), I just didn't realise I had taken a "bit" too far. When I was pulled he asked if I knew why, I said yes, he never mentioned my speed and I never mentioned it either, just that I was speeding. I think because it was one of the marked 308's he might not have had something to monitor speed, he was also in the car alone so I think using a radar gun is out the equation. He ran a check on my license and number plate, asked if I had been drinking (no) and I think he was satisfied with my answers and the check he ran on me. I don't think he gave me an official verbal warning as there was no mention of prosecution or to be expecting any post. We parted ways with him telling me to watch my speed (fair) and I left empty handed and with a sense of impending doom.

This is first time I've been pulled over and just wanted a bit of clarification as to what the result of all this is, have I just struck luck or...? He took my drivers license so probably has my address and I'm half expecting a NIP and half expecting a visit, anyone ever had anything like this before?

I don't know the exact procedure needed in law, but on the couple of occasions I have been actually stopped, the conversation didn't leave me in any doubt that I would likely get done for the one I got done for and not for the other.

From the sound of it, you got away with being told to watch your speed and nothing else. Time will tell.

[driveaway]

Very unlikely.

My friend was driving along a main B road, but late at night, saw the lights about to go yellow so sped up a tiny little bit (yeh sure) over the limit to make the lights, noticing from the side a patrol vehicle, and made sure they went down to the limit and carried on 'till the blues and reds flashed in their mirror.
The office comes over to the vehicle, asks for the window down, immediately smells/sniffs the inside of the car, and then asks for licence and insurance, after which warning the driver about safety and letting them go with nothing.

The reason this is, sometimes, someone might be in any kind of emergency or just rushed (not saying it's right), and goes a little over the limit. The second the officer sees your not intoxicated, not high on some green stuff, licence and insurance is clean and in order, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, you don't give them the "my rights" attitude, they're more likely to let you go then not, because there's not much to hook you on. just a warning.
So I'd say pray but you probably won't get anything in the post, that was probably it, but do watch your speed!

[MustangGT]

BertBert said:

I don't know the exact procedure needed in law, but on the couple of occasions I have been actually stopped, the conversation didn't leave me in any doubt that I would likely get done for the one I got done for and not for the other.

From the sound of it, you got away with being told to watch your speed and nothing else. Time will tell.

This, sounds like you may have passed the 'attitude test' and just been given some words of advice. As BertBert says, time will tell.

[2020vision]

Panamax said:

Remarkable good fortune to be tailed at 90 mph by a one man patrol car that has no video camera system.

Why? The officer doesn't need a video. He can prosecute on the reading from his speedometer and a competent follow check.

Stand by for some nonsense about calibration to follow.

However, the story does indicate the attitude test has been successful and nothing is likely to result from the check.

[bad company]

MustangGT said:

BertBert said:

I don't know the exact procedure needed in law, but on the couple of occasions I have been actually stopped, the conversation didn't leave me in any doubt that I would likely get done for the one I got done for and not for the other.

From the sound of it, you got away with being told to watch your speed and nothing else. Time will tell.

This, sounds like you may have passed the 'attitude test' and just been given some words of advice. As BertBert says, time will tell.

If you were going to be reported shouldn’t you have got a verbal NIP from the officer?

[ADJimbo]

OP - did the Warranted Constable state the verbal NIP? Whilst not scripted, it would have started;

“I’m reporting you for the consideration or question of…”

They then have six months to lay it before a Court for prosecution. It’s normally a lot less than this in reality. The issue here will be the actual speed recorded and documented. 71-90 is endorsable and be dealt with remotely. 91+ is a whole different ball game.

It’s not the end of the world however.

[Shaun170]

By the sounds of it you got away with it.

You re not supposed to check speed with a speed gun through glass (in this case his windscreen) and its unlikely that he had it held out of his open drivers side window as he wouldn’t have been able to look through the view finder, so no you won t have been ‘lasered’

Speed detection is done on specific Home Office approve speed detection devices, mostly found in traffic cars not on the uncalibrated speedo of a normal patrol car.

And as has been mentioned if he was reporting you at the time he would have had to of given you a notice of intended prosecution warning. If he decided to do it later by post it needs to be done within 14 days of the offence.

Edited by Shaun170 on Wednesday 4th June 23:53

[ADJimbo]

Shaun170 said:

By the sounds of it you got away with it.

You re not supposed to check speed with a speed gun through glass (in this case his windscreen) and its unlikely that he had it held out of his open drivers side window as he wouldn t have been able to look through the view finder, so no you won t have been lasered

Speed detection is done on specific Home Office approve speed detection devices, mostly found in traffic cars not on the uncalibrated speedo of a normal patrol car.

And as has been mentioned if he was reporting you at the time he would have had to of given you a notice of intended prosecution warning. If he decided to do it later by post it needs to be done within 14 days of the offence.

Edited by Shaun170 on Wednesday 4th June 23:53

What utter bunkem. As others have predicted, with 100% accuracy, the verbal NIP starts the ball rolling. Six months to lay information..

This will go SPJN owing to the speed. It’s very borderline.

Your fourteen day rule only relates to a static or mobile camera or handheld device. If it was a follow-check, which it was in my opinion, as the OP was stopped at the scene, then questioning the validity of the Speedo on the target vehicle has no legs. Calibration, forget it. They’ve n heard it all before. This defence, will - It’ll fail from the outset because on behalf of the Warrented Constable will rely on his/her MG11 statement will trump your argument.

You’d be better-off yelling the Hoky-Coky in front of the magistrate and/or District Judge.

Your argument, of suggesting a laser beam of light may have bounced of glass is fanciful.

[SaulGoodman]

I got pulled over once doing 90 on the M1. First time in the 3 series I bought, almost no traffic - obviously not an excuse. They asked me how fast I was going and I said it was about 90. "It's good to hear you knew the speed. We pull so many people over who don't realise the speed they were going, which was obviously people lying to them.

They said that because I'd told them the actual speed and the road conditions were fine they would just give me a warning. I put the cruise control on under 80 these days, with all the cameras that have no discretion it's not worth it.

[Alex Z]

As others have said, the absence of a calibrated speedo doesn’t mean that a normal police car couldn’t do you for excess speed if they chose to.

It does sound like they have used their discretion because you weren’t a dick and the road conditions meant that it wasn’t dangerous.

[Shaun170]

ADJimbo said:

What utter bunkem. As others have predicted, with 100% accuracy, the verbal NIP starts the ball rolling. Six months to lay information..

This will go SPJN owing to the speed. It s very borderline.

Your fourteen day rule only relates to a static or mobile camera or handheld device. If it was a follow-check, which it was in my opinion, as the OP was stopped at the scene, then questioning the validity of the Speedo on the target vehicle has no legs. Calibration, forget it. They ve n heard it all before. This defence, will - It ll fail from the outset because on behalf of the Warrented Constable will rely on his/her MG11 statement will trump your argument.

You d be better-off yelling the Hoky-Coky in front of the magistrate and/or District Judge.

Your argument, of suggesting a laser beam of light may have bounced of glass is fanciful.

Utter bunkum Really?
Where did you gain your knowledge and expertise? I m a retired Police officer (30yrs) and did 18 years as a traffic officer.

As I originally said, the officer would have given NIP warning at the time if they were reporting him there and then. It s given for certain offences such as speeding, driving without due care or dangerous driving etc not just for speeding as you state. When completing evidence the officer would have to mention if this was given at the time. If not, the prosecution department would do it on their behalf and it needs to be done within 14 days. As speeding is a summary only offence, if it goes to court, it needs to be layed within 6 months, so you re getting confused there also.

ACPO guidelines state that speed detection devices such as speed guns are not used through glass. I never did it and I know none of my colleagues ever used it this way. Thats why for example speed vans have a small open window they detect through and not from behind glass. You re also told not to use it this way when your trained on it.

In all my years as a police officer the only cars which had calibrated speedos were the traffic cars. And all this meant was that they had extra increments between the 5mph marks. If you look at your own Speedo it only has marks at 5mph increments. When being converted to police use the speedo is removed and sent away for the face of the speedo to be changed. It s bench tested for accuracy and then returned to the company converting the car. It never gets checked again. ALL speed folllows in traffic cars carried out using a Home Office Approved (HOA) speed detection device. In my day and force it was a device called Pilot. ONLY HOA devices can be used for speed detection evidence. This equipment is calibrated as and when the vehicle is used not the cars ‘calibrated’ speedo. The device checks an average speed over time and distance and works out the average follow speed. Accuracy of time and distance is the key not just somebody sitting behind you for a distance looking at their speedo.

An officer in a patrol car as described is more likely to be a normal patrol officer and not a traffic officer. They would have had no specific training for speed detection and no real interest in reporting for excess speed as it s not their main roll, I know as I ve been one. On the very very rare occasion that I did report somebody in a vehicle not equipped with a speed section device, i.e just using the vehicles speedo, it can only be used as corroborating evidence, not direct evidence of the speed. That police vehicle in question would also need to be speed checked at certain speeds using a speed gun to confirm how close to the actual speed it was. A lot of faff for all officers involved and not normally done as a result.

Can I suggest if you really don t know what you re talking about, you keep quiet and keep your uneducated opinion to yourself so as not to confuse the OP.

Edited by Shaun170 on Thursday 5th June 10:16

[bad company]

Shaun170 said:

Utter bunkum Really?
Where did you gain your knowledge and expertise? I m a retired Police officer (30yrs) and did 18 years as a traffic officer.

As I originally said, the officer would have given NIP warning at the time if they were reporting him there and then. It s given for certain offences such as speeding, driving without due care or dangerous driving etc not just for speeding as you state. When completing evidence the officer would have to mention if this was given at the time. If not, the prosecution department would do it on their behalf and it needs to be done within 14 days. As speeding is a summary only offence, if it goes to court, it needs to be layed within 6 months, so you re getting confused there also.

ACPO guidelines state that speed detection devices such as speed guns are not used through glass. I never did it and I know none of my colleagues ever used it this way. Thats why for example speed vans have a small open window they detect through and not from behind glass. You re also told not to use it this way when your trained on it.

In all my years as a police officer the only cars which had calibrated speedos were the traffic cars. And all this meant was that they had extra increments between the 5mph marks. If you look at your own Speedo it only has marks at 5mph increments. When being converted to police use the speedo is removed and sent away for the face of the speedo to be changed. It s bench tested for accuracy and then returned to the company converting the car. It never gets checked again. ALL speed folllows in traffic cars carried out using a Home Office Approved (HOA) speed detection device. In my day and force it was a device called Pilot. ONLY HOA devices can be used for speed detection.

An officer in a patrol car as described is more likely to be a normal patrol officer and not a traffic officer. They would have had no specific training for speed detection and no real interest in reporting for excess speed as it s not their main roll, I know as I ve been one. On the very very rare occasion that I did report somebody in a vehicle not equipped with a speed section device, i.e just using the vehicles speedo, that can only be used as corroborating evidence, not direct evidence of the speed. That police vehicle in question would also need to be speed checked at certain speeds using a speed gun to confirm how close to the actual speed it was. A lot of faff for all officers involved and not normally done as a result.

Can I suggest if you really don t know what you re talking about, you keep quiet and keep your uneducated opinions to yourself?

That pretty much sums up how I thought it worked. Thanks for confirming.

[ADJimbo]

Shaun170 said:

ADJimbo said:

What utter bunkem. As others have predicted, with 100% accuracy, the verbal NIP starts the ball rolling. Six months to lay information..

This will go SPJN owing to the speed. It s very borderline.

Your fourteen day rule only relates to a static or mobile camera or handheld device. If it was a follow-check, which it was in my opinion, as the OP was stopped at the scene, then questioning the validity of the Speedo on the target vehicle has no legs. Calibration, forget it. They ve n heard it all before. This defence, will - It ll fail from the outset because on behalf of the Warrented Constable will rely on his/her MG11 statement will trump your argument.

You d be better-off yelling the Hoky-Coky in front of the magistrate and/or District Judge.

Your argument, of suggesting a laser beam of light may have bounced of glass is fanciful.

Utter bunkum Really?
Where did you gain your knowledge and expertise? I m a retired Police officer (30yrs) and did 18 years as a traffic officer.

As I originally said, the officer would have given NIP warning at the time if they were reporting him there and then. It s given for certain offences such as speeding, driving without due care or dangerous driving etc not just for speeding as you state. When completing evidence the officer would have to mention if this was given at the time. If not, the prosecution department would do it on their behalf and it needs to be done within 14 days. As speeding is a summary only offence, if it goes to court, it needs to be layed within 6 months, so you re getting confused there also.

ACPO guidelines state that speed detection devices such as speed guns are not used through glass. I never did it and I know none of my colleagues ever used it this way. Thats why for example speed vans have a small open window they detect through and not from behind glass. You re also told not to use it this way when your trained on it.

In all my years as a police officer the only cars which had calibrated speedos were the traffic cars. And all this meant was that they had extra increments between the 5mph marks. If you look at your own Speedo it only has marks at 5mph increments. When being converted to police use the speedo is removed and sent away for the face of the speedo to be changed. It s bench tested for accuracy and then returned to the company converting the car. It never gets checked again. ALL speed folllows in traffic cars carried out using a Home Office Approved (HOA) speed detection device. In my day and force it was a device called Pilot. ONLY HOA devices can be used for speed detection evidence. This equipment is calibrated as and when the vehicle is used not the cars calibrated speedo. The device checks an average speed over time and distance and works out the average follow speed. Accuracy of time and distance is the key not just somebody sitting behind you for a distance looking at their speedo.

An officer in a patrol car as described is more likely to be a normal patrol officer and not a traffic officer. They would have had no specific training for speed detection and no real interest in reporting for excess speed as it s not their main roll, I know as I ve been one. On the very very rare occasion that I did report somebody in a vehicle not equipped with a speed section device, i.e just using the vehicles speedo, it can only be used as corroborating evidence, not direct evidence of the speed. That police vehicle in question would also need to be speed checked at certain speeds using a speed gun to confirm how close to the actual speed it was. A lot of faff for all officers involved and not normally done as a result.

Can I suggest if you really don t know what you re talking about, you keep quiet and keep your uneducated opinion to yourself so as not to confuse the OP.

Edited by Shaun170 on Thursday 5th June 10:16

I’ll deal with your questions in point.

1. I was awarded an LLB(Hons) from Cambridge.
2. I was awarded an LLM(Hons) from Cambridge.
3. I was called to join the Bar three years later.
4. I joined Pupiliage at Fenners Chambers and then went onto become a specialised contractural / motoring lawyer.

Uneducated? Not sure, open to interpretation. People still pay me for it. I get by. I do alright. I’d love to think that I know what I’m talking about.

Keeping quiet? Nah, it’s not for me really. I won’t keep quiet in all honesty as I believe in fairness during the Judical process. I’ve pointed out the OP’s plus and minus on a free-forum, you however, have created confusion, whilst being offensive to me personally.

As you’ve drawn me down to this level, I’ll bite. You do know that ACPO documents are just that? Guidelines and Documents? Not ensriched?

Turning to your final point, you must have retired years ago. The days of the calibrated speedo are long gone. It’s now ‘forming the opinion’ by a Warrented Constables. When you must have trained you’d have been in a Rover SD1 with secondary speedometer on the glove-box.

I’ve given the OP, sound, free, legal advice to help him. If you want to criticise my input on the legal interpretation of the sentencing guidelines then please do…

Telling me to keep quiet and calling me uneducated is exactly why I worked my tits off through University before I joined the Bar was to deal with Coppers of your generation. I loved turning your generation over in the mid90s, under CX before their retirement, because they’d not got the intelligence to put a case file together.

I wish you the best. I’m off to understand what I don’t know about, keep my uneducated opinion to myself and I’ll keep quiet…

[Batfoy]

I'm just here for the pissing contest, my money's on the legal bloke.

[Wacky Racer]

[2020vision]

ADJimbo said:

Shaun170 said:

ADJimbo said:

What utter bunkem. As others have predicted, with 100% accuracy, the verbal NIP starts the ball rolling. Six months to lay information..

This will go SPJN owing to the speed. It s very borderline.

Your fourteen day rule only relates to a static or mobile camera or handheld device. If it was a follow-check, which it was in my opinion, as the OP was stopped at the scene, then questioning the validity of the Speedo on the target vehicle has no legs. Calibration, forget it. They ve n heard it all before. This defence, will - It ll fail from the outset because on behalf of the Warrented Constable will rely on his/her MG11 statement will trump your argument.

You d be better-off yelling the Hoky-Coky in front of the magistrate and/or District Judge.

Your argument, of suggesting a laser beam of light may have bounced of glass is fanciful.

Utter bunkum Really?
Where did you gain your knowledge and expertise? I m a retired Police officer (30yrs) and did 18 years as a traffic officer.

As I originally said, the officer would have given NIP warning at the time if they were reporting him there and then. It s given for certain offences such as speeding, driving without due care or dangerous driving etc not just for speeding as you state. When completing evidence the officer would have to mention if this was given at the time. If not, the prosecution department would do it on their behalf and it needs to be done within 14 days. As speeding is a summary only offence, if it goes to court, it needs to be layed within 6 months, so you re getting confused there also.

ACPO guidelines state that speed detection devices such as speed guns are not used through glass. I never did it and I know none of my colleagues ever used it this way. Thats why for example speed vans have a small open window they detect through and not from behind glass. You re also told not to use it this way when your trained on it.

In all my years as a police officer the only cars which had calibrated speedos were the traffic cars. And all this meant was that they had extra increments between the 5mph marks. If you look at your own Speedo it only has marks at 5mph increments. When being converted to police use the speedo is removed and sent away for the face of the speedo to be changed. It s bench tested for accuracy and then returned to the company converting the car. It never gets checked again. ALL speed folllows in traffic cars carried out using a Home Office Approved (HOA) speed detection device. In my day and force it was a device called Pilot. ONLY HOA devices can be used for speed detection evidence. This equipment is calibrated as and when the vehicle is used not the cars calibrated speedo. The device checks an average speed over time and distance and works out the average follow speed. Accuracy of time and distance is the key not just somebody sitting behind you for a distance looking at their speedo.

An officer in a patrol car as described is more likely to be a normal patrol officer and not a traffic officer. They would have had no specific training for speed detection and no real interest in reporting for excess speed as it s not their main roll, I know as I ve been one. On the very very rare occasion that I did report somebody in a vehicle not equipped with a speed section device, i.e just using the vehicles speedo, it can only be used as corroborating evidence, not direct evidence of the speed. That police vehicle in question would also need to be speed checked at certain speeds using a speed gun to confirm how close to the actual speed it was. A lot of faff for all officers involved and not normally done as a result.

Can I suggest if you really don t know what you re talking about, you keep quiet and keep your uneducated opinion to yourself so as not to confuse the OP.

Edited by Shaun170 on Thursday 5th June 10:16

I ll deal with your questions in point.

1. I was awarded an LLB(Hons) from Cambridge.
2. I was awarded an LLM(Hons) from Cambridge.
3. I was called to join the Bar three years later.
4. I joined Pupiliage at Fenners Chambers and then went onto become a specialised contractural / motoring lawyer.

Uneducated? Not sure, open to interpretation. People still pay me for it. I get by. I do alright. I d love to think that I know what I m talking about.

Keeping quiet? Nah, it s not for me really. I won t keep quiet in all honesty as I believe in fairness during the Judical process. I ve pointed out the OP s plus and minus on a free-forum, you however, have created confusion, whilst being offensive to me personally.

As you ve drawn me down to this level, I ll bite. You do know that ACPO documents are just that? Guidelines and Documents? Not ensriched?

Turning to your final point, you must have retired years ago. The days of the calibrated speedo are long gone. It s now forming the opinion by a Warrented Constables. When you must have trained you d have been in a Rover SD1 with secondary speedometer on the glove-box.

I ve given the OP, sound, free, legal advice to help him. If you want to criticise my input on the legal interpretation of the sentencing guidelines then please do

Telling me to keep quiet and calling me uneducated is exactly why I worked my tits off through University before I joined the Bar was to deal with Coppers of your generation. I loved turning your generation over in the mid90s, under CX before their retirement, because they d not got the intelligence to put a case file together.

I wish you the best. I m off to understand what I don t know about, keep my uneducated opinion to myself and I ll keep quiet

To be to the point Jim, I am absolutely shocked that someone with your qualifications knows next to F**k-all about this subject.
Hopefully you are involved in matters that have nothing to do with traffic law.
Listing your qualifications below an incompetent interpretation of traffic law does you no service.
Pip-pip!

[Avenicus]

Batfoy said:

I'm just here for the pissing contest, my money's on the legal bloke.

Same here. 1-0 Jimbo, and game over, but I have my popcorn ready for a response just in case.

Thank you Jimbo for your erudite post

[Batfoy]

Ooooh, Shaun has tagged 2020 and now he's in the ring while shaun gets his breath back. Where's AGT?!