I need some help please
Discussion
Hi guys and gals.
I need some help and advice please!
I was travelling on the A11 going while heading for Gatwick. The road conditions were dry, straight road, that know pretty well, and traffic was light. Anyway, I´m travelling at some speed, when I see a marked poice Volvo pull onto the A11 down a slip road behind me, I brake. The police car pulls in front, turns on his lights and signals me to pull over. I do this, he walks up to my car and asks me the usual things and does various checks on my car. He then puts in the back of his police car and says he caught me speeding. He shows me his in car screen, with some data, showing that I covered 0.42 of a mile in 12.58 seconds. He then said that this worked out to 120.28mph. He said what he would like to have done is taken a second reading, while pacing me from behind, but as I braked and slowed down, he couldn´t do this. I asked him if he had any print out, picture of video I could see of me committing the offence, to which he replied he had none. The info he showed me on his in car screen, did NOT have any details relating to me or my car. Whatsmore, he wrote down my details, asked me to sign, did the usual vehicle and person checks. I then asked when I would receive my NIP, to which he replied he was giving me a verbal NIP. Is this the norm? He told me he had to go back to the station and fill out a form and that I would hear from the local magistrates in a few weeks time. When I left him, he gave me no forms, paperwork or proof that it was car he caught...?
I did not admit to travelling at this speed, and like I say, he gave me no proof then and there and admitted to having none.
So the way I´m looking at it right now, is that if it went to court it would be my word against his.
You thoughts and opinions would be greatly appreciated. Would he be able to take this any further? What would be my likely sentence?
Many thanks,
Darren
I need some help and advice please!
I was travelling on the A11 going while heading for Gatwick. The road conditions were dry, straight road, that know pretty well, and traffic was light. Anyway, I´m travelling at some speed, when I see a marked poice Volvo pull onto the A11 down a slip road behind me, I brake. The police car pulls in front, turns on his lights and signals me to pull over. I do this, he walks up to my car and asks me the usual things and does various checks on my car. He then puts in the back of his police car and says he caught me speeding. He shows me his in car screen, with some data, showing that I covered 0.42 of a mile in 12.58 seconds. He then said that this worked out to 120.28mph. He said what he would like to have done is taken a second reading, while pacing me from behind, but as I braked and slowed down, he couldn´t do this. I asked him if he had any print out, picture of video I could see of me committing the offence, to which he replied he had none. The info he showed me on his in car screen, did NOT have any details relating to me or my car. Whatsmore, he wrote down my details, asked me to sign, did the usual vehicle and person checks. I then asked when I would receive my NIP, to which he replied he was giving me a verbal NIP. Is this the norm? He told me he had to go back to the station and fill out a form and that I would hear from the local magistrates in a few weeks time. When I left him, he gave me no forms, paperwork or proof that it was car he caught...?
I did not admit to travelling at this speed, and like I say, he gave me no proof then and there and admitted to having none.
So the way I´m looking at it right now, is that if it went to court it would be my word against his.
You thoughts and opinions would be greatly appreciated. Would he be able to take this any further? What would be my likely sentence?
Many thanks,
Darren
It sounds to me like he used the VASCAR system to time you between 2 points. He might have been hidden around a bridge over the road you were travelling on, and timed you between 2 bridges, for example.
The VASCAR is operator based (ie. the officer presses a button when you pass point A and then when you pass point B) and gives a reading of the average speed over a determined distance.
From memory of when I've been stopped in similar circumstances, the Police Officer just followed the normal routine. Did the Officer verbally say he intended to report you for speeding, or did he add anything else? 120mph is getting into dangerous driving territory depending on the circumstances.
I may be corrected, but it could be anything up to 6 months before a summons arrives.
The VASCAR is operator based (ie. the officer presses a button when you pass point A and then when you pass point B) and gives a reading of the average speed over a determined distance.
From memory of when I've been stopped in similar circumstances, the Police Officer just followed the normal routine. Did the Officer verbally say he intended to report you for speeding, or did he add anything else? 120mph is getting into dangerous driving territory depending on the circumstances.
I may be corrected, but it could be anything up to 6 months before a summons arrives.
puggit said:
More well informed people will be along later, but I'd say there may be a chance of some bargaining here and admitting something around 99mph - ie ban dodging...
In what way? If the officer has used VASCAR in the correct way, I don't see how there can be any bargaining?
Concerning the recent case involving Lee Bowyer, from memory that case was bargained down to 99mph on the basis that the measured mile used was actually a few yards too short.
If you are cautioned at the time of the offence that you are to be reported for speeding, that yu don't have to say anything etc etc... then no written NIP is required - as others have said, the next thing you hear may be a summons in 6 months or so.
Also, he doesn't need photo or video evidence. He has "formed an opinion" that a motoring offence has been committed. He has confirmed that opinion using a recognised method of speed measurement (and it does sound like VASCAR in this instance). He has recorded your name and the reg number of your car (presumably?). That's it.
Your only defence is that he did not time you correctly or measure the timed distance correctly - unlikely to get you off completely but a good lawyer might be able to prove a margin for error that gets you below the magic 99 mph.
Also, he doesn't need photo or video evidence. He has "formed an opinion" that a motoring offence has been committed. He has confirmed that opinion using a recognised method of speed measurement (and it does sound like VASCAR in this instance). He has recorded your name and the reg number of your car (presumably?). That's it.
Your only defence is that he did not time you correctly or measure the timed distance correctly - unlikely to get you off completely but a good lawyer might be able to prove a margin for error that gets you below the magic 99 mph.
I know that this has probably been said here a thousand times before but why do the police need no physical evidence that an offence has been comitted?If a guy was being prosecuted for burglary for instance the PC couldn't just say "I saw him" could he? surely he'd have to provide more evidence than that?Maybe I'm wrong......
tvrgit said:
If you are cautioned at the time of the offence that you are to be reported for speeding, that yu don't have to say anything etc etc... then no written NIP is required - as others have said, the next thing you hear may be a summons in 6 months or so...
It's not a caution that is required but a verbal nip -- "you are being reported for the consideration of prosecution for the offence of speeding" rather than "you don't have to say..."
7db said:
tvrgit said:
If you are cautioned at the time of the offence that you are to be reported for speeding, that yu don't have to say anything etc etc... then no written NIP is required - as others have said, the next thing you hear may be a summons in 6 months or so...
It's not a caution that is required but a verbal nip -- "you are being reported for the consideration of prosecution for the offence of speeding" rather than "you don't have to say..."
Actually the last time I was stopped by a proper policeman I got the "...you don't have to say....." stuff.
7db said:
tvrgit said:
If you are cautioned at the time of the offence that you are to be reported for speeding, that yu don't have to say anything etc etc... then no written NIP is required - as others have said, the next thing you hear may be a summons in 6 months or so...
It's not a caution that is required but a verbal nip -- "you are being reported for the consideration of prosecution for the offence of speeding" rather than "you don't have to say..."
ok you'll know better than I do!
I was only explaining that he can do the necessary verbally without handing you bits of paper... it's ages (over 20 years!!!) since I heard the actual spiel (oh no, talk about tempting fate!)
esselte said:
I know that this has probably been said here a thousand times before but why do the police need no physical evidence that an offence has been comitted?If a guy was being prosecuted for burglary for instance the PC couldn't just say "I saw him" could he? surely he'd have to provide more evidence than that?Maybe I'm wrong......
The witness testimony of an officer can be sufficient to convict in many cases. Drunk & disorderly for instance.
For what it is worth when I spoke informally to the police officer at my speeding case he did actually mention that the VASCAR system was removed from cars for a time before a new chief demanded they were replaced.
They were removed as if they were misused they were inaccurate. It involves the use if flicking switches in time which means that the error is induced by operator error twice. Errors can also be added consciously or subconsciously by the operator. If the operator was also driving at the time, then it is obvious that it is even more possible for there to be an error.
Nick Freeman regularly rips apart the VASCAR system. That is if he *has* to. There is just as much chance as the CPS losing the case through another technicality.
They were removed as if they were misused they were inaccurate. It involves the use if flicking switches in time which means that the error is induced by operator error twice. Errors can also be added consciously or subconsciously by the operator. If the operator was also driving at the time, then it is obvious that it is even more possible for there to be an error.
Nick Freeman regularly rips apart the VASCAR system. That is if he *has* to. There is just as much chance as the CPS losing the case through another technicality.
Pigeon said:
FWIW the figure is wrong... 0.42 miles in 12.58 seconds is not 120.28mph, but 120.19 mph.
I agree with that, so there is something strange to start with.
Its a long shot but if it was 0.42 kilometres not miles travelled this would be a much more 'managable' 74mph. Worth a dig with a good solicotor and a witness 'on the ropes'?
I would not discount the possibility that he may not be bothered to fill out the forms or when the case is sent to the CPS they decide that there is not enough evidence to convict.
Pigeon said:
FWIW the figure is wrong... 0.42 miles in 12.58 seconds is not 120.28mph, but 120.19 mph.
Based on those figures yes, but the unit maybe did its calculations using more decimal places, but only displaying two decimal places? I don't see the discrepancy being enough to be helpful in fending off the charge.
My sympathies to the OP, but it's all nonsense anyhow! <sighs wearily>
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I´m not 100% on my quoted figures, but as he didn´t give me any hard information to take away, I cannot confirm this. If I contacted the local police station, would they be able to give me the exact figures?
I´m currently in Barcelona, so any PM´s I´ve received, I´ll read them when I get home tomorrow
Many thanks guys and gals.
Any further info or ideas would be greatly received.
Thanks again,
Darren
I´m currently in Barcelona, so any PM´s I´ve received, I´ll read them when I get home tomorrow
Many thanks guys and gals.
Any further info or ideas would be greatly received.
Thanks again,
Darren
Just a bit of an update here, but I've not received anything yet.
I've obviously been playing the situation over in my mind, on many many occasions and 3 points spring to mind........
1) The road is not straight. It is curved, so from where the officer said he was parked, it would seem that I pass the two points in the 0.42 of a mile quicker that on a straight piece of road (I will take some photos in the next couple of weeks of the area and road I was caught on, to illustrate this further!)
2) The police officer DID NOT turn the in-car camera round to film me, when I was in his car. Don't they usually do this?
3) And I think this is the most important point.....I cannot ever remember being cautioned. This is something I would definately remember!
Darren
I've obviously been playing the situation over in my mind, on many many occasions and 3 points spring to mind........
1) The road is not straight. It is curved, so from where the officer said he was parked, it would seem that I pass the two points in the 0.42 of a mile quicker that on a straight piece of road (I will take some photos in the next couple of weeks of the area and road I was caught on, to illustrate this further!)
2) The police officer DID NOT turn the in-car camera round to film me, when I was in his car. Don't they usually do this?
3) And I think this is the most important point.....I cannot ever remember being cautioned. This is something I would definately remember!
Darren
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff