Advice on being caught speeding please...
Discussion
Hello,
I'm posting this on behalf of my dad who unfortunately fell victim to some revenue generators last week and hoping to get some advice from those more knowledgable in this field than I. He got pulled over in a thirty limit by a Police car with two officers on board who said that they had been following him and their speedo had read 42 mph so therefore he must have been doing that speed as well. Dad is pretty sure he was not doing this speed and feels that they accelerated up behind him giving a false impression of his speed.
My question is, are they allowed to do this? There was no recording and no speed detection equipment involved, just their opinion and their speedo. Unfortunately, dad was a little taken aback at the time and accepted the fine and 3 points on the spot but it occurred to me that it seems like there is a serious lack of any concrete evidence of an offence here. Incidentally, dad was accompanied by an IAM instructor who would be prepared to corrobrate the fact that dad was obeying the limit.
Any advice would be much appreciated - it may be too late as he already accepted the fine but it would be useful to know in future...
Many thanks,
Gylen
I'm posting this on behalf of my dad who unfortunately fell victim to some revenue generators last week and hoping to get some advice from those more knowledgable in this field than I. He got pulled over in a thirty limit by a Police car with two officers on board who said that they had been following him and their speedo had read 42 mph so therefore he must have been doing that speed as well. Dad is pretty sure he was not doing this speed and feels that they accelerated up behind him giving a false impression of his speed.
My question is, are they allowed to do this? There was no recording and no speed detection equipment involved, just their opinion and their speedo. Unfortunately, dad was a little taken aback at the time and accepted the fine and 3 points on the spot but it occurred to me that it seems like there is a serious lack of any concrete evidence of an offence here. Incidentally, dad was accompanied by an IAM instructor who would be prepared to corrobrate the fact that dad was obeying the limit.
Any advice would be much appreciated - it may be too late as he already accepted the fine but it would be useful to know in future...
Many thanks,
Gylen
Bit late now but it could have been worth him sticking to his guns at the time. Was in a mate's car once, we came up behind a police car (two occupants, not traffic) doing 30 in a 40, and overtook, then sped up to 60 when the 40 became NSL. A couple of miles further on the police car pulled us over and accused my mate of doing 10mph over both speed limits. Some polite but firm argument followed, with me backing up my mate's assertion that the speedo had not exceeded 40 and 60 respectively; they then threatened to prosecute for a defective speedo as well, to which my mate responded that it had been checked a few days ago and was accurate. In the end they took no action.
(After being let go, we then made a detour down a dual carriageway to do a timed run against the marker posts; the speedo was still bang on.)
(After being let go, we then made a detour down a dual carriageway to do a timed run against the marker posts; the speedo was still bang on.)
puggit said:
vonhosen said:
A single Police officer with a speedo is suffice.
Speedo or calibrated speedo?Doesn't have to be calibrated if the margin over the limit is not small (Nicholas v Penny 1950)
In any other case provided the uncalibrated speedo is checked after the event against a calibrated device, that would suffice.
vonhosen said:
puggit said:
vonhosen said:
A single Police officer with a speedo is suffice.
Speedo or calibrated speedo?Doesn't have to be calibrated if the margin over the limit is not small (Nicholas v Penny 1950)
In any other case provided the uncalibrated speedo is checked after the event against a calibrated device, that would suffice.
How small is small?
Plotloss said:
For how long were they following him?
The speed has to be guaged over a set minimum distance I believe.
The speed has to be guaged over a set minimum distance I believe.
Doesnt seem to apply much anymore, though it may still be a rule used when something like VASCAR is used, to minimise measurement error. Remember that practice was born in the days of common sense, when everyone realised that sometimes it was better to break the limit sometimes, to overtake for instance. So for a brief excursion nobody cared.
imbecile said:
vonhosen said:
puggit said:
vonhosen said:
A single Police officer with a speedo is suffice.
Speedo or calibrated speedo?Doesn't have to be calibrated if the margin over the limit is not small (Nicholas v Penny 1950)
In any other case provided the uncalibrated speedo is checked after the event against a calibrated device, that would suffice.
How small is small?
How long is a piece of string
imbecile said:
vonhosen said:
puggit said:
vonhosen said:
A single Police officer with a speedo is suffice.
Speedo or calibrated speedo?Doesn't have to be calibrated if the margin over the limit is not small (Nicholas v Penny 1950)
In any other case provided the uncalibrated speedo is checked after the event against a calibrated device, that would suffice.
How small is small?
In the stated case quoted a driver convicted on the evidence of one officer & speedo appealed on the grounds that no evidence of accuracy of the speedo had been given.
The conviction held because no such evidence was required unless the margin over the limit was very small. In the case quoted the margin over the limit was 10mph.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 3rd July 06:36
Normal procedure as far as I am aware is that on a follow one has to allow the first 2/10ths of a mile for the following vehicle to 'settle down' to a even distance and hence repute any suggestion of being done on a 'run in'. This distance should also allow the followed driver to be aware of the police car behind and if he isn't then is he watching his rear view mirror?????
Couple of other points. With a number of cars is it possible to see the needle of the speedo in the 30 -40 range from the passenger seat without physcically bending to the right and towards the driver?. May be IAM is relying on this visial perception of actual speed and not from the speedo?
Can any one tell me why a couple of officers in a car without any apparent rhyme or reason other than detecting an offence of speeding shoud pick on 'Dad' and slap a speeding ticket on him? Come on.
Ok so its a bind being caught but on this one the odds are stacked skyhigh against a get off.
dvd
Couple of other points. With a number of cars is it possible to see the needle of the speedo in the 30 -40 range from the passenger seat without physcically bending to the right and towards the driver?. May be IAM is relying on this visial perception of actual speed and not from the speedo?
Can any one tell me why a couple of officers in a car without any apparent rhyme or reason other than detecting an offence of speeding shoud pick on 'Dad' and slap a speeding ticket on him? Come on.
Ok so its a bind being caught but on this one the odds are stacked skyhigh against a get off.
dvd
If your father is feeling indignant then I would reassure him that in this one respect common sense and the law fall some way apart.
I think the older generation get a little more aggrieved with getting caught speeding as there was a stigma attached to speeding in his younger years that there just isn't now.
If he considers that his speed was sensible for those conditions then, unfortunately, in this day and age he is probably more likely to be right than the police. Not something you could have said even ten or certainly twenty years ago.
I think the older generation get a little more aggrieved with getting caught speeding as there was a stigma attached to speeding in his younger years that there just isn't now.
If he considers that his speed was sensible for those conditions then, unfortunately, in this day and age he is probably more likely to be right than the police. Not something you could have said even ten or certainly twenty years ago.
Thanks for all the replies - it sounds like there's pretty much nothing to be done which is as we suspected. I was asking dad a bit more about what happened and it does seem a bit odd. He went round a roundabout before turning onto a dual carriageway bridge. He is sure there were no other cars to be seen at that point and then as he was decelerating to approach the roundabout at the end of the bridge, he saw a pair of lights closing fast in the rear view mirror. He disrgarded them as being just another car, crossed the roundabout and then said car in mirror immediately turned on its flashing blue lights and pulled him over. By both he and his friends' estimate, they cant have been behind for more that about 100 yards.
I don't think he's too bothered as it's his first 3 ponts in over 30 years motoring but I think it's more the principle of the thing. I guess dad was the crime highlight in Inverness that evening
Thanks again for the responses - I just wanted to be clear for future reference...
Gylen
I don't think he's too bothered as it's his first 3 ponts in over 30 years motoring but I think it's more the principle of the thing. I guess dad was the crime highlight in Inverness that evening
Thanks again for the responses - I just wanted to be clear for future reference...
Gylen
Julian64 said:
If your father is feeling indignant then I would reassure him that in this one respect common sense and the law fall some way apart.
I think the older generation get a little more aggrieved with getting caught speeding as there was a stigma attached to speeding in his younger years that there just isn't now.
I think the older generation get a little more aggrieved with getting caught speeding as there was a stigma attached to speeding in his younger years that there just isn't now.
I'm not denying that some changes of atttiude have taken place in recent years, with different detection and enforcement regimes, but I'm not at all sure there ever was much stigma attached to speeding.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Edited by TripleS on Monday 3rd July 11:26
Dwight Vandriver said:
Couple of other points. With a number of cars is it possible to see the needle of the speedo in the 30 -40 range from the passenger seat without physcically bending to the right and towards the driver?. May be IAM is relying on this visial perception of actual speed and not from the speedo?
dvd
And exactly the same principle applies to the coppers DVD!!
This bloody nonsense with calibrated speedos is reaching epidemic proportions.
This is NOT acceptable.
The government has spent a king's ransom of OUR money on developing and utilising highly specialised speed detection equipment, and more and more coppers recently are totally ignoring all these years of development and trying it on with NO evidence.
In this case though we have the word of the two coppers, but we also have the word of the driver and an IAM instructor; I would be deeply disappointed in any judge who would consider a conviction safe with this evidence.
It also has to be pointed out in the strongest terms that in a situation where the police are not using Provida or a similar device, there is no material evidence for the defence or the court to examine, this in itself is highly prejudicial in the light of the existence of the equipment to record that same material evidence.
Vonhosen's insistence in once again adhering to his 1950's precedent is still to me totally ridiculous.
jith said:
Dwight Vandriver said:
Couple of other points. With a number of cars is it possible to see the needle of the speedo in the 30 -40 range from the passenger seat without physcically bending to the right and towards the driver?. May be IAM is relying on this visial perception of actual speed and not from the speedo?
dvd
And exactly the same principle applies to the coppers DVD!!
This bloody nonsense with calibrated speedos is reaching epidemic proportions.
This is NOT acceptable.
The government has spent a king's ransom of OUR money on developing and utilising highly specialised speed detection equipment, and more and more coppers recently are totally ignoring all these years of development and trying it on with NO evidence.
In this case though we have the word of the two coppers, but we also have the word of the driver and an IAM instructor; I would be deeply disappointed in any judge who would consider a conviction safe with this evidence.
It also has to be pointed out in the strongest terms that in a situation where the police are not using Provida or a similar device, there is no material evidence for the defence or the court to examine, this in itself is highly prejudicial in the light of the existence of the equipment to record that same material evidence.
Vonhosen's insistence in once again adhering to his 1950's precedent is still to me totally ridiculous.
How do you know the Police car in question had either a calibrated speedo OR pilot etc ?
Most don't.
They do have evidence, because the precedents still stand.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 3rd July 22:48
vonhosen said:
jith said:
Dwight Vandriver said:
Couple of other points. With a number of cars is it possible to see the needle of the speedo in the 30 -40 range from the passenger seat without physcically bending to the right and towards the driver?. May be IAM is relying on this visial perception of actual speed and not from the speedo?
dvd
And exactly the same principle applies to the coppers DVD!!
This bloody nonsense with calibrated speedos is reaching epidemic proportions.
This is NOT acceptable.
The government has spent a king's ransom of OUR money on developing and utilising highly specialised speed detection equipment, and more and more coppers recently are totally ignoring all these years of development and trying it on with NO evidence.
In this case though we have the word of the two coppers, but we also have the word of the driver and an IAM instructor; I would be deeply disappointed in any judge who would consider a conviction safe with this evidence.
It also has to be pointed out in the strongest terms that in a situation where the police are not using Provida or a similar device, there is no material evidence for the defence or the court to examine, this in itself is highly prejudicial in the light of the existence of the equipment to record that same material evidence.
Vonhosen's insistence in once again adhering to his 1950's precedent is still to me totally ridiculous.
How do you know the Police car in question had either a calibrated speedo OR pilot etc ?
Most don't.
They do have evidence, because the precedents still stand.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 3rd July 22:48
Read the post!!
gylen said:
He got pulled over in a thirty limit by a Police car with two officers on board who said that they had been following him and their speedo had read 42 mph
There was no recording and no speed detection equipment involved, just their opinion and their speedo.
Gylen
NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will not insult you VH by asking if you know what the term "material evidence" means.
But for the benefit of the forum it is simply physical evidence, i.e. something you can see and touch that is real, NOT a composition of someone's imagination or over-zealous pursuit of "justice"; but real arguable evidence.
In this case the appropriate material evidence would be a video tape of the incident.
Besides, as DeMolay pointed out earlier and something that you appear to either constantly miss or ignore, the precedent you quote does not stand in Scotland.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff