Mobile Van - 92 in 70?

[wr85496]

I have just received a NIP stating that I was doing 92 in a 70 on the A404 on a quiet Saturday morning. I actually saw the mobile van at the time stated, but it was in a lay-by on the opposite dual carriageway facing the oncoming traffic. Is it possible for them to take a reading from a car going away from them four lanes away with crash barriers in between? Of course there is the possibility there was another trap that I did not spot, but I don't think so?

[cooperman]

Don't reply to the COFP, plead not-guilty and view all the evidence. Then you'll know whether you have a defence or not. If they have solid evidence, then you can change your plea to guilty in the court, apologise and pay the fine.

[cptsideways]

get the evidence

[10 Pence Short]

If the van is firing across 4 lanes of traffic, then it's very likely that they're totally ignoring the ACPO guidelines referring to being as close to parallel as possible to the traffic being targeted.

I doubt this would influence any prosecution too much, unless there was doubt with regards to interference, especially considering that by being at such an angle, the speed recorded would likely be under what you were actually doing.

[havoc]

10 Pence Short said:

I doubt this would influence any prosecution too much, unless there was doubt with regards to interference, especially considering that by being at such an angle, the speed recorded would likely be under what you were actually doing.

Agreed. Unless the operator took advantage of 'slip error' (easy to explain, bugger to prove!), e.g. didn't move the laser, initially aiming for far end of # plate, as you move forward the laser 'travels' to the near point of # plate. Cue additional 'travel' of car for free, so to speak, increasing the speed.

See if you can get the evidence, see if anything is potentially obstructing their field-of-view, or if other vehicles are in shot - anything that might throw doubt. Then decide how to plead.

[outnumbered]

Someone else may have been caught in exactly the same way:

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=224077&f=10&h=0&hw=a404

Worth asking to see the picture, I reckon, just to see how many other cars and bits of road furniture are in it.

[wr85496]

Thanks for your replies. It seems then that the only way to get any evidence is to plead not guilty and go to court, and if they do have a rear shot anyway the only other defense I can think off that it states in the accompaning letter that mobile vans should be parked where they can be clearly seen by motorists, I wonder if parked in a lay-by on the opposite side of a dual carrigeway counts as clearly visible? Again though these are only stated as guidlines.

As this is my first incident I am unsure if pleading guilty will gain me any benefit if they do have a photograph. From reading other threads it seems that in ceratin cases photographs have been supplied up front with the NIP?

[shuvitupya]

If you know you were speeding, after seeing the evidence then admit guilty, as it's only first offence.

Going to court will cost you more.

[wr85496]

Only it seems the only way to get the police to show photographic evidence is to go to court?

[NugentS]

The bad news is that its almost certainly a copper manning the van - one I know quite well.

He is obvious - IF you are looking over the other side of the road, across the boundary into a layby. I personally don't consider a van parked on the other side of a dual carriageway to be a threat and so don't look there (and may not have done for a very similar speed at some point in the past)

The ACPO guidelines are just that - guidelines and so useless to you. Also the chances are that you were travelling faster that the specified speed as he will have got you at quite close range and a significant angle - so the angle would have worked in your favour...

Sean