Advice required - stopped on M6

[BigJC]

I was stopped the other evening for, as the officer put it, "exceeding 90mph". I produced my clean licence, received a clear check for insurance/personal details etc and was advised about the dangers of speeding. I was cautioned that anything I said would be used in evidence as I am being reported for the offence of exceeding the speed limit.
I wasn't shown any evidence nor could I see a tv screen in the Range Rover, i don't doubt it's there, but thought it odd not to have been shown the average speed for which I was being reported. The officer did say that he had to travel at between 116mph and 120mph to keep pace according to his speedometer which I expect is calibrated.

I'm waiting for the summons before I take any action but I was just wondering if I should have at least been asked if I wanted to see the evidence at the time.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated!

[polus]

Ermm, doesnt he mean exceeding 1XXmph to catch upto you or were you side-by-side

Anyway you can ask for the evidence later.

Get yourself over to www.pepipoo.co.uk

Edited by polus on Saturday 9th September 18:04

Edited by polus on Saturday 9th September 18:04

[pwig]

I'd say thats a lucky escape tbh, 3 points for 100 +

[deva link]

BigJC said:

The officer did say that he had to travel at between 116mph and 120mph to keep pace according to his speedometer which I expect is calibrated.

I'd be pretty surprised if a Police (with light bar etc) Range Rover could go that fast, and I've certainly never seen one that sort of speed.

[UpTheIron]

pwig said:

I'd say thats a lucky escape tbh, 3 points for 100 +

Escape? Sounds like summons in the post to me...

[tvrgit]

one policeman plus calibrated speedo = no further evidence required. They don't have to photo you or film you.

[Fiskkeeper]

1 liar with a silly hat = guilty you mean?

[gafferjim]

deva link said:

BigJC said:

The officer did say that he had to travel at between 116mph and 120mph to keep pace according to his speedometer which I expect is calibrated.

I'd be pretty surprised if a Police (with light bar etc) Range Rover could go that fast, and I've certainly never seen one that sort of speed.

Trust me, yes they can! they're not the average range rover!

[WildCat]

gafferjim said:

deva link said:

BigJC said:

The officer did say that he had to travel at between 116mph and 120mph to keep pace according to his speedometer which I expect is calibrated.

I'd be pretty surprised if a Police (with light bar etc) Range Rover could go that fast, and I've certainly never seen one that sort of speed.

Trust me, yes they can! they're not the average range rover!

None of those motorway cop cars are average My cousin BiB once let me have a quick look under the bonnets when I went to visit him und his- und he very kindly arranged for me to meet his team. They all apparently said "und/ist" a lot for a couple of days after that Was impressive fleet of motor though.. und they - er - do drive them all too! They don't have fixed scams or pratnership there.. ist quaintest old fashioned type sleuthing....

[deva link]

gafferjim said:

deva link said:

BigJC said:

The officer did say that he had to travel at between 116mph and 120mph to keep pace according to his speedometer which I expect is calibrated.

I'd be pretty surprised if a Police (with light bar etc) Range Rover could go that fast, and I've certainly never seen one that sort of speed.

Trust me, yes they can! they're not the average range rover!

Hmmm...I know the Police used to get blueprinted engines, and these days it's easy to chip ECU's, but I have it on good authority (from several separate sources) that this is by no means routine. The cars are pretty standard these days, apart from beefed up electrics.
Showing my age a bit here, but I remember the Police being very unhappy when they first got the Rover V8 engined Range Rovers as they wouldn't go over 90.
Even today's supercharged Range Rover can only do 130.

[Peter Ward]

Fiskkeeper said:

1 liar with a silly hat = guilty you mean?

You've noticed the deliberate error in this legislation. Unfortunately it was passed back in the days when there wasn't such a thing as a bent copper, and, let's face it, most people were basically honest as well. Those days have gone but the law hasn't caught up. Sad that it has to, but it really should.

[Dwight VanDriver]

>>>>>most people were basically honest as well.<<<<

So true Peter.....on both sides.

dvd

[vonhosen]

Peter Ward said:

Fiskkeeper said:

1 liar with a silly hat = guilty you mean?

You've noticed the deliberate error in this legislation. Unfortunately it was passed back in the days when there wasn't such a thing as a bent copper, and, let's face it, most people were basically honest as well. Those days have gone but the law hasn't caught up. Sad that it has to, but it really should.

You really believe that ?

I've been in the Police a long time & there was a climate in which it was far easier for bent coppers to operate back in the day than there is now, believe me.

[bond-007]

You never know, in all fairness.

[bigjc]

Well after 5 months and 12 days a summons turned up! According to the officers statement the speed varied was between 94 and 98 for 1 mile and then varied between 114 and 118 for 1 mile. The statement was dated nearly 2 weeks after the stop and the speedo was calibrated 1 hour after the stop.

The statement is not the entire transcript of the cobversation, more of an edited highlights imo.As there was no recording equipment, would the following help me in court?:

"A person prosecuted for a [speeding] offence shall not be liable to be convicted on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit"

Section 89(2) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Cheers.

[10 Pence Short]

What does the charge on the summons say?

[vonhosen]

bigjc said:

Well after 5 months and 12 days a summons turned up! According to the officers statement the speed varied was between 94 and 98 for 1 mile and then varied between 114 and 118 for 1 mile. The statement was dated nearly 2 weeks after the stop and the speedo was calibrated 1 hour after the stop.

The statement is not the entire transcript of the cobversation, more of an edited highlights imo.As there was no recording equipment, would the following help me in court?:

"A person prosecuted for a [speeding] offence shall not be liable to be convicted on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit"

Section 89(2) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Cheers.

You aren't being prosecuted on the opinion of one witness. The officer firstly formed the opinion you were speeding & then measured your speed using a calibrated device to confirm the opinon. That reading is evidence of fact.

[chrispy porker]

vonhosen said:

Peter Ward said:

Fiskkeeper said:

1 liar with a silly hat = guilty you mean?

You've noticed the deliberate error in this legislation. Unfortunately it was passed back in the days when there wasn't such a thing as a bent copper, and, let's face it, most people were basically honest as well. Those days have gone but the law hasn't caught up. Sad that it has to, but it really should.

You really believe that ?

I've been in the Police a long time & there was a climate in which it was far easier for bent coppers to operate back in the day than there is now, believe me.

ain't that the truth!

Edited by chrispy porker on Tuesday 30th January 18:06

[justinp1]

vonhosen said:

bigjc said:

Well after 5 months and 12 days a summons turned up! According to the officers statement the speed varied was between 94 and 98 for 1 mile and then varied between 114 and 118 for 1 mile. The statement was dated nearly 2 weeks after the stop and the speedo was calibrated 1 hour after the stop.

The statement is not the entire transcript of the cobversation, more of an edited highlights imo.As there was no recording equipment, would the following help me in court?:

"A person prosecuted for a [speeding] offence shall not be liable to be convicted on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit"

Section 89(2) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Cheers.

You aren't being prosecuted on the opinion of one witness. The officer firstly formed the opinion you were speeding & then measured your speed using a calibrated device to confirm the opinon. That reading is evidence of fact.

Agreed.

if there are two officers and a calibrated speedo then you are fighting an uphill battle.

It could be argued that if they had evidence to stop you for the first mile, and of course kept the same distance behind you for a whole mile, then why were you not stoppped then?

However, these arguments are hypothetical and do not disprove the evidence. Although the evidence is not supported by any device, and thus the evidence is solely based on the fact that the officers followed the same distance behind you for a whole mile, twice - the amounts over the limit are such that it would be very difficult to argue a margin of error.

For this the only way to try and fight the case would be for a very good solicitor to get the officers to slip up. To be honest, that is doubtful. A good solicitor may advise to agree to the first speed but not the second, thus minimising the possible sentence.

[fluffnik]

Fiskkeeper said:

1 liar with a silly hat = guilty you mean?

We need to replace the state, not just its management.