His word against mine?
Discussion
I had a brief look through this forum to see if anyone had faced a similar situation, but did not see anything. Sorry if this is a repeat!
I was trundling along the a dual carriageway section of the A5 past milton keynes today, with my speed around the 80mph mark, when i noticed a police car in my rear view mirror joining from a slip road. I lowered my speed a little, better safe then sorry, and continued. It soon became apparent he was following me, as he compromised other's braking distances to stay behind me. Around 5 miles later, he put his lights on and i was pulled. I thought perhaps there was something hanging off my car. He asked me to follow him to a nearby petrol station. Once there he informed me he had been following me in excess of 100mph! I was amazed, i've never been that fast in my life, i'm not sure my car would make it! I realise there was no point in getting funny with him. I was very polite and expressed my surprise at the speeds he was talking about. After half an hour of being quized and having all my details checked, he let me go. But this got me thinking.
If i lose my license i lose my job, hence i take care on the road. I'm not saying this cop was out to get me, but perhaps he had clocked another similar car earlier or something. He was not in a traffic car and seemed to have no recording devices as he never told me what speed he'd clocked me at. He said he would have been able to prosecute if he wanted to. Is that true? Can a solo policemen obtain a conviction and possible ban, just by claiming he had to drive at a certain speed to stay a constant distance from me?
I was trundling along the a dual carriageway section of the A5 past milton keynes today, with my speed around the 80mph mark, when i noticed a police car in my rear view mirror joining from a slip road. I lowered my speed a little, better safe then sorry, and continued. It soon became apparent he was following me, as he compromised other's braking distances to stay behind me. Around 5 miles later, he put his lights on and i was pulled. I thought perhaps there was something hanging off my car. He asked me to follow him to a nearby petrol station. Once there he informed me he had been following me in excess of 100mph! I was amazed, i've never been that fast in my life, i'm not sure my car would make it! I realise there was no point in getting funny with him. I was very polite and expressed my surprise at the speeds he was talking about. After half an hour of being quized and having all my details checked, he let me go. But this got me thinking.
If i lose my license i lose my job, hence i take care on the road. I'm not saying this cop was out to get me, but perhaps he had clocked another similar car earlier or something. He was not in a traffic car and seemed to have no recording devices as he never told me what speed he'd clocked me at. He said he would have been able to prosecute if he wanted to. Is that true? Can a solo policemen obtain a conviction and possible ban, just by claiming he had to drive at a certain speed to stay a constant distance from me?
Doc it all sounds very strange.
I think you may have been stopped by a mobile A hole who was bored. Can he zap you for speeding on his own? Yes. Without recording devices? No.
Do I think he was talking crap? Oh yes.
He has probably done that old favorite "wow that looks fast must be at least a tun" So he drives at a tun to catch up on you bearing in mind you were already shifting.
He only has to do .2mile to nab you anyway. My guess is he was having a bit of sport with you and probably running your plate before he decided to pull you. They do this.
Its not fun but when you get that speech. Ive heard it a few times from folk who I have been working with and they know if they do that one with me when I'm on duty with them they will get a sharp poke in the eye with a blunt pencil.
If you can put it behind you. They are not all bad. He probably aint a bad guy either just a tosser for using that standard speech that the over zealous use. Makes you feel like crap, makes me mega peed off that they still do that.
Thats my guess my friend.
Oh and if you had been doing a tun for the record I would have done you without thinking about it and so would anybody else I know which lends to my thought he was talking out his bottom.
Safe driving Doc..cheers.
I think you may have been stopped by a mobile A hole who was bored. Can he zap you for speeding on his own? Yes. Without recording devices? No.
Do I think he was talking crap? Oh yes.
He has probably done that old favorite "wow that looks fast must be at least a tun" So he drives at a tun to catch up on you bearing in mind you were already shifting.
He only has to do .2mile to nab you anyway. My guess is he was having a bit of sport with you and probably running your plate before he decided to pull you. They do this.
Its not fun but when you get that speech. Ive heard it a few times from folk who I have been working with and they know if they do that one with me when I'm on duty with them they will get a sharp poke in the eye with a blunt pencil.
If you can put it behind you. They are not all bad. He probably aint a bad guy either just a tosser for using that standard speech that the over zealous use. Makes you feel like crap, makes me mega peed off that they still do that.
Thats my guess my friend.
Oh and if you had been doing a tun for the record I would have done you without thinking about it and so would anybody else I know which lends to my thought he was talking out his bottom.
Safe driving Doc..cheers.
Oh dear, well it all comes down to what you say. No recording devices and only himself well its not readily accepted that a 1 policeman in a non traffic car can get you convicted. What he was trying to do was to make you convict yourself.
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
bi9_jk said:
Oh dear, well it all comes down to what you say. No recording devices and only himself well its not readily accepted that a 1 policeman in a non traffic car can get you convicted. What he was trying to do was to make you convict yourself.
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
It is entirely possible for a lone Police officer, with primary evidence of opinion & secondary evidence from speedo, to provide sufficient evidence to convict without any admission on the part of the accused.
It doesn't even have to be a calibrated speedo where the margin over the limit is not small (Nicholas v Penny 1950).
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 27th November 23:08
Were you on the Northants section or the Bucks (Thames Valley)section?
Northants are, in my opinion, a little more "Taliban" on the traffic front than TVP.
I recall a number of years ago in the hazy past, trundling north on the M1 between 14 & 15, in my 1975 Opel Manta, Kermit Green, with factory option 15" Ronal Alloys (stood out like a sore thumb). I was in the flow of traffic in Lane 3, overtaking, among the T/V/W reg rep-mobiles (that's Prefix, not suffix!!).
A Northants Traffic Range Rover tugged me, citing the "We had to do over a ton to catch you"....
Following my usual greeting of "Good Morning, how may I help you officer/Sgt, etc." I pointed out that he was stationary, and to catch me in approximately 2/3mile he had to thrash the Range Rover within half an inch of it's life.
A light hearted conversation followed, with comments of "you don't seem 'em in this good a condition at this age very often". 4 mint tyres etc....
Finally - "How fast were you going sir?", to which I replied - indicated 70-75, which he replied, the limit is 70. Yes, I know, and you know that my speedo is 10% out, which means that I was doing between 63 and 68mph in reality.
"You know you're stuff don't you"....
Yep - I install yours!
Pleasantries exchanged, and off we went.
So they're not all a holes. But one is far too many in my book. There is no need for it.
Northants are, in my opinion, a little more "Taliban" on the traffic front than TVP.
I recall a number of years ago in the hazy past, trundling north on the M1 between 14 & 15, in my 1975 Opel Manta, Kermit Green, with factory option 15" Ronal Alloys (stood out like a sore thumb). I was in the flow of traffic in Lane 3, overtaking, among the T/V/W reg rep-mobiles (that's Prefix, not suffix!!).
A Northants Traffic Range Rover tugged me, citing the "We had to do over a ton to catch you"....
Following my usual greeting of "Good Morning, how may I help you officer/Sgt, etc." I pointed out that he was stationary, and to catch me in approximately 2/3mile he had to thrash the Range Rover within half an inch of it's life.
A light hearted conversation followed, with comments of "you don't seem 'em in this good a condition at this age very often". 4 mint tyres etc....
Finally - "How fast were you going sir?", to which I replied - indicated 70-75, which he replied, the limit is 70. Yes, I know, and you know that my speedo is 10% out, which means that I was doing between 63 and 68mph in reality.
"You know you're stuff don't you"....
Yep - I install yours!
Pleasantries exchanged, and off we went.
So they're not all a holes. But one is far too many in my book. There is no need for it.
vonhosen said:
bi9_jk said:
Oh dear, well it all comes down to what you say. No recording devices and only himself well its not readily accepted that a 1 policeman in a non traffic car can get you convicted. What he was trying to do was to make you convict yourself.
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
It is entirely possible for a lone Police officer, with primary evidence of opinion & secondary evidence from speedo, to provide sufficient evidence to convict without any admission on the part of the accused.
It doesn't even have to be a calibrated speedo where the margin over the limit is not small (Nicholas v Penny 1950).
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 27th November 23:08
Is that case from the 1950s, erm things have changed a bit.
Well as said that his vehicle was unlikely to attain such 100 mph then i find my suggestion of the situation more befitting. With the fact that the margin of error was small. 10 mph.
Thus its important that the courts look at the situation and it has to be proven and proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did those acts. I dont think in this day and age that without a calibrated speedo then a lone officer would be able to push for conviction such in the situation which was set in this post. The Procurator Fiscal or in many of your sitations the Crown Prosecution Service would not take this forward to court. There would be so little chance of winning.
bi9_jk said:
vonhosen said:
bi9_jk said:
Oh dear, well it all comes down to what you say. No recording devices and only himself well its not readily accepted that a 1 policeman in a non traffic car can get you convicted. What he was trying to do was to make you convict yourself.
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
It is entirely possible for a lone Police officer, with primary evidence of opinion & secondary evidence from speedo, to provide sufficient evidence to convict without any admission on the part of the accused.
It doesn't even have to be a calibrated speedo where the margin over the limit is not small (Nicholas v Penny 1950).
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 27th November 23:08
Is that case from the 1950s, erm things have changed a bit.
Well as said that his vehicle was unlikely to attain such 100 mph then i find my suggestion of the situation more befitting. With the fact that the margin of error was small. 10 mph.
Thus its important that the courts look at the situation and it has to be proven and proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did those acts. I dont think in this day and age that without a calibrated speedo then a lone officer would be able to push for conviction such in the situation which was set in this post. The Procurator Fiscal or in many of your sitations the Crown Prosecution Service would not take this forward to court. There would be so little chance of winning.
The stated case in question hasn't been superseded.
Nicholas v Penny was an appeal against conviction where the driver was originally convicted on the evidence of an officer & a speedo for which there was no calibration evidence. The grounds of the appeal was that no evidence of speedo accuracy was given. The conviction was held on the grounds that no such evidence was required unless the margin over the limit was very small. In Nicholas v Penny the margin was 10mph.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 27th November 23:31
vonhosen said:
bi9_jk said:
vonhosen said:
bi9_jk said:
Oh dear, well it all comes down to what you say. No recording devices and only himself well its not readily accepted that a 1 policeman in a non traffic car can get you convicted. What he was trying to do was to make you convict yourself.
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
It is entirely possible for a lone Police officer, with primary evidence of opinion & secondary evidence from speedo, to provide sufficient evidence to convict without any admission on the part of the accused.
It doesn't even have to be a calibrated speedo where the margin over the limit is not small (Nicholas v Penny 1950).
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 27th November 23:08
Is that case from the 1950s, erm things have changed a bit.
Well as said that his vehicle was unlikely to attain such 100 mph then i find my suggestion of the situation more befitting. With the fact that the margin of error was small. 10 mph.
Thus its important that the courts look at the situation and it has to be proven and proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did those acts. I dont think in this day and age that without a calibrated speedo then a lone officer would be able to push for conviction such in the situation which was set in this post. The Procurator Fiscal or in many of your sitations the Crown Prosecution Service would not take this forward to court. There would be so little chance of winning.
The stated case in question hasn't been superseded.
Nicholas v Penny was an appeal against conviction where the driver was originally convicted on the evidence of an officer & a speedo for which there was no calibration evidence. The grounds of the appeal was that no evidence of speedo accuracy was given. The conviction was held on the grounds that no such evidence was required unless the margin over the limit was very small. In Nicholas v Penny the margin was 10mph.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 27th November 23:31
You got a citation for this case?
I mean when was this? 1950? Ive got to read this!
I wont call either of you liars or incorrect until ive read this but does seem odd to me
Possibily this president could be superceded by statute?
What strikes me is who was penny? and why were they prosecuting a driver? Or is this some really old citation.
bi9_jk said:
vonhosen said:
bi9_jk said:
vonhosen said:
bi9_jk said:
Oh dear, well it all comes down to what you say. No recording devices and only himself well its not readily accepted that a 1 policeman in a non traffic car can get you convicted. What he was trying to do was to make you convict yourself.
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
You must see that his visual estimate plus your admission would have secured a conviction.
Take this point he said to you something along the lines of ive followed you at nearly 100. Thus that would be an instant ban if conviction passed.
You perhaps say "no i was only doing about 80", bang you have just admitted to him you were exceeding the speed limit thus his visual estimate and your admission can equate to a conviction.
But it seems you were smart enough, or through blindness never admitted guilt. Good call! Thus the scaremonger done the usual police "im a big man and im going to give you a lecture" kinda speech and sent you on your merry way. Could not have done a thing.
For the pacing, which is following you to check your speed. I think its about 200 feet, actually to be honest im not entirely sure now far away they have to be or how long they have to follow you at this CONTINIOUSLY for. But if you alter your speed. Jump lanes ect. They cannot do it. To many variables to equal accuracy of their measurement.
Well in mitagation in a court you can bring into account, Loosing your job, mortgage, family ect. You probably through the sketchyness of their evidence would not have got a ban.
However good call this, not admitting guilt!
It is entirely possible for a lone Police officer, with primary evidence of opinion & secondary evidence from speedo, to provide sufficient evidence to convict without any admission on the part of the accused.
It doesn't even have to be a calibrated speedo where the margin over the limit is not small (Nicholas v Penny 1950).
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 27th November 23:08
Is that case from the 1950s, erm things have changed a bit.
Well as said that his vehicle was unlikely to attain such 100 mph then i find my suggestion of the situation more befitting. With the fact that the margin of error was small. 10 mph.
Thus its important that the courts look at the situation and it has to be proven and proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did those acts. I dont think in this day and age that without a calibrated speedo then a lone officer would be able to push for conviction such in the situation which was set in this post. The Procurator Fiscal or in many of your sitations the Crown Prosecution Service would not take this forward to court. There would be so little chance of winning.
The stated case in question hasn't been superseded.
Nicholas v Penny was an appeal against conviction where the driver was originally convicted on the evidence of an officer & a speedo for which there was no calibration evidence. The grounds of the appeal was that no evidence of speedo accuracy was given. The conviction was held on the grounds that no such evidence was required unless the margin over the limit was very small. In Nicholas v Penny the margin was 10mph.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 27th November 23:31
You got a citation for this case?
I mean when was this? 1950? Ive got to read this!
I wont call either of you liars or incorrect until ive read this but does seem odd to me
Possibily this president could be superceded by statute?
What strikes me is who was penny? and why were they prosecuting a driver? Or is this some really old citation.
Afraid so. Many 'laws' of this country are based on very old cases, for example, I think case law for contract law goes back to 1750 or something like that and thus make up what is called 'case law'.
It is indeed so that this case is still cited, however this does not mean it can never be challenged. For example if your car is physically incapable of doing the accused speed or you have other means of evidence or witnesses, this would give you good grounds to defend the case.
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
doc83 said:
Can a solo policemen obtain a conviction and possible ban, just by claiming he had to drive at a certain speed to stay a constant distance from me?
Yes
Justice?
I don't think so.
I do.
No different to a lone Police officer reporting you for any other offence you commit.
vonhosen said:
doc83 said:
Can a solo policemen obtain a conviction and possible ban, just by claiming he had to drive at a certain speed to stay a constant distance from me?
Yes
Though in this instance the case is in England, this is not the case in Scotland. Corroboration is required, and I don't mean a speedo reading to back up the primary evidence of the fed who has formed the opinion: I mean another fed.
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
doc83 said:
Can a solo policemen obtain a conviction and possible ban, just by claiming he had to drive at a certain speed to stay a constant distance from me?
Yes
Justice?
I don't think so.
I do.
No different to a lone Police officer reporting you for any other offence you commit.
Could you give me details of any other offence that would ever actually make it to court, that involves no victims, based on just a policemans opinions and an uncalibrated measuring device please (serious question, trying to think of one!)
Many years ago I had this arguement with an ex-police driver, we did a little test and he couldn't guage my speed to within 10mph despite several attempts. If all he had to back up his flawed opinion was an uncalibrated speedo, (which additionally could be made to read whatever he wants - hang back 50 yards and accelerate a bit to catch up a bit "oooh look how fast he's going now!" ) it cannot be justice as it cannot be proven to be without reasonable doubt, which is what I thought our law system was based around.
Edited by Davi on Tuesday 28th November 08:58
Davi said:
Could you give me details of any other offence that would ever actually make it to court, that involves no victims, based on just a policemans opinions and an uncalibrated measuring device please (serious question, trying to think of one!)
Many years ago I had this arguement with an ex-police driver, we did a little test and he couldn't guage my speed to within 10mph despite several attempts. If all he had to back up his flawed opinion was an uncalibrated speedo, (which additionally could be made to read whatever he wants - hang back 50 yards and accelerate a bit to catch up a bit "oooh look how fast he's going now!" ) it cannot be justice as it cannot be proven to be without reasonable doubt, which is what I thought our law system was based around.
Many years ago I had this arguement with an ex-police driver, we did a little test and he couldn't guage my speed to within 10mph despite several attempts. If all he had to back up his flawed opinion was an uncalibrated speedo, (which additionally could be made to read whatever he wants - hang back 50 yards and accelerate a bit to catch up a bit "oooh look how fast he's going now!" ) it cannot be justice as it cannot be proven to be without reasonable doubt, which is what I thought our law system was based around.
Edited by Davi on Tuesday 28th November 08:58
Top of my head, as a civilian, not a lawyer or a policeman - drunk & disorderly, and a huge raft of public order offences, top of the list being breach of the peace.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff