Prior opinion of speed requirement?
Discussion
Passed an officer (in full view, hi-vis jacket et all) yesterday. I was not in a queue of traffic, but certainly what you could call a heavy flow of it, all of which were travelling at (the safe speed of) about 10mph in excess of the speed limit on approach to the officers location. All the traffic braked down to the speed limit.
Just wondering how an officer could get a reasonable prior opinion of a vehicle speeding under those conditions. If it were me I would be looking for vehicles speed relative to the other traffic, or groups of traffic obviously travelling at high speed. In such a situation as my own I dont see any way they could form a decent prior impression of speed.
Just a little concerned in case I get an NIP through the door because I dont believe this officer was following this procedure and wondering how you could go about proving it was being used incorrectly.
The less cynical part of me hopes that the officer was playing at being a deterrent rather than actually aiming to prosecute people
Just wondering how an officer could get a reasonable prior opinion of a vehicle speeding under those conditions. If it were me I would be looking for vehicles speed relative to the other traffic, or groups of traffic obviously travelling at high speed. In such a situation as my own I dont see any way they could form a decent prior impression of speed.
Just a little concerned in case I get an NIP through the door because I dont believe this officer was following this procedure and wondering how you could go about proving it was being used incorrectly.
The less cynical part of me hopes that the officer was playing at being a deterrent rather than actually aiming to prosecute people
No, they dont need any prior evidence of speed, nor can they prove that they have.
All they need to do is say they judged prior speed was in exess of the limit, then zap.
In reality, these scum (well the partnership ones), just zap everything in existence, then lie on the report that they would supply to court if it goes that far.
All they need to do is say they judged prior speed was in exess of the limit, then zap.
In reality, these scum (well the partnership ones), just zap everything in existence, then lie on the report that they would supply to court if it goes that far.
shouldbworking said:
Passed an officer (in full view, hi-vis jacket et all) yesterday. I was not in a queue of traffic, but certainly what you could call a heavy flow of it, all of which were travelling at (the safe speed of) about 10mph in excess of the speed limit on approach to the officers location. All the traffic braked down to the speed limit.
Just wondering how an officer could get a reasonable prior opinion of a vehicle speeding under those conditions. If it were me I would be looking for vehicles speed relative to the other traffic, or groups of traffic obviously travelling at high speed. In such a situation as my own I dont see any way they could form a decent prior impression of speed.
Just a little concerned in case I get an NIP through the door because I dont believe this officer was following this procedure and wondering how you could go about proving it was being used incorrectly.
The less cynical part of me hopes that the officer was playing at being a deterrent rather than actually aiming to prosecute people
Just wondering how an officer could get a reasonable prior opinion of a vehicle speeding under those conditions. If it were me I would be looking for vehicles speed relative to the other traffic, or groups of traffic obviously travelling at high speed. In such a situation as my own I dont see any way they could form a decent prior impression of speed.
Just a little concerned in case I get an NIP through the door because I dont believe this officer was following this procedure and wondering how you could go about proving it was being used incorrectly.
The less cynical part of me hopes that the officer was playing at being a deterrent rather than actually aiming to prosecute people
The 'prior assessment of speed' requirement is merely a pre-printed line in the first paragraph of the police/operator witness statement just before it also states that they have tested the device fully with all testing requirements.
As we know, both statements are really a farce, and it comes down to whether *you* can show a police officer/operator has not performed wither duty - and of course if you have no way of disproving should they 'enhance' the actual truth - then you are stuck.
In my case I cross examined an officer who zapped me at 400 metres away. Apparantly the opinion of speed was performed before zapping. Thus if this took a couple of seconds, once you have aimed and performed a speed check this opinion of speed has to be taken at around half a mile away.
I followed this up by asking what waypoints, other vehicles or timing we used to create this evidential assessment. The officer said that he did not use any and the assessment was made on a 'hunch'. I am sorry to say that this seems to be good enough, if you are ever in the same situation!
So in a nutshell what you will be convicted on will be a number on a screen from a laser which may or may not have hit your car and may or may not have produced an accurate result.
justinp1 said:
So in a nutshell what you will be convicted on will be a number on a screen from a laser which may or may not have hit your car and may or may not have produced an accurate result.
All that following a hunch 
Do we assume you are still referring to driving in a tinpot banana republic dictatorship with disreputable enforcement practices (BLiarland)?
Thought so
jasandjules said:
turbobloke said:
Do we assume you are still referring to driving in a tinpot banana republic dictatorship with disreputable enforcement practices (BLiarland)?
How dare you insult tinpot banana republics by associating them with the Uk Govt.
An unfortunate oversight, good spot j&j
turbobloke said:
jasandjules said:
turbobloke said:
Do we assume you are still referring to driving in a tinpot banana republic dictatorship with disreputable enforcement practices (BLiarland)?
How dare you insult tinpot banana republics by associating them with the Uk Govt.
An unfortunate oversight, good spot j&j
Agreed!
At least in banana republics they stay in power by good old fashioned methods like manning polling stations with military personnel and killing off their rivals!
In the UK and US they do it by the rather underhand method of changing the constituency boundaries to ensure that despite the fact in both cases the opposition polled more total votes they managed to stay in power!
Seems a bit unfair that one is deemed a fair fight and the other results in economic sanctions from the international community!
Ahh well. Just looking forward to the day where I can bugger off like the rest of the ultra rich and become a tax exile. Perhaps I can live next door to the guy that owns Debenhams, err I mean his wife who he transferred his shares to and just by co-incidence she lives in Monaco so pays no UK tax on the £XX,000,000 profit per year.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff