TWO for ONE

[athey997S]

ME (997S) and mate (Ferrari 360) were 'together' at end of the M55 (Blackpool) I got stopped and apparently 72 in 40 mph zone, albeit dual carraigeway. The officers statement says the Ferrari was behind me all the way and the distance between the 360 and mine 997 S did not change? How can the RADAR signal jump over the 360 and read my car..?

Anyone any info on this get 2 for 1 deal? Any additional advice would be most welcomed!

[Dwight VanDriver]

Cannot see why not at that speed and the Officer can confirm they were travelling 'in convoy'

In my time I have reported and successfully prosecuted two drivers that were travelling 'in convoy' by a 'follow' on the rearmost vehicle which neither gained or decreased the distance on the vehicle in front of it.

dvd

[athey997S]

But using 1 in 60 rule and basic maths, if the distance alters even 10 cm then the timing alters, how can anyone prosecute if they dont have a factual speed reading? Otherwise its hearsey evidence?

Dwight VanDriver said:

Cannot see why not at that speed and the Officer can confirm they were travelling 'in convoy'

In my time I have reported and successfully prosecuted two drivers that were travelling 'in convoy' by a 'follow' on the rearmost vehicle which neither gained or decreased the distance on the vehicle in front of it.

dvd

[Scoop940]

I got done like this quite a few years ago on the M40. Doing 94 in lane 3, mate behind in another hire car, I spotted his car had sprouted a set of roof lights.. too late.. got pulled by a marked Omega

Stopped, TO said you were doing 94.07, here's a fixed penalty, I didn't argue. Mate also stopped and got done for the same.

Hey I was speeding, ( Actually think I was lucky as over 95 would have been a trip to court) took it on the chin and paid the fine. Oh well.

Couldn't fault the TO either, no condescending chat etc ( Different to a dorset wanna be TO a while before ) Just a watch you speed and we were on our way.

Life..

[tigger1]

athey997S said:

But using 1 in 60 rule and basic maths, if the distance alters even 10 cm then the timing alters, how can anyone prosecute if they dont have a factual speed reading? Otherwise its hearsey evidence?

You've lost me on the 1 in 60 rule, but the "factual speed reading" is unimportant. Beyond reasonable doubt that the front car of hte two was speeding, if they were followed a bit of a distance. It's not hearsay, it's the word of a police officer.

[athey997S]

Word of a Police Officer!! Are these the same officers that get convicted of Assault, Fraud, Rape and Perjury?

Word of a police officer isnt factual evidence unless it can be re-inforced by other technical evidence.

Velocities (speed) is calculated distance divided by time (1 in 60 rule).....If distance and time alter then the output = speed will differ, that being my casing point

[tigger1]

athey997S said:

Word of a Police Officer!! Are these the same officers that get convicted of Assault, Fraud, Rape and Perjury?

Word of a police officer isnt factual evidence unless it can be re-inforced by other technical evidence.

Velocities (speed) is calculated distance divided by time (1 in 60 rule).....If distance and time alter then the output = speed will differ, that being my casing point

Yes it is factual evidence. As is your word. But they're not treated like for like.

:geek:
AFAIK the "1 in 60 rule" is completely unrelated from the basic distance / time calcs and is to do with navigation, as used by air-traffic controllers - I don't see the relevance??

[athey997S]

yr giving us Consultants in IT a bad name...dohh...

[slowly slowly]

athey997S said:

ME (997S) and mate (Ferrari 360) were 'together' at end of the M55 (Blackpool) I got stopped and apparently 72 in 40 mph zone, albeit dual carraigeway. The officers statement says the Ferrari was behind me all the way and the distance between the 360 and mine 997 S did not change? How can the RADAR signal jump over the 360 and read my car..?

Anyone any info on this get 2 for 1 deal? Any additional advice would be most welcomed!

Which dual carraigeway are you talking about, the M55 ends at a roundabout then it becomes a singles carraigeway section, surely you don't mean that the last 800 yards of the M55 is not a motorway and so is subject to a 40mph limit.
If the Ferrari was "behind you all the way" where was the radar, if it was up front it would have got you first, to "jump over the 360" means the radar was shooting from behind, Is this normal?.

[athey997S]

Hi Chris

YES the M55 ends straight into a 40 zone, turn LEFT...then that is a dual carriageway.....The Ligh Blue unmarked Police Range rover never got behind me.....my mate booted it in his Ferrari and (stuppidly) id told him i knew him etc etc...(best to be honest!)

Anyway found this top motoring lawyer who has a get out of jail free card on this one!! Were going to court and using this case law 99% certain of aquittall....

at the end of the day i was going over 40 !! did honestly believe it was a 60....but the coppers statement is 80% inaccurate to boot! why do they do this?

slowly slowly said:

athey997S said:

ME (997S) and mate (Ferrari 360) were 'together' at end of the M55 (Blackpool) I got stopped and apparently 72 in 40 mph zone, albeit dual carraigeway. The officers statement says the Ferrari was behind me all the way and the distance between the 360 and mine 997 S did not change? How can the RADAR signal jump over the 360 and read my car..?

Anyone any info on this get 2 for 1 deal? Any additional advice would be most welcomed!

Which dual carraigeway are you talking about, the M55 ends at a roundabout then it becomes a singles carraigeway section, surely you don't mean that the last 800 yards of the M55 is not a motorway and so is subject to a 40mph limit.
If the Ferrari was "behind you all the way" where was the radar, if it was up front it would have got you first, to "jump over the 360" means the radar was shooting from behind, Is this normal?.

[Davel]

One and a half points and £30 each?

[tvrgit]

Who says it was radar?

If the police car followed you both for a fair distance they could have done a VASCAR on the front car, recorded the reading, reset it and then VASCARed the second car, recorded that reading and then nicked both of you accordingly?

[slowly slowly]

athey997S said:

Hi Chris

YES the M55 ends straight into a 40 zone, turn LEFT...then that is a dual carriageway.....The Ligh Blue unmarked Police Range rover never got behind me.....my mate booted it in his Ferrari and (stuppidly) id told him i knew him etc etc...(best to be honest!)

Anyway found this top motoring lawyer who has a get out of jail free card on this one!! Were going to court and using this case law 99% certain of aquittall....

at the end of the day i was going over 40 !! did honestly believe it was a 60....but the coppers statement is 80% inaccurate to boot! why do they do this?

slowly slowly said:

athey997S said:

ME (997S) and mate (Ferrari 360) were 'together' at end of the M55 (Blackpool) I got stopped and apparently 72 in 40 mph zone, albeit dual carraigeway. The officers statement says the Ferrari was behind me all the way and the distance between the 360 and mine 997 S did not change? How can the RADAR signal jump over the 360 and read my car..?

Anyone any info on this get 2 for 1 deal? Any additional advice would be most welcomed!

Which dual carraigeway are you talking about, the M55 ends at a roundabout then it becomes a singles carraigeway section, surely you don't mean that the last 800 yards of the M55 is not a motorway and so is subject to a 40mph limit.
If the Ferrari was "behind you all the way" where was the radar, if it was up front it would have got you first, to "jump over the 360" means the radar was shooting from behind, Is this normal?.

Hi Den, slight mix up with the profile, It's in the wifes name, I'm Dave hello.
Normally when I hear a one sided story I try to fill in the blanks and then toast the story teller, but whether you where exceding the limit or not BiB should not (IMO) "fix" the facts to suit the(alleged) offence, If a copper can say he was going to a shout when he was actually going for a take-away then you should be able to question whether he followed correct procedure, If he didn't then it's simple, Not guilty.

I know that stretch of road and I would have guessed it was 60 mph.

Good luck, let us know how it goes.

[athey997S]

hi Chris

Yes, you know the thing that has made me spend money and get real involved in this is the Policemans statement! I can quite happily go along with the truth, i know i was speeding, but like i said tis about 20 % accurate.

Anyway this motoring lawyer in Manchester has found a loophole to do with the Range Rover, so dont wanna say too much ...but we are quietly confident...

I could understand the dual carriageway being a 40mph if it had pedestrian access/paths etc but it doesnt. It also has standard motorway armco down the center....EXACT same type of Road in Runcorn is 60 mph...

Consistancy would be good, will let you know what happens....

D

slowly slowly said:

athey997S said:

Hi Chris

YES the M55 ends straight into a 40 zone, turn LEFT...then that is a dual carriageway.....The Ligh Blue unmarked Police Range rover never got behind me.....my mate booted it in his Ferrari and (stuppidly) id told him i knew him etc etc...(best to be honest!)

Anyway found this top motoring lawyer who has a get out of jail free card on this one!! Were going to court and using this case law 99% certain of aquittall....

at the end of the day i was going over 40 !! did honestly believe it was a 60....but the coppers statement is 80% inaccurate to boot! why do they do this?

slowly slowly said:

athey997S said:

ME (997S) and mate (Ferrari 360) were 'together' at end of the M55 (Blackpool) I got stopped and apparently 72 in 40 mph zone, albeit dual carraigeway. The officers statement says the Ferrari was behind me all the way and the distance between the 360 and mine 997 S did not change? How can the RADAR signal jump over the 360 and read my car..?

Anyone any info on this get 2 for 1 deal? Any additional advice would be most welcomed!

Which dual carraigeway are you talking about, the M55 ends at a roundabout then it becomes a singles carraigeway section, surely you don't mean that the last 800 yards of the M55 is not a motorway and so is subject to a 40mph limit.
If the Ferrari was "behind you all the way" where was the radar, if it was up front it would have got you first, to "jump over the 360" means the radar was shooting from behind, Is this normal?.

Hi Den, slight mix up with the profile, It's in the wifes name, I'm Dave hello.
Normally when I hear a one sided story I try to fill in the blanks and then toast the story teller, but whether you where exceding the limit or not BiB should not (IMO) "fix" the facts to suit the(alleged) offence, If a copper can say he was going to a shout when he was actually going for a take-away then you should be able to question whether he followed correct procedure, If he didn't then it's simple, Not guilty.

I know that stretch of road and I would have guessed it was 60 mph.

Good luck, let us know how it goes.

[chrispy porker]

athey997S said:

Word of a Police Officer!! Are these the same officers that get convicted of Assault, Fraud, Rape and Perjury?

Word of a police officer isnt factual evidence unless it can be re-inforced by other technical evidence.

Velocities (speed) is calculated distance divided by time (1 in 60 rule).....If distance and time alter then the output = speed will differ, that being my casing point

evidence of opinion is quite sufficient if corroborated ( perhaps by another officers opinion). You don't even need to provr how fast the vehicle was travelling, merely that it was in excess of the speed limit.
PS I have no convictions and frankly I think the number of convicted rapists, fraudsters and perjurers currently serving is on the low side of zero.

[gafferjim]

Unfortunately the piece of road that you're on about, (goes up past the airport) has recently had the speed restriction on it reduced down, so you're in a very large club at the moment!

[andmole]

chrispy porker said:

.....and frankly I think the number of convicted rapists, fraudsters and perjurers currently serving is on the low side of zero.

That is certainly true.

However it is also true that in the,(rare),cases where a police officer is convicted of such a crime, (and it does happen, that cannot be denied), they are then dismissed from the force, (I hope).

Ergo there are no convicted fraudsters etc serving in the police.

It is possible that there are serving officers who have committed such offences but not yet been caught/convicted.

[chrispy porker]

Possibly, but then they would be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[number 7]

andmole said:

It is possible that there are serving officers who have committed such offences but not yet been caught/convicted.

Or possible that the offences were committed whilst serving, and have susequently been convicted.

7.

Edited by number 7 on Saturday 3rd March 09:43

[slowly slowly]

number 7 said:

andmole said:

It is possible that there are serving officers who have committed such offences but not yet been caught/convicted.

Or possible that the offences were committed whilst serving, and have susequently been convicted.

7.

Edited by number 7 on Saturday 3rd March 09:43

Or possible that offences have been committed but not reported.(where are we going with this one, anybody got any idea)