59 in 50 with hand held laser at 743.2 yards
Discussion
I was stopped for doing (-)59mph (at 743.2 yards) in a 50 limit even though I was already in the 70 limit, i passed the traffic patrol on the slip lane, so was fully aware he was there and where the 70mph limit starts (i drive the route every day!).
Gave me a £60 fine, 3 points and... "didn't like the way I drove past him". Going to court on 7th Feb.
On the day I measured the distance from where he was stationery to the 70mph limit and it was less than 743 yards.
The laser in question was a ProLaser III
Any other thoughts?
Gave me a £60 fine, 3 points and... "didn't like the way I drove past him". Going to court on 7th Feb.
On the day I measured the distance from where he was stationery to the 70mph limit and it was less than 743 yards.
The laser in question was a ProLaser III
Any other thoughts?
Mg6b said:
Plead guilty and save yourself a lot of aggro 
Why should I when I was not speeding? If I was then fair enough, my fault.I live in North Wales and have had a clean license for 15 years. just because the officer didn't like my car and the way I accelerated past him, does not give a reason for pinning a fine on me IMO.
Shall we just give in, just because its easier?
simoncotton said:
Mg6b said:
Plead guilty and save yourself a lot of aggro
Why should I when I was not speeding? Are you defending this yourself?
My experience of most people that defend themselves is that they do an appalling job of it ending in a conviction.
simoncotton said:
Shall we just give in, just because its easier?
No. I expect though that the officer will state you were speeding and offer evidence of such an offence.
You need to be very precise in your defence to rebut that evidence and convince a bench that you are correct. I wish you the best of luck. You will probably need it especially in North Wales!
If the dimms were marked on the ticket I'd fight it, I'd go to court with a diagram, measurements & be prepared to ask lots of decent questions at the officer.
If its as clear cut as it sounds you are obviously in your rights. Difficult to fight the ProlaserIII its a pretty accurate bit of kit compared to an LTI & does not do misreads anywhere nearly as bad or as often.
If its as clear cut as it sounds you are obviously in your rights. Difficult to fight the ProlaserIII its a pretty accurate bit of kit compared to an LTI & does not do misreads anywhere nearly as bad or as often.
Edited by cptsideways on Monday 21st January 15:33
cptsideways said:
If the dimms were marked on the ticket I'd fight it, I'd go to court with a diagram, measurements & be prepared to ask lots of decent questions at the officer.
If its as clear cut as it sounds you are obviously in your rights. Difficult to fight the ProlaserIII its a pretty accurate bit of kit compared to an LTI & does not do misreads any near as bad or as often.
I think that OP is not contesting that he was doing 59 mph, as per NIP.If its as clear cut as it sounds you are obviously in your rights. Difficult to fight the ProlaserIII its a pretty accurate bit of kit compared to an LTI & does not do misreads any near as bad or as often.
He's contesting the notion that he was doing that speed in a 50 limit.
If the operator's opinion of his speed must be confirmed, but the confirmation is by definition for a spot (743 yds) where the limit was in fact 70, then it's hard to see how he can be convicted.
If I were the OP, and this were important to me, I'd contact a specialist motoring solicitor. He won't necessarily have to pay for a full representation, just for long enough to get the gist of where he stands.
Mg6b said:
...Are you defending this yourself?
My experience of most people that defend themselves is that they do an appalling job of it ending in a conviction.
Possibly, but my experience is different. In my own case, the clerk of the court actually came up to me after the case to tell me that my case was the best self-defended case he had seen in 20 years - although looking at that the other way, it might prove your point!My experience of most people that defend themselves is that they do an appalling job of it ending in a conviction.
However, I have also helped another PHer outside of the thread through email (for obvious reasons) as despite never setting foot in a courtroom before, he also did enough to be shown not-guilty. These were both laser cases.
I would say that in comparison to those cases this one is a lot easier. The OP is not trying to attack the technology or the use of it - indeed this is exactly what the CPS will be set up and ready to counter.
In fact, all the OP has to do in this case, is use a few simple questions in cross-examination, and completely avoid any 'laser issues' whatsoever.
I would also recommend going back to the scene and measuring the distance again, accurately. This 'evidence' will become the focus of the trial and all of the cross-examination questions so it needs to be watertight.
Get photos of the scene, from where the laser operator was sat, looking down the road and photos of a marker where *exactly* the 743m mark is in relation to the operator and the road sign and thus the speed limit. A 'drive-by' wont be good enough. If you can't get a friendly local surveyor to help you out, hire one of the walk along, circular metre rules so you can do it yourself.
If you can walk into court and give your witness statement that you do not dispute the evidence in any way... however, the evidence actually indicates that you were not breaking the law at all, and here is the cast iron proof, then you surely cannot be convicted. The CPS will most likely be blindsided and have no comeback. The worst that could happen - although unlikely is that they will ask for an independant measurement, which is why your measurement needs to be very accurate.
That, followed up with good cross-examination questions to find the *exact* position of the operator when he took the result - even better if he could put an X on a pre-drawn diagram so he can't change his mind later, will win the case.
simoncotton said:
I think the problem is that the officer was unable to prove to me exactly where his traffic patrol was positioned (distance away) in relation to the start of the 70mph limit.
So he must have said something like, "I took the reading before you were past the terminal sign"?Query: If he's looking through the scope and fixing it on your number plate, can he simultaneously monitor your position relative to the terminal sign?
TheGriffalo said:
simoncotton said:
I think the problem is that the officer was unable to prove to me exactly where his traffic patrol was positioned (distance away) in relation to the start of the 70mph limit.
You can prove it with your 743.2M dimension though. If there is photo evidence of your car, which might show where you were on the carriageway, then perhaps it would also show either the terminal sign or something else in the landscape that would be a direct reference to the location of the terminal sign.
flemke said:
TheGriffalo said:
simoncotton said:
I think the problem is that the officer was unable to prove to me exactly where his traffic patrol was positioned (distance away) in relation to the start of the 70mph limit.
You can prove it with your 743.2M dimension though. If there is photo evidence of your car, which might show where you were on the carriageway, then perhaps it would also show either the terminal sign or something else in the landscape that would be a direct reference to the location of the terminal sign.
Do a rough 7/10ths of a mile measure using the trip meter and see if it's worth doing accurate measurements if it's in your favour.
I have to say I'm dubious at a distance of 3/4 of a KM
TheGriffalo said:
simoncotton said:
I think the problem is that the officer was unable to prove to me exactly where his traffic patrol was positioned (distance away) in relation to the start of the 70mph limit.
You can prove it with your 743.2M dimension though. simoncotton said:
TheGriffalo said:
simoncotton said:
I think the problem is that the officer was unable to prove to me exactly where his traffic patrol was positioned (distance away) in relation to the start of the 70mph limit.
You can prove it with your 743.2M dimension though. Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff