What would you do if falsely accused of speeding @ 110mph?
Discussion
havoc said:
WinstonWolf said:
So where do you think the police were for the first fourteen minutes of the video where he’s completely below the limit?
Let's say it takes the police ~2 minutes to get going - copper's got to check the speed gun, go back to the car, stow the gun safely, get in, buckle up, then wait for a gap in traffic. They also need to get up to speed (another 20seconds).So they're +/- 2.5 miles behind the car before they start to close the gap. And they've traffic to negotiate. So they've <12 mins to close a gap of 2.5 miles, or over 0.2miles / minute. Which is an overtake of >12mph average (i.e. 80 vs the car's 68). It's dark and damp, they've got to safely negotiate traffic in all 3 lanes...an average of 80 isn't that unreasonable as that means bursts of over 90 followed by slowing down because some numpty doing 65mph hasn't seen them.
(Conversely, let's say they average 90 - that's bursts of >>100mph in the dark, on a busy (cold?) wet road - not so likely. And it'd still take them 7-8 minutes to catch up. Physics is a funny thing...)
(For reference, heading up the M40 the other night I passed a (distinctive) truck just before pulling in for a pit-stop at Beaconsfield, which took ~7 minutes total detour. Took me until well past Oxford to catch the truck up...)
havoc said:
Let's say it takes the police ~2 minutes to get going - copper's got to check the speed gun, go back to the car, stow the gun safely, get in, buckle up, then wait for a gap in traffic. They also need to get up to speed (another 20seconds).
So they're +/- 2.5 miles behind the car before they start to close the gap. And they've traffic to negotiate. So they've <12 mins to close a gap of 2.5 miles, or over 0.2miles / minute. Which is an overtake of >12mph average (i.e. 80 vs the car's 68). It's dark and damp, they've got to safely negotiate traffic in all 3 lanes...an average of 80 isn't that unreasonable as that means bursts of over 90 followed by slowing down because some numpty doing 65mph hasn't seen them.
(Conversely, let's say they average 90 - that's bursts of >>100mph in the dark, on a busy (cold?) wet road - not so likely. And it'd still take them 7-8 minutes to catch up. Physics is a funny thing...)
(For reference, heading up the M40 the other night I passed a (distinctive) truck just before pulling in for a pit-stop at Beaconsfield, which took ~7 minutes total detour. Took me until well past Oxford to catch the truck up...)
Rubbish, 2 mins to "get going"? They would have been gone within 20 seconds. So they're +/- 2.5 miles behind the car before they start to close the gap. And they've traffic to negotiate. So they've <12 mins to close a gap of 2.5 miles, or over 0.2miles / minute. Which is an overtake of >12mph average (i.e. 80 vs the car's 68). It's dark and damp, they've got to safely negotiate traffic in all 3 lanes...an average of 80 isn't that unreasonable as that means bursts of over 90 followed by slowing down because some numpty doing 65mph hasn't seen them.
(Conversely, let's say they average 90 - that's bursts of >>100mph in the dark, on a busy (cold?) wet road - not so likely. And it'd still take them 7-8 minutes to catch up. Physics is a funny thing...)
(For reference, heading up the M40 the other night I passed a (distinctive) truck just before pulling in for a pit-stop at Beaconsfield, which took ~7 minutes total detour. Took me until well past Oxford to catch the truck up...)
Nickyboy said:
havoc said:
Let's say it takes the police ~2 minutes to get going - copper's got to check the speed gun, go back to the car, stow the gun safely, get in, buckle up, then wait for a gap in traffic. They also need to get up to speed (another 20seconds).
So they're +/- 2.5 miles behind the car before they start to close the gap. And they've traffic to negotiate. So they've <12 mins to close a gap of 2.5 miles, or over 0.2miles / minute. Which is an overtake of >12mph average (i.e. 80 vs the car's 68). It's dark and damp, they've got to safely negotiate traffic in all 3 lanes...an average of 80 isn't that unreasonable as that means bursts of over 90 followed by slowing down because some numpty doing 65mph hasn't seen them.
(Conversely, let's say they average 90 - that's bursts of >>100mph in the dark, on a busy (cold?) wet road - not so likely. And it'd still take them 7-8 minutes to catch up. Physics is a funny thing...)
(For reference, heading up the M40 the other night I passed a (distinctive) truck just before pulling in for a pit-stop at Beaconsfield, which took ~7 minutes total detour. Took me until well past Oxford to catch the truck up...)
Rubbish, 2 mins to "get going"? They would have been gone within 20 seconds. So they're +/- 2.5 miles behind the car before they start to close the gap. And they've traffic to negotiate. So they've <12 mins to close a gap of 2.5 miles, or over 0.2miles / minute. Which is an overtake of >12mph average (i.e. 80 vs the car's 68). It's dark and damp, they've got to safely negotiate traffic in all 3 lanes...an average of 80 isn't that unreasonable as that means bursts of over 90 followed by slowing down because some numpty doing 65mph hasn't seen them.
(Conversely, let's say they average 90 - that's bursts of >>100mph in the dark, on a busy (cold?) wet road - not so likely. And it'd still take them 7-8 minutes to catch up. Physics is a funny thing...)
(For reference, heading up the M40 the other night I passed a (distinctive) truck just before pulling in for a pit-stop at Beaconsfield, which took ~7 minutes total detour. Took me until well past Oxford to catch the truck up...)
I was trained to use a speed gun. I'm not sure which one it was.
IIRC, it wasn't a 'quick burst'. You'd sustain the aim on the vehicle for a while and get a continuous reading as the speed (usually) and distance readings changed.
Perhaps that's harder to do at motorway speeds, but the point I'm trying to make is if that is the way the reading was gathered it would seem odd that the wrong vehicle were targeted if they aimed for a few seconds.
IIRC, it wasn't a 'quick burst'. You'd sustain the aim on the vehicle for a while and get a continuous reading as the speed (usually) and distance readings changed.
Perhaps that's harder to do at motorway speeds, but the point I'm trying to make is if that is the way the reading was gathered it would seem odd that the wrong vehicle were targeted if they aimed for a few seconds.
I was done for 98 on the M5, I was actually doing 70-ish as I had cruise control on in the hire car I was in at the time, I was passing lorries and being passed by much faster traffic at the same time, I suspect I was stopped for the speed a car in the outside lane was the doing.
Was told by the policeman who was sat in the front passengers side of the police car that stopped me that its was my word against theirs and the wise thing to do would be to take the fine and points and shut up.
I did, it still rankles now, although as I get older I realise I have probably done way more that I have not been caught for so I'm up on the deal in the long run.
Was told by the policeman who was sat in the front passengers side of the police car that stopped me that its was my word against theirs and the wise thing to do would be to take the fine and points and shut up.
I did, it still rankles now, although as I get older I realise I have probably done way more that I have not been caught for so I'm up on the deal in the long run.
havoc said:
Let's say it takes the police ~2 minutes to get going - copper's got to check the speed gun, go back to the car, stow the gun safely, get in, buckle up, then wait for a gap in traffic. They also need to get up to speed (another 20seconds).
So they're +/- 2.5 miles behind the car before they start to close the gap. And they've traffic to negotiate. So they've <12 mins to close a gap of 2.5 miles, or over 0.2miles / minute. Which is an overtake of >12mph average (i.e. 80 vs the car's 68). It's dark and damp, they've got to safely negotiate traffic in all 3 lanes...an average of 80 isn't that unreasonable as that means bursts of over 90 followed by slowing down because some numpty doing 65mph hasn't seen them.
(Conversely, let's say they average 90 - that's bursts of >>100mph in the dark, on a busy (cold?) wet road - not so likely. And it'd still take them 7-8 minutes to catch up. Physics is a funny thing...)
(For reference, heading up the M40 the other night I passed a (distinctive) truck just before pulling in for a pit-stop at Beaconsfield, which took ~7 minutes total detour. Took me until well past Oxford to catch the truck up...)
Doesn't sound a very likely timeline to me - especially the 2 minutes to initially get going. It's not like they would be caught off guard, if they're pointing laser guns at people, they'll be expecting to have to chase down a speeding motorist at any moment, can't see that taking two minutes. And the road wasn't that busy, plod would be able to catch him up pretty quickly. I guess they could have tailed him for a while to see if he'd speed up again, but if he really was doing 110, he must have clocked them already to be driving like miss daisy ever since. So they'd know he was onto them and they wouldn't waste 15+ minutes tailing him before pulling him over.So they're +/- 2.5 miles behind the car before they start to close the gap. And they've traffic to negotiate. So they've <12 mins to close a gap of 2.5 miles, or over 0.2miles / minute. Which is an overtake of >12mph average (i.e. 80 vs the car's 68). It's dark and damp, they've got to safely negotiate traffic in all 3 lanes...an average of 80 isn't that unreasonable as that means bursts of over 90 followed by slowing down because some numpty doing 65mph hasn't seen them.
(Conversely, let's say they average 90 - that's bursts of >>100mph in the dark, on a busy (cold?) wet road - not so likely. And it'd still take them 7-8 minutes to catch up. Physics is a funny thing...)
(For reference, heading up the M40 the other night I passed a (distinctive) truck just before pulling in for a pit-stop at Beaconsfield, which took ~7 minutes total detour. Took me until well past Oxford to catch the truck up...)
Several other posters have commented that the location at 10:35 is a well know spot for plod to hang out with speed guns.
Another thing that doesn't make sense is that the alleged speeder was hardly ever in the outside lane at any point in that video, certainly around 10:35 he was in the middle lane with cars passing him. So why would plod be focussing their speed gun on him, and not the cars going faster in L3??
His best bet would be to go to the press with it and raise the profile of the case to the extent that senior plod take an interest, and then it'll get quietly dropped. What would be better for the general public is if the case goes to court and the inaccuracies in their detection equipment brought conclusively into the public eye. But they won't let that happen.
If this bloke didn't have his own dashcam video to rely on, he'd have nothing to use in his defence. How many other people have been given spurious speeding tickets like this over the years (even if it's only 1 in 1000 that this happens)? Driving a fairly sporty/powerful car, it's easy to believe that he could have been doing that speed.
The driver sounds genuinely shocked that he's being accused of doing 110, as you would be if you knew you were nowhere near that speed. What else can you say to a police officer who claims to have irrefutable evidence?
ash73 said:
People are nuts not having one, these days. All cars should have them as standard.
One thing it made me consider, if stopped like that would you tell the officer you had a dashcam? They could admit a mistake and that would be that, or they could confiscate it and suddenly it's your word against theirs. Maybe better to keep quiet and bring it up later, as the driver did.
I don't think the police officer would admit to it being a mistake. He hasn't actually made a mistake - the speed measurement device says 110, he believes it. I don't think he was going to back down even if the driver said he'd got dashcam footage to dispute it. He'll be used to everyone he pulls over trying to deny the speed they've been pulled for.One thing it made me consider, if stopped like that would you tell the officer you had a dashcam? They could admit a mistake and that would be that, or they could confiscate it and suddenly it's your word against theirs. Maybe better to keep quiet and bring it up later, as the driver did.
I'm surprised they thought he was doing 110 (by prior opinion, as is supposed to happen), since he was just pootling along at the a medium speed relative to the rest of the traffic.But I guess if they were just looking down a telescopic sight (whilst targetting anything on the road), it might not be so easy to judge the speed by eye. It appears to be a case of 'computer says 110, we've got you bang to rights'. The other alternative is that it's a fit up, which I don't want to even consider seriously.
mjb1 said:
I'm surprised they thought he was doing 110 (by prior opinion, as is supposed to happen), since he was just pootling along at the a medium speed relative to the rest of the traffic.But I guess if they were just looking down a telescopic sight (whilst targetting anything on the road), it might not be so easy to judge the speed by eye. It appears to be a case of 'computer says 110, we've got you bang to rights'. The other alternative is that it's a fit up, which I don't want to even consider seriously.
That's the big stickler isn't it? The prior opinion of speeding which is then confirmed by other means. Mk1 Eyeball would have given the car's speed with greater accuracy than the readout of the electronic gun. 
Gavia said:
I don’t know if that’s where the cop car is. He says it is, you all seem capable of seeing a cop car from a red dot at the side of the road. That may well be the cop, it equally may not.
The location is the off/on slips to/from the Bourne Sand and Gravel Works - https://goo.gl/maps/uYTH5J5N7AT2In the vid @10:35 you can clearly see the red light between the chevrons and the red sign.
That vehicle is parked up well back from the exit point.
Now look closely @ 10:39 just before it disappears out of shot. Note the extra lights which spring to life.
At that point, the OP's car is keeping pace with the traffic in lane 2 and hasn't even reached the works exit slip.
However the car which came tanking past him in lane 3 @10:29 has.
Whether it was a police patrol vehicle lurking there and it was the one that tugged him only the OP knows.
However he was there and none of us were. Exactly where he was 'targeted' is not certain, as the vid gives us no clue.
keithton is correct though: it's a known spot for the police to lurk from time to time, so it's certainly possible that was where he was 'acquired'.
If he was pinged earlier on the M25 they would have had to have been following closely enough in traffic to see him take the A20 exit at Swanley.
In which case it makes no sense to have waited so long to pull him over.
In answer to the original question: I would be having conversation with agtlaw and tke it from there.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff