What would you do if falsely accused of speeding @ 110mph?
Discussion
The thing I just don't understand here is, why would the traffic police point their gun at some completely random car trundling past along the motorway when it's clearly doing no more than the speed limit, and then try and claim that they were doing such a significant speed?
Yes, maybe a quiet evening etc, but given the amount of cameras and recording equipment on the police these days and then the potential for dash-cam evidence, the implication that this is deliberate falsification is just absurd. You could understand the police using 'speeding' as a reason to pull over a suspicious driver, even to claim that they thought they were speeding at say 80 -90 mph and issue a fixed penalty, but to make up something that they are going to have to defend in court, just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, maybe a quiet evening etc, but given the amount of cameras and recording equipment on the police these days and then the potential for dash-cam evidence, the implication that this is deliberate falsification is just absurd. You could understand the police using 'speeding' as a reason to pull over a suspicious driver, even to claim that they thought they were speeding at say 80 -90 mph and issue a fixed penalty, but to make up something that they are going to have to defend in court, just doesn't make any sense.
The defence only needs to achieve reasonable doubt. The prosecution would need to advance why the dashcam evidence doesn't introduce reasonable doubt.
It isn't necessary for the defence to postulate as to how or why the original reading by the officers is wrong; simply that there's reasonable doubt that it's right.
It isn't necessary for the defence to postulate as to how or why the original reading by the officers is wrong; simply that there's reasonable doubt that it's right.
janesmith1950 said:
The defence only needs to achieve reasonable doubt. The prosecution would need to advance why the dashcam evidence doesn't introduce reasonable doubt.
It isn't necessary for the defence to postulate as to how or why the original reading by the officers is wrong; simply that there's reasonable doubt that it's right.
Is dash-cam evidence from a private vehicle seen as reliable by the courts? I always through they wouldn't accept digital media as it was too easy to corrupt or edit, hence carrying a disposable 35mm camera in the glovebox being advised by insurance companies. Or is that outdated nonsense ?It isn't necessary for the defence to postulate as to how or why the original reading by the officers is wrong; simply that there's reasonable doubt that it's right.
The Surveyor said:
Is dash-cam evidence from a private vehicle seen as reliable by the courts? I always through they wouldn't accept digital media as it was too easy to corrupt or edit, hence carrying a disposable 35mm camera in the glovebox being advised by insurance companies. Or is that outdated nonsense ?
Do insurers still advise carrying a camera? We’ve all got mobile phones which provide better photos. Edited by Gavia on Tuesday 9th January 16:39
This bloke produced phone footage in court which appears to have been accepted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91QaFedj-yw&t=...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91QaFedj-yw&t=...
Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 9th January 13:32
Bigends said:
This bloke produced phone footage in court which appears to have been accepted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91QaFedj-yw&t=...
Interesting. He got the result he wanted but I can't help thinking he'd have more credibility if he'd stop calling people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91QaFedj-yw&t=...
Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 9th January 13:32
s...The Surveyor said:
The thing I just don't understand here is, why would the traffic police point their gun at some completely random car trundling past along the motorway when it's clearly doing no more than the speed limit, and then try and claim that they were doing such a significant speed?
Yes, maybe a quiet evening etc, but given the amount of cameras and recording equipment on the police these days and then the potential for dash-cam evidence, the implication that this is deliberate falsification is just absurd. You could understand the police using 'speeding' as a reason to pull over a suspicious driver, even to claim that they thought they were speeding at say 80 -90 mph and issue a fixed penalty, but to make up something that they are going to have to defend in court, just doesn't make any sense.
I'm with you, it doesn't add up. I see no reason for them to use a gun in the dark on a busy motorway. In an urban area with street lightning i can understand but not here. Also, any police officer can tell the difference between a car doing 60 and one doing 110, It's a 50mph difference FFS, if he was doing 110 then the Volvo that passed was doing 130. Yes, maybe a quiet evening etc, but given the amount of cameras and recording equipment on the police these days and then the potential for dash-cam evidence, the implication that this is deliberate falsification is just absurd. You could understand the police using 'speeding' as a reason to pull over a suspicious driver, even to claim that they thought they were speeding at say 80 -90 mph and issue a fixed penalty, but to make up something that they are going to have to defend in court, just doesn't make any sense.
And why did the Police take around 6 miles to pull them over?
WinstonWolf said:
Gavia said:
FurtiveFreddy said:
10:35 into the clip!
If you want the full detail, read the Pepipoo thread.
I’m not going on that site full of weirdos. If you want the full detail, read the Pepipoo thread.
Haven’t we still only got the drivers word for it that it was at 10:35 in the video?
There's always someone who comes on PH these days and on page one says "I don't believe a word of it". We're running true to form.
poo at Paul's said:
Yes, it's often Gavia and ends up with him having to buy a Peugeot 106 that he doesn't want. Or more accurately, welching on it having looked like a tool.
You know I didn’t welch on the deal, but hey you keep stalking me sweetcheeks, it makes me feel all fuzzy and warm inside. Why don't you grass someone else up to the feds and get them banned.
You did welch on it, you never bought it, and you did look like a tool.
But you don't learn, you go about with your spurious accusations and calling bullst, getting innocent people banned because you confuse their usernames and you've got your secretary mate to bin the thread so no one can prove it.
But here again, you are calling bullst on something that is clear as day to the rest of us. Dont worry, when you get look a tool again here, you can get the thread deleted...again.
You think you'd have learned to keep your "calling out" to yourself by now, but you just cant help yourself.
You did welch on it, you never bought it, and you did look like a tool.
But you don't learn, you go about with your spurious accusations and calling bulls
t, getting innocent people banned because you confuse their usernames and you've got your secretary mate to bin the thread so no one can prove it. But here again, you are calling bulls
t on something that is clear as day to the rest of us. Dont worry, when you get look a tool again here, you can get the thread deleted...again. You think you'd have learned to keep your "calling out" to yourself by now, but you just cant help yourself.
poo at Paul's said:
Why don't you grass someone else up to the feds and get them banned.
You did welch on it, you never bought it, and you did look like a tool.
But you don't learn, you go about with your spurious accusations and calling bullst, getting innocent people banned because you confuse their usernames and you've got your secretary mate to bin the thread so no one can prove it.
But here again, you are calling bullst on something that is clear as day to the rest of us. Dont worry, when you get look a tool again here, you can get the thread deleted...again.
You think you'd have learned to keep your "calling out" to yourself by now, but you just cant help yourself.
Boohoo. Waaahhhhh, it’s soooooo not fair. It’s soooooo unfair. Such a precious snowflake who can’t get over things. Let it go, just let it go. You did welch on it, you never bought it, and you did look like a tool.
But you don't learn, you go about with your spurious accusations and calling bulls
t, getting innocent people banned because you confuse their usernames and you've got your secretary mate to bin the thread so no one can prove it. But here again, you are calling bulls
t on something that is clear as day to the rest of us. Dont worry, when you get look a tool again here, you can get the thread deleted...again. You think you'd have learned to keep your "calling out" to yourself by now, but you just cant help yourself.
I’ve admitted several times that I may well be wrong, but the questions are valid.
Nickyboy said:
The Surveyor said:
The thing I just don't understand here is, why would the traffic police point their gun at some completely random car trundling past along the motorway when it's clearly doing no more than the speed limit, and then try and claim that they were doing such a significant speed?
Yes, maybe a quiet evening etc, but given the amount of cameras and recording equipment on the police these days and then the potential for dash-cam evidence, the implication that this is deliberate falsification is just absurd. You could understand the police using 'speeding' as a reason to pull over a suspicious driver, even to claim that they thought they were speeding at say 80 -90 mph and issue a fixed penalty, but to make up something that they are going to have to defend in court, just doesn't make any sense.
I'm with you, it doesn't add up. I see no reason for them to use a gun in the dark on a busy motorway. In an urban area with street lightning i can understand but not here. Also, any police officer can tell the difference between a car doing 60 and one doing 110, It's a 50mph difference FFS, if he was doing 110 then the Volvo that passed was doing 130. Yes, maybe a quiet evening etc, but given the amount of cameras and recording equipment on the police these days and then the potential for dash-cam evidence, the implication that this is deliberate falsification is just absurd. You could understand the police using 'speeding' as a reason to pull over a suspicious driver, even to claim that they thought they were speeding at say 80 -90 mph and issue a fixed penalty, but to make up something that they are going to have to defend in court, just doesn't make any sense.
And why did the Police take around 6 miles to pull them over?
Next the officer asks him where he is coming from and going to and when the chap says he was going from brighton to home the officer says " so what probably the m23, M25 etc" or along those lines the inference being the officer had not been following him on the M25 and had only pinged him once he joined the A20/M20 into London.
Unfortunately this is simply a case as others have said of a mistake by the officer. All evidence video etc points to the officer pinging either the white Volvo that passed him or accidentally sliding the lidar getting a poor reading showing 110mph and for some unfathomable reason deciding to pull him for it.
The reality is in that 20 minutes he barely hit the speed limit and and you can see the police car press on his brakes as the chap who recorded the video passes.
frankenstein12 said:
Couple of important things to note if you listen. The officer tells says "this device here says you were doing 110mph" that would mean he had a lidar in his hands so was using it at night.
Next the officer asks him where he is coming from and going to and when the chap says he was going from brighton to home the officer says " so what probably the m23, M25 etc" or along those lines the inference being the officer had not been following him on the M25 and had only pinged him once he joined the A20/M20 into London.
Unfortunately this is simply a case as others have said of a mistake by the officer. All evidence video etc points to the officer pinging either the white Volvo that passed him or accidentally sliding the lidar getting a poor reading showing 110mph and for some unfathomable reason deciding to pull him for it.
The reality is in that 20 minutes he barely hit the speed limit and and you can see the police car press on his brakes as the chap who recorded the video passes.
I hear all that and see the details off the dash-cam. It does look like the police have made a huge error and are digging themselves a deeper hole, or it never happened, there were no police and this is just a fake video. You never see the police only hear them so I'm just not totally convinced this is genuine, purely on the basis that I can't believe the police could be that wrong... Could they?Next the officer asks him where he is coming from and going to and when the chap says he was going from brighton to home the officer says " so what probably the m23, M25 etc" or along those lines the inference being the officer had not been following him on the M25 and had only pinged him once he joined the A20/M20 into London.
Unfortunately this is simply a case as others have said of a mistake by the officer. All evidence video etc points to the officer pinging either the white Volvo that passed him or accidentally sliding the lidar getting a poor reading showing 110mph and for some unfathomable reason deciding to pull him for it.
The reality is in that 20 minutes he barely hit the speed limit and and you can see the police car press on his brakes as the chap who recorded the video passes.
The Surveyor said:
I hear all that and see the details off the dash-cam. It does look like the police have made a huge error and are digging themselves a deeper hole, or it never happened, there were no police and this is just a fake video. You never see the police only hear them so I'm just not totally convinced this is genuine, purely on the basis that I can't believe the police could be that wrong... Could they?
If you consider the political motivations that influence the behaviour of the police these days is it really that surprising?I wouldn't apply such sinister motivations to them. Never use a conspiracy theory to describe something that could be attributable to ignorance or arrogance.
Use occam's razor - most likely scenario is that the copper is unable to consider they might have made a mistake. They've been taught how to use the kit, they've been 'told' the kit is foolproof if used how shown, so of course, because they're "trained", in their mind they cannot ever make an error*. Kit shows 110 = car HAS to be doing 110. Driver dissent = driver lying, in the copper's mind.
* And the mfr / instructor has carefully ignored the ways that the kit COULD give a false reading (slip error as demonstrated years ago then totally ignored by the establishment), as to admit that anywhere would be to open the floodgates of failed prosecutions.
Use occam's razor - most likely scenario is that the copper is unable to consider they might have made a mistake. They've been taught how to use the kit, they've been 'told' the kit is foolproof if used how shown, so of course, because they're "trained", in their mind they cannot ever make an error*. Kit shows 110 = car HAS to be doing 110. Driver dissent = driver lying, in the copper's mind.
* And the mfr / instructor has carefully ignored the ways that the kit COULD give a false reading (slip error as demonstrated years ago then totally ignored by the establishment), as to admit that anywhere would be to open the floodgates of failed prosecutions.
Gavia said:
poo at Paul's said:
Why don't you grass someone else up to the feds and get them banned.
You did welch on it, you never bought it, and you did look like a tool.
But you don't learn, you go about with your spurious accusations and calling bullst, getting innocent people banned because you confuse their usernames and you've got your secretary mate to bin the thread so no one can prove it.
But here again, you are calling bullst on something that is clear as day to the rest of us. Dont worry, when you get look a tool again here, you can get the thread deleted...again.
You think you'd have learned to keep your "calling out" to yourself by now, but you just cant help yourself.
Boohoo. Waaahhhhh, it’s soooooo not fair. It’s soooooo unfair. Such a precious snowflake who can’t get over things. Let it go, just let it go. You did welch on it, you never bought it, and you did look like a tool.
But you don't learn, you go about with your spurious accusations and calling bulls
t, getting innocent people banned because you confuse their usernames and you've got your secretary mate to bin the thread so no one can prove it. But here again, you are calling bulls
t on something that is clear as day to the rest of us. Dont worry, when you get look a tool again here, you can get the thread deleted...again. You think you'd have learned to keep your "calling out" to yourself by now, but you just cant help yourself.
I’ve admitted several times that I may well be wrong, but the questions are valid.
doing? And I'm not refering to your comments on wether someone was speeding or not.
The Surveyor said:
frankenstein12 said:
Couple of important things to note if you listen. The officer tells says "this device here says you were doing 110mph" that would mean he had a lidar in his hands so was using it at night.
Next the officer asks him where he is coming from and going to and when the chap says he was going from brighton to home the officer says " so what probably the m23, M25 etc" or along those lines the inference being the officer had not been following him on the M25 and had only pinged him once he joined the A20/M20 into London.
Unfortunately this is simply a case as others have said of a mistake by the officer. All evidence video etc points to the officer pinging either the white Volvo that passed him or accidentally sliding the lidar getting a poor reading showing 110mph and for some unfathomable reason deciding to pull him for it.
The reality is in that 20 minutes he barely hit the speed limit and and you can see the police car press on his brakes as the chap who recorded the video passes.
I hear all that and see the details off the dash-cam. It does look like the police have made a huge error and are digging themselves a deeper hole, or it never happened, there were no police and this is just a fake video. You never see the police only hear them so I'm just not totally convinced this is genuine, purely on the basis that I can't believe the police could be that wrong... Could they?Next the officer asks him where he is coming from and going to and when the chap says he was going from brighton to home the officer says " so what probably the m23, M25 etc" or along those lines the inference being the officer had not been following him on the M25 and had only pinged him once he joined the A20/M20 into London.
Unfortunately this is simply a case as others have said of a mistake by the officer. All evidence video etc points to the officer pinging either the white Volvo that passed him or accidentally sliding the lidar getting a poor reading showing 110mph and for some unfathomable reason deciding to pull him for it.
The reality is in that 20 minutes he barely hit the speed limit and and you can see the police car press on his brakes as the chap who recorded the video passes.
If however it was Thames police then he is f
ked as they are utterly corrupt and arrogant pricks with whom i have had two interactions personally over the years both unpleasant. On one occasion they pulled me over and accused me of doing over 100mph in a 50mph zone when i knew for a fact the max speed i had done was 68mph. I may not have been innocent of wrong doing but they were extremely aggressive and were making a false allegation which would cost me my license which i need for work I assume in the hope i would admit to it or to a specified speed over the limit so they could write me up for it due to not having video evidence or simply because they were on a little power trip.
I have no time for Thames police.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff