Can panda 'do' you for speeding?
Discussion
A mate was given a fixed penalty ticket for exceeding NSL; by a lone BiB in a panda. Apparently they had to wait, for 20 minutes, for another panda to bring the tickets!
I believed that pandas had no, calibrated, speed measuring equipment and so could not be used for speeding enforcement.
Am I mistaken?
I believed that pandas had no, calibrated, speed measuring equipment and so could not be used for speeding enforcement.
Am I mistaken?
mybrainhurts said:
According to one of our resident plods, whose name escapes me at the moment, any plod can look at you, form an opinion that you're over the limit, and use that opinion as evidence to convict you.
I was more than a little surprised to hear that.
surely any lawyer would tear that to pieces in court? anyone . . .
nonegreen said:
Fight it, its the only way. Get a good lawyer and with no equipment to corroborate they are down to Liar Liar pants on fire. Get the guys number, ask a mate to smack you about a bit and accuse the officer of assault if you want to be really mean and nasty.
OOOooooh! ...You ARE awful,.....But I like you!......
8Pack said:
Fight it, its the only way. Get a good lawyer and with no equipment to corroborate they are down to Liar Liar pants on fire. Get the guys number, ask a mate to smack you about a bit and accuse the officer of assault if you want to be really mean and nasty.
OOOooooh! ...You ARE awful,.....But I like you!......
Lol yeah or of course show up at court in a frock and ask to be addressed as "Miss" get your brief to ask the cop if he recognises the driver.
He must have taken a real disliking to your friend to wait 20 minutes for someone to bring him the appropriate paper-work!
I have previously reported someone for speeding when in a Panda but I did have someone else with me and our evidence corroborated each others opinion. Not sue about being on your own and doing it though. Get a good lawyer would be my gut feeling and partly make an issue of the copper 'detaining' your friend for 20 minutes because he couldn't be bothered to take appropriate paper-work out with him on patrol.
I have previously reported someone for speeding when in a Panda but I did have someone else with me and our evidence corroborated each others opinion. Not sue about being on your own and doing it though. Get a good lawyer would be my gut feeling and partly make an issue of the copper 'detaining' your friend for 20 minutes because he couldn't be bothered to take appropriate paper-work out with him on patrol.
If the lmit was on the lower scale i.e. 30mph and culprit was doing say 40 then yes single plod with an uncalibrated speedo and using the unchecked speedo of the panda as corroboration has been held by High Court capable of reporting for speeding, but that was some time ago.
However in todays need to prove everything to the hilt I would suspect that is now questionable.
Why did he wait 20 minutes? Was he arrested? Was he prevented from leaving or just complied? False arrest? The mind boggles considering could have been reported for summons but that would mean Court and an inquisition???????????
Consider having a word with a Solitor before paying the FPN.
dvd
However in todays need to prove everything to the hilt I would suspect that is now questionable.
Why did he wait 20 minutes? Was he arrested? Was he prevented from leaving or just complied? False arrest? The mind boggles considering could have been reported for summons but that would mean Court and an inquisition???????????
Consider having a word with a Solitor before paying the FPN.
dvd
Spoken to my mate, he says that the waiting was more like half an hour than 20 minutes and that he just complied with the request to wait.
He had two passengers in the car with him and it was a rural road, at 10 30PM; returning home from work. He is going to take your advice and fight it all the way.
Thanks all,
Gog
He had two passengers in the car with him and it was a rural road, at 10 30PM; returning home from work. He is going to take your advice and fight it all the way.
Thanks all,
Gog
The Panda driver can - a stated already - just get the speedo in the Panda checked out by having a traffic car Laser him. A quick statement from the traffic guy who did this gets attached to the ticket to show how far out the Panda speedo is and thats it .......
Not too keen on making someone wait for that long though!
Not too keen on making someone wait for that long though!
70 in a 60 ...... on an uncalibrated speedo which may be up to 10% out - so thats makes it potentially as low as a true 63 in a 60 - and this would be a follow speed by an officer probably with little or no experience of doing such things.
If the above it true then I know what I would do with the ticket !
If, however, it was 70 after the Panda speedo was checked then a different matter ...... or if there is more to it - it is not normal to keep someone waiting for a ticket for so long; particularly for say 70 in a 60. ~ Does make me wonder what exactly went on ..... the officer must have really wanted to issue that ticket ......... or your mate was just unlucky and found the officer from hell !
If the above it true then I know what I would do with the ticket !
If, however, it was 70 after the Panda speedo was checked then a different matter ...... or if there is more to it - it is not normal to keep someone waiting for a ticket for so long; particularly for say 70 in a 60. ~ Does make me wonder what exactly went on ..... the officer must have really wanted to issue that ticket ......... or your mate was just unlucky and found the officer from hell !
I would be very tempted to fight this.
It depends whether he has accepted the caution already. If he has, I would just get on with it. However, the reason why laser guns exist is to add weight to an officers 'opinion' of a speed of a vehicle. If it were as easy just to pull a figure up and book you, I am sure that they wouldnt be spending thousands on the laser devices...
I would have thought that the CPS would have to have a lot of balls to take this to court if they know it is being fought. There would also be a lot of work to do in the way of verifying the panda speedo etc.
It depends whether he has accepted the caution already. If he has, I would just get on with it. However, the reason why laser guns exist is to add weight to an officers 'opinion' of a speed of a vehicle. If it were as easy just to pull a figure up and book you, I am sure that they wouldnt be spending thousands on the laser devices...
I would have thought that the CPS would have to have a lot of balls to take this to court if they know it is being fought. There would also be a lot of work to do in the way of verifying the panda speedo etc.
A drunken chat with a traffic cop a while ago let me in on a few secrets....
2 traffic cops with no speed measurments (other than speedo) can issue you with a fixed penalty
1 traffic cop with no speed measurments (other than speedo) will not issue you with a fixed penalty or if he does it probably will not stand up in court--his word against yours, not worth the hassle etc...
1 traffic cop with video/film evidence will issue you with a fixed penalty
this is obviously magnified to an extent based on wether you are alone or with others...ie if you and a passenger are stopped by a lone traffic cop with no measurments then they wont even attempt to give you a fixed penalty.
now thats for traffic policemen.... normal plod...well if you contest it they dont have a leg to stand on in all honesty.
2 traffic cops with no speed measurments (other than speedo) can issue you with a fixed penalty
1 traffic cop with no speed measurments (other than speedo) will not issue you with a fixed penalty or if he does it probably will not stand up in court--his word against yours, not worth the hassle etc...
1 traffic cop with video/film evidence will issue you with a fixed penalty
this is obviously magnified to an extent based on wether you are alone or with others...ie if you and a passenger are stopped by a lone traffic cop with no measurments then they wont even attempt to give you a fixed penalty.
now thats for traffic policemen.... normal plod...well if you contest it they dont have a leg to stand on in all honesty.
Garethgtt said:
A drunken chat with a traffic cop a while ago let me in on a few secrets....
2 traffic cops with no speed measurments (other than speedo) can issue you with a fixed penalty
1 traffic cop with no speed measurments (other than speedo) will not issue you with a fixed penalty or if he does it probably will not stand up in court--his word against yours, not worth the hassle etc...
1 traffic cop with video/film evidence will issue you with a fixed penalty
this is obviously magnified to an extent based on wether you are alone or with others...ie if you and a passenger are stopped by a lone traffic cop with no measurments then they wont even attempt to give you a fixed penalty.
now thats for traffic policemen.... normal plod...well if you contest it they dont have a leg to stand on in all honesty.
if theres only one cop and two of you why no conficate his video
gog said:
Spoken to my mate, he says that the waiting was more like half an hour than 20 minutes and that he just complied with the request to wait.
He had two passengers in the car with him and it was a rural road, at 10 30PM; returning home from work. He is going to take your advice and fight it all the way.
Thanks all,
Gog
This is just slack, the PC leaves the nick without the relevant paperwork for the evening, then has the nerve to ask a member of the public to hang about for 30 mins because he's a numpty. I'd have told him to shove his ticket and driven off. Its idiots like this that cause so much ill feeling towards the police
I'm an engineer with a law degree. As such, I do have a good working knowledge of the areas being discussed here. (I also successfully defended a charge of speeding at 103mph when detected by an incoreectly operated speed detection device a few years ago. I was travelling at 90mph in a scooby-doo and put my hands up to that, but no way was I settling for the charge laid out!). Here's what you need to know:
The basic legal facts about speeding offences
Most of the relevant law was written a long time ago, for example the precedent for one police officer using the speed of the police vehicle to measure your speed was set in 1931. The basic premise on which the the law is based is that the police officers' "expert opinion" of excess speed is enough to convict you of "speeding" and any equipment that is used to measure your speed is merely to corroborate that opinion - point "12, (c)" in this section of the ACPO guidelines will help you to understand why a patrol car's speedometer can be used to corroborate the opinion of one officer and this section explains how the speedometer should be used when performing a "follow check".
As speeding is an absolute offence, the law doesn't distinguish between a motorist who is driving at 71 mph or 171 mph - the variable punishments that are suggested in "Magistrates Guidelines" are NOT part of the law.
If there is no speed-measurement equipment at all there must be two police officers, the second has to corroborate the opinion of the first as to the "excess speed". Obviously in these circumstances deciding the "speed" for the punishment will be the problem, and that is why most Constabularies use speed measurement equipment these days. However, now that we have variable punishments the "speed" has become very important, for example if you look at the Magistrates Guidelines, you will see that driving at 91 mph in a 70 mph limit is potentially far more serious than 90 mph, and this is why it is so important that you take the time to study the evidence and to ensure that it is accurate!
In the case discussed, only one police officer is offering his expert opinion. (Bear in mind here that any proficient motorist will be classed as an 'expert').
The arrival of a second police officer cannot stand as corroboration of the first as the second officer did not witness the vehicle in motion.
Defend this case. State your speed as you understood it, and corroborate that speed with the reading that you saw on your speedometer. Your expert testimony in conjunction with the corroboration of the equipment fitted to your vehicle will be more than enough to cast reasonable doubt on the expert testimony of the police officer. Attention should also be paid to what marks the police officer as an expert. Forget his 'training'. DO NOT attack this, as far too many magistrates believe that a police officer is infallible when it comes to matters that constitute an officer's training. Instead, concentrate on that officer's personal abilities. How long has he been driving? Does he hold an advanced driving licence? Is he rated to operate a patrol car? Is he rated to operate a high performance squad car?
Point out to the court that the second officer who is supposedly corroborating the first did not in fact witness the alleged offence.
There should be no reason that this charge would be upheld.
(But be prepared to lose a day of your life in fighting the charge)
Good luck
The basic legal facts about speeding offences
Most of the relevant law was written a long time ago, for example the precedent for one police officer using the speed of the police vehicle to measure your speed was set in 1931. The basic premise on which the the law is based is that the police officers' "expert opinion" of excess speed is enough to convict you of "speeding" and any equipment that is used to measure your speed is merely to corroborate that opinion - point "12, (c)" in this section of the ACPO guidelines will help you to understand why a patrol car's speedometer can be used to corroborate the opinion of one officer and this section explains how the speedometer should be used when performing a "follow check".
As speeding is an absolute offence, the law doesn't distinguish between a motorist who is driving at 71 mph or 171 mph - the variable punishments that are suggested in "Magistrates Guidelines" are NOT part of the law.
If there is no speed-measurement equipment at all there must be two police officers, the second has to corroborate the opinion of the first as to the "excess speed". Obviously in these circumstances deciding the "speed" for the punishment will be the problem, and that is why most Constabularies use speed measurement equipment these days. However, now that we have variable punishments the "speed" has become very important, for example if you look at the Magistrates Guidelines, you will see that driving at 91 mph in a 70 mph limit is potentially far more serious than 90 mph, and this is why it is so important that you take the time to study the evidence and to ensure that it is accurate!
In the case discussed, only one police officer is offering his expert opinion. (Bear in mind here that any proficient motorist will be classed as an 'expert').
The arrival of a second police officer cannot stand as corroboration of the first as the second officer did not witness the vehicle in motion.
Defend this case. State your speed as you understood it, and corroborate that speed with the reading that you saw on your speedometer. Your expert testimony in conjunction with the corroboration of the equipment fitted to your vehicle will be more than enough to cast reasonable doubt on the expert testimony of the police officer. Attention should also be paid to what marks the police officer as an expert. Forget his 'training'. DO NOT attack this, as far too many magistrates believe that a police officer is infallible when it comes to matters that constitute an officer's training. Instead, concentrate on that officer's personal abilities. How long has he been driving? Does he hold an advanced driving licence? Is he rated to operate a patrol car? Is he rated to operate a high performance squad car?
Point out to the court that the second officer who is supposedly corroborating the first did not in fact witness the alleged offence.
There should be no reason that this charge would be upheld.
(But be prepared to lose a day of your life in fighting the charge)
Good luck
I see a few people saying why did he wait for 20 to 30 mins for the right paperwork. Can he have legally said "Sod you mate, I'm off"? Surely the copper can tell him to wait, and would have arrested him for not obeying his instructions? This would be great to know, as getting one over on this prat of an officer would have been fun.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff