Recently got 3 points - BiB had no reading on my speed

[rs666]

Bit late now as I accepted the NIP and paid the £60 and got 3 points, but would like to understand the reality of the case for future reference.

Going down a dual carriageway at about 0700 completely empty. NSL so 70mph.

I go past a entry slip at about 85mph, as usual I glance in my mirror to look up the slip road. I catch sight of a white car just pulling onto top of slip road so I stay observing and get off throttle (didn't brake) glance forward then back and sure enough is a patrol car.

He his accelerating hard so it hit the anchors, as soon as I do he switches on his lights. He is some 1/4 behind me.

So we pull over at the next parking layby and he tells me he didn't get a reading on me (laser gun on dashboard), but says 'with the speed you were doing I could make sure you wouldn't be driving in a month'. Comes over all heavy.

So I take the NIP and hand over both parts of license (mistake me thinks).

On reflection I think I was too hasty and also felt a little intimidated by his threat of taking me to court to lose my license.

Did he actually have any evidence? No reading and working alone so no-one else to verify speeds.

His only argument was the speed he had to do to catch me! Over no more than 1/4 - 1/2 mile, seems a little weak?

[rs666]

Oh by the way, it was NWP so that probably explains it.

Incidently Cheshire border was about 2 miles down the road

[jith]

rs666 said:

Bit late now as I accepted the NIP and paid the £60 and got 3 points, but would like to understand the reality of the case for future reference. Going down a dual carriageway at about 0700 completely empty. NSL so 70mph. I go past a entry slip at about 85mph, as usual I glance in my mirror to look up the slip road. I catch sight of a white car just pulling onto top of slip road so I stay observing and get off throttle (didn't brake) glance forward then back and sure enough is a patrol car. He his accelerating hard so it hit the anchors, as soon as I do he switches on his lights. He is some 1/4 behind me. So we pull over at the next parking layby and he tells me he didn't get a reading on me (laser gun on dashboard), but says 'with the speed you were doing I could make sure you wouldn't be driving in a month'. Comes over all heavy. So I take the NIP and hand over both parts of license (mistake me thinks). On reflection I think I was too hasty and also felt a little intimidated by his threat of taking me to court to lose my license. Did he actually have any evidence? No reading and working alone so no-one else to verify speeds. His only argument was the speed he had to do to catch me! Over no more than 1/4 - 1/2 mile, seems a little weak?

Oh dear me, why did you let them do that to you?
I am always astounded at these sort of tactics. They actually admit they didn't know your speed and then book you!!!
Absolutely outrageous!
This is a classic example of how the fixed penalty system is wide open to abuse. Had you refused the FP, they would have had to have charged you and taken you to court.
How could they have done that?
By their own admission they had no evidence!!
I'm so sorry you got caught like this.
If you want some satisfaction, make an official complaint to the force involved citing your lack of experience and subsequent receipt of this information and ask them to justify a policy that is clearly intimidatory.

[rs666]

Thanks, I guess I knew I was speeding so took my punishment. It did seem a little unfair as he could have used is common sense and just said slow down sir. The road was empty after all.

NWP have a zero tolerance policy don't they? But they would still need evidence.

I have wondered whether the fact I was driving an RS6 went against me? I doubt it, just me trying to rationalise this situation I guess.

[7db]

Have you paid the FPN?

[targarama]

jith said:

rs666 said: Bit late now as I accepted the NIP and paid the £60 and got 3 points, but would like to understand the reality of the case for future reference. Going down a dual carriageway at about 0700 completely empty. NSL so 70mph. I go past a entry slip at about 85mph, as usual I glance in my mirror to look up the slip road. I catch sight of a white car just pulling onto top of slip road so I stay observing and get off throttle (didn't brake) glance forward then back and sure enough is a patrol car. He his accelerating hard so it hit the anchors, as soon as I do he switches on his lights. He is some 1/4 behind me. So we pull over at the next parking layby and he tells me he didn't get a reading on me (laser gun on dashboard), but says 'with the speed you were doing I could make sure you wouldn't be driving in a month'. Comes over all heavy. So I take the NIP and hand over both parts of license (mistake me thinks). On reflection I think I was too hasty and also felt a little intimidated by his threat of taking me to court to lose my license. Did he actually have any evidence? No reading and working alone so no-one else to verify speeds. His only argument was the speed he had to do to catch me! Over no more than 1/4 - 1/2 mile, seems a little weak? Oh dear me, why did you let them do that to you? I am always astounded at these sort of tactics. They actually admit they didn't know your speed and then book you!!! Absolutely outrageous! This is a classic example of how the fixed penalty system is wide open to abuse. Had you refused the FP, they would have had to have charged you and taken you to court. How could they have done that? By their own admission they had no evidence!! I'm so sorry you got caught like this. If you want some satisfaction, make an official complaint to the force involved citing your lack of experience and subsequent receipt of this information and ask them to justify a policy that is clearly intimidatory.

Surely they would have simply said in their opinion his speed was above xxmph and 2 Policemen vs. one punter would be a CPS delight. If they were as 'keen' to nick rs666 as he describes I would expect them to do this.

[rs666]

He was working alone.

Paid the NIP this was Boxing Day (its just been eating away at me so decided to post)

The ticket just said 'Speed in excess of 70mph'

[john57]

The police officer would only have to prove you were doing over the speed limit ..... technically for 2/10ths of a mile but instructions where I am are 3/10ths for a follow speed.

The officer does not have to be with anyone if he is using another device such as a calibrated speedo to prove your speed.

If, for over the distance he was saying he was not gaining on you but was himself doing over the speed limit then that is enough to prove excess speed.

You mention a laser on the dashboard ..... I would imagine he may have been referring to Vascar or Police Pilot - both devices that measure you between two fixed points; usually timing you between two points marked/painted on the road surface if after a junction . One would hope he meant this as the officer shouldn't be using a Laser through the windscreen to get a speed reading.

It sounds straightforward but possibly not explained enough to you.

[rs666]

Thanks that the kind of info I was looking for. So if he is doing over 70mph and in his judgement not gaining that enough over 2/10ths?

The device was a laser gun he had resting on the dash (not mounted) when I got in the car. Just sitting on a non-slip mat. I guess it was the handheld road device and he was just using it for effect.

So a fair cop then.

[rs666]

To be clear I was speeding, so I am not disputing hence paying the NIP, I was just curious about the technical aspects of the incident and process.

thanks for your help

[mojocvh]

So we pull over at the next parking layby and he tells me he didn't get a reading on me (laser gun on dashboard),

WTF????? He admits he has no evidence then "does" you??? what are things coming to!!

[Dwight VanDriver]

Whilst not doubting rs666's account from his side there must be more to this but unfortunately could only be resolved from BiB involved.

Whilst I have read some alleged malpractices but on the face of it who in his right mind is going to lob a FPN on a alleged speeder when he has no knowledge of the speed involved. He would not know whether the offender was going to lie over and take it or contest at Court where on what stated it would be laughed out of Court with a misconduct charge that could result with sack and loss of a valuable pension. For what?

My guess and it is that, amongst other possiblities on method of detection,is that in the trauma of being booked rs666 has not apprecaited what was said in total and it may be that the officer erased his reading so he couldn't show it, but there again in my book that is also a no no.

dvd

[rs666]

dvd

Agreed, as I said I was speeding so not contesting the conviction. I am definate he held laser gun and said he didn't get a reading.

I am also sure I haven't missed anything in the exchange. I am a Project Manager by trade and have to have excellent listening skills and good memory, something I pride myself on.

That said there maybe something I am missing as you state he was taking a risk if not sure. So I can only conclude there must have been something else he hadn't told me as he was sure. And he was right, I just can't make out what is missing here.

Maybe I missed another Patrol on the other carriageway that 'formed an opinion' and radio'd his colleague, hence his confidence in issuing NIP.

[rs666]

Also, my motive is not to allege malpractice, but I do think something was missed.

Maybe I should try and contact the officer and see if now it is done and I have admitted guilt he might tell me how he was so sure?

[jith]

rs666 said:

He was working alone. Paid the NIP this was Boxing Day (its just been eating away at me so decided to post) The ticket just said 'Speed in excess of 70mph'

Sorry RS, I've been away all day, just returned to this.
I read your post in far too much of a hurry and didn't realise this individual was on his own.
Firstly you are driving one of the most competent and safest cars in existence, that for me makes such a nonsense of the whole mindless business of charging you.
Let me clarify this to you and doubtless cause a storm of protest from any English traffic cops on here.
Contrary to what John57 asserts and with the greatest respect to him assuming he is a police officer, simply because he has been trained to do what he does in the manner in which he does it; it is not acceptable in law to have ONE officer, that is to say a witness to a "crime" with no material evidence whatsoever, ( a calibrated speedometer reading or a VASCAR reading without an accompanying video tape is NOT material evidence because he can show nothing to the court), stand up and say you committed the said crime: particularly after stating to you that he couldn't get a reading; that is utterly laughable!
He has NO corroboration without a colleague being present. He can PROVE nothing.
Having said this, ther are most certainly magistrates courts throughout the land that will simply take their word for this, the main reason why it is perpetuated.
But if you go to the High Court with this on appeal you will almost certainly win, because the evidence is NOT, I repeat NOT corroborated.
This is unacceptable for obvious reasons.
If he was using an old fashioned radar gun out of the window of his vehicle, then I'm afraid my only comment to this can be that he is a chancer!
Totally unacceptable and you should have fought it to the death.
I believe even the most dim witted member of the CPS would not have gone to trial on this.
You live an learn!

[SS2.]

jith said:

it is not acceptable in law to have ONE officer, that is to say a witness to a "crime" with no material evidence whatsoever,

Not so. Legal precedent was set in the 1930s (and has not been successfully challenged to date) that the prior opinion of excess speed from one police officer and corroboration of this opinion on a calibrated device is sufficient to prove excess speed.

jith said:

a calibrated speedometer reading or a VASCAR reading without an accompanying video tape is NOT material evidence because he can show nothing to the court)

The police officer does not have to show anything to the court if his expert opinion has been corroborated by a calibrated device.

jith said:

He has NO corroboration without a colleague being present. He can PROVE nothing.

As above, if the officer had corroboration from a calibrated device, then he did not need a colleague present at the time of the detection.

jith said:

But if you go to the High Court with this on appeal you will almost certainly win,

You won't. IMO, they would cite the legal precedent of the 1930's judgments and you would lose.




>> Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 17th May 20:46

[justinp1]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Whilst not doubting rs666's account from his side there must be more to this but unfortunately could only be resolved from BiB involved. Whilst I have read some alleged malpractices but on the face of it who in his right mind is going to lob a FPN on a alleged speeder when he has no knowledge of the speed involved. He would not know whether the offender was going to lie over and take it or contest at Court where on what stated it would be laughed out of Court with a misconduct charge that could result with sack and loss of a valuable pension. For what? My guess and it is that, amongst other possiblities on method of detection,is that in the trauma of being booked rs666 has not apprecaited what was said in total and it may be that the officer erased his reading so he couldn't show it, but there again in my book that is also a no no. dvd

I agree, that there may be more involved, but I do have to say that i think that your standard of policing is better than other less reputable officers. I have been on the other end of the stick where I was accused of jumping a red light by three officers in a car. I knew they were lying as I know what colour the light was as I drove through it on green before waiting in the centre of the junction to turn right. The officers had no view of the light and didnt even see me enter the junction either thus had no evidence to convict on.

They obviously had no doubt whatsoever that I would 'roll over'. I didnt. I defended myself in court and won after many weeks of work and stress.

Whilst these two incidents are isolated, it does make me wonder how many times other 'young lads in fast cars' were pulled over and intimidated before I stood up for myself.

[vonhosen]

SS2. said:

jith said: it is not acceptable in law to have ONE officer, that is to say a witness to a "crime" with no material evidence whatsoever, Not so. Legal precedent was set in the 1930s (and has not been successfully challenged to date) that the prior opinion of excess speed from one police officer and corroboration of this opinion on a calibrated device is sufficient to prove excess speed. jith said: a calibrated speedometer reading or a VASCAR reading without an accompanying video tape is NOT material evidence because he can show nothing to the court) The police officer does not have to show anything to the court if his expert opinion has been corroborated by a calibrated device. jith said: He has NO corroboration without a colleague being present. He can PROVE nothing. As above, if the officer has corroboration from a calibrated device, then he did not need a colleague present at the time of the detection. jith said: But if you go to the High Court with this on appeal you will almost certainly win, You won't. IMO, they would cite the legal precedent of the 1930's judgments and you would lose.

Weatherhogg v Johns 1931 JP 95
"Speedometer reading evidence of FACT"

>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th May 20:48

[SS2.]

vonhosen said:

Weatherhogg v Johns 1931 JP 95 "Speedometer reading evidence of FACT"

And Russell vs Beasley 1937, IIRC.

And confimed in Nicholas b Penny (1950) - you cannot be convicted of speeding solely on the evidence of a single witness's opinion, though observation and the reading of a speedometer or other measuring device is sufficient


>> Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 17th May 21:08

[jith]

SS2. said:

vonhosen said: Weatherhogg v Johns 1931 JP 95 "Speedometer reading evidence of FACT" And Russell vs Beasley 1937, IIRC. And confimed in Nicholas b Penny (1950) - you cannot be convicted of speeding solely on the evidence of a single witness's opinion, though observation and the reading of a speedometer or other measuring device is sufficient >> Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 17th May 21:08

This is fatally flawed.
Firstly, where is the PROOF of the speedometer reading without a corroborating witness.
You are assuming that a 1930s judgement would stand today, and I will freely admit that it possibly could; but that would be in the absence of correctly structured arguments based on contemporary fact.
Between now and the thirties, when stopwatches and mechanically driven and calibrated speedometers were used there has been the advent of old fashioned WW2 style radar, i.e Frowds and other crude roadside devices, VASCAR in all it's variants, hand held radar guns of varying designs, fixed speed cameras based on a conbination of radar and Vascar, fixed speed cameras operated on radar alone, mobile cameras utilising lasar equipment, and finally the only one that is TRULY acceptable in law, and even then when it can be shown that the calibration is accurate, Provida.
With Provida an officer can stand on his own in a court of law and totally substantiate on film what he claims transpired at the incident. The defence then has the opportunity to question the Crown witness or witnesses on any aspect of the incident as it unfolds on the screen.
Neither the police nor the accused can prefabricate, invent, exaggerate or suffer a temporary loss of memory of the actual event: it is there to be examined in detail and at leisure most importantly by the judge.
THAT is correct, corroborated, material evidence and is virtually faultless.
In this day and age of high tech enforcement, nothing short of this is acceptable.
To actually quote precedents set in the thirties is, quite frankly, insulting and slightly ridiculous.