NIP - was the detection method legal?
Discussion
HI all
I received an NIP for doing 66 in a 50. As far as I can remember the detection equipment (I do not know whether it was laser etc) was in the back of a white van on the other side of the road. At the point where the van was, the road was sweeping right, and was climbing gently after coming out of a gentle downhill. I was travelling with the flow of the traffic, and there was plenty of traffic coming the other way.
My question is this - in order to clock me, the 'beam' or whatever of the police equipment would have to 'fire' through the line of traffic going in the opposite direction. Is this legal? Also, does the fact that the trap was on a curved piece of road, and not a straight one affect the reading?
Your thoughts and knowledge would be appreciated.
I received an NIP for doing 66 in a 50. As far as I can remember the detection equipment (I do not know whether it was laser etc) was in the back of a white van on the other side of the road. At the point where the van was, the road was sweeping right, and was climbing gently after coming out of a gentle downhill. I was travelling with the flow of the traffic, and there was plenty of traffic coming the other way.
My question is this - in order to clock me, the 'beam' or whatever of the police equipment would have to 'fire' through the line of traffic going in the opposite direction. Is this legal? Also, does the fact that the trap was on a curved piece of road, and not a straight one affect the reading?
Your thoughts and knowledge would be appreciated.
HI all
I received an NIP for doing 66 in a 50. As far as I can remember the detection equipment (I do not know whether it was laser etc) was in the back of a white van on the other side of the road. At the point where the van was, the road was sweeping right, and was climbing gently after coming out of a gentle downhill. I was travelling with the flow of the traffic, and there was plenty of traffic coming the other way.
My question is this - in order to clock me, the 'beam' or whatever of the police equipment would have to 'fire' through the line of traffic going in the opposite direction. Is this legal? Also, does the fact that the trap was on a curved piece of road, and not a straight one affect the reading?
Your thoughts and knowledge would be appreciated.
Perfectly legal I'm afraid. I'm sure that modern equipment takes these variables into account and represents a valid reading.
I think you may have some luck with this one.
From what i remember, theyre supposed to take the reading based on their assumption that you were indeed exceeding the speed limit.
I think its supposed to be done on a straight section of road with clear line of sight to the target(you) and not across lanes of traffic.
Madcop or one of the other BIBs can give you absolute best advice though, stick around youll most likely get an answer from them.
Good luck also.
From what i remember, theyre supposed to take the reading based on their assumption that you were indeed exceeding the speed limit.
I think its supposed to be done on a straight section of road with clear line of sight to the target(you) and not across lanes of traffic.
Madcop or one of the other BIBs can give you absolute best advice though, stick around youll most likely get an answer from them.
Good luck also.
The officer operating the device has to inform an opinion that a vehicle is exceeding the limit which is corroborated by the technical equipment which actually calibrates the speed.
The Van does not have to be parked on a straight road with a single vehicle approaching it with livery warnings and men/women in yellow jackets to enable the device to be operated. It is designed to cater for targeting specific cars with a photgraph attached if necessary. Don't ask me how it works because I don't know.
I once had a barrister defending one of my speeding cases ( I was the prosecution witness not the defendant
) ask me how the Muniquip device worked. I was able to tell him that it worked by sending a sound wave out from the device and used the doppler effect to receive a signal from the target it rebounded from. That was the extent of my knowledge.
He continued to press me for more technical information than I could give until I asked him if he had a wrist watch and could he explain to me how it worked? He got quite cross at that and told me that it was him that asked the questions. I informed the magistrates I was perfectly capable of telling the time but had no idea how the reading on my watch actually got there. He was convicted!
In answer to the question, the van will have been parked in an area where the operators know vehicles readily exceed the limit. This may be data recorded from the instalation of ARCHER devices prior to their attendance. If the general flow of the traffic was in the region of 66 mph in a 50mph, it will have been quite apparent to the officers operating that device.
If you think about it though, A static speed camera site has no way of forming opinions at all. The device is triggered when a car goes through the site in excess of the target limit and is activated to produce two photographs in evidence. The same principle is applied with the speed vans.
I am sorry that you have been caught out by following the general flow. You will only be able to defend this case if you have mitigating circumstances for your offence or you can challenge the procedures that bring you before the magistrates.
The rest of the evidence will have been taken care of by calibration procedures and technical expertise by the operators.
The Van does not have to be parked on a straight road with a single vehicle approaching it with livery warnings and men/women in yellow jackets to enable the device to be operated. It is designed to cater for targeting specific cars with a photgraph attached if necessary. Don't ask me how it works because I don't know.
I once had a barrister defending one of my speeding cases ( I was the prosecution witness not the defendant
) ask me how the Muniquip device worked. I was able to tell him that it worked by sending a sound wave out from the device and used the doppler effect to receive a signal from the target it rebounded from. That was the extent of my knowledge. He continued to press me for more technical information than I could give until I asked him if he had a wrist watch and could he explain to me how it worked? He got quite cross at that and told me that it was him that asked the questions. I informed the magistrates I was perfectly capable of telling the time but had no idea how the reading on my watch actually got there. He was convicted!
In answer to the question, the van will have been parked in an area where the operators know vehicles readily exceed the limit. This may be data recorded from the instalation of ARCHER devices prior to their attendance. If the general flow of the traffic was in the region of 66 mph in a 50mph, it will have been quite apparent to the officers operating that device.
If you think about it though, A static speed camera site has no way of forming opinions at all. The device is triggered when a car goes through the site in excess of the target limit and is activated to produce two photographs in evidence. The same principle is applied with the speed vans.
I am sorry that you have been caught out by following the general flow. You will only be able to defend this case if you have mitigating circumstances for your offence or you can challenge the procedures that bring you before the magistrates.
The rest of the evidence will have been taken care of by calibration procedures and technical expertise by the operators.
madcop said: He continued to press me for more technical information than I could give until I asked him if he had a wrist watch and could he explain to me how it worked? He got quite cross at that and told me that it was him that asked the questions. I informed the magistrates I was perfectly capable of telling the time but had no idea how the reading on my watch actually got there. He was convicted!
I do love hearing about barristers getting shafted! NO. YOu cannot be done like this.
The sneak device has to be PARALLEL (eg no more than 15 degrees from the line you are travelling in) to the traffic flow, AND MAY NOT fire over on coming traffic.
Even laser is not allowed to do this, Radar is a definate no-no. Don't be fooled, this is not somethign you should let them get away with.
Laser seeking SAMs may soon be the next Max-power acessory !!
C
The sneak device has to be PARALLEL (eg no more than 15 degrees from the line you are travelling in) to the traffic flow, AND MAY NOT fire over on coming traffic.
Even laser is not allowed to do this, Radar is a definate no-no. Don't be fooled, this is not somethign you should let them get away with.
Laser seeking SAMs may soon be the next Max-power acessory !!
C
The method of detection was legal, as for reliable though ?
Try www.acpo.police.uk-policies/rpet.pdf. It's quite lengthy.
This might persuade all concerned that relaibility is in dispute.
Try www.acpo.police.uk-policies/rpet.pdf. It's quite lengthy.
This might persuade all concerned that relaibility is in dispute.
hertsbiker said: NO. YOu cannot be done like this.
But he has been!
The sneak device has to be PARALLEL (eg no more than 15 degrees from the line you are travelling in) to the traffic flow, AND MAY NOT fire over on coming traffic.
Even laser is not allowed to do this, Radar is a definate no-no. Don't be fooled, this is not somethign you should let them get away with.
Operators are well aware of this. They do not just get the equipment from the box, take it out of the bubble wrap and point it.
When I did my muniquip training back in the mid 80's, the course was 2 days long, explaining where you could site the device and how you must operate it to obtain a reading which would be of evidential value.
The Vascar course was two weeks long enabling you to practice it to a fine art.
Those of you who think that the Police fit people up for speeding are wrong (in the vast majority of cases). Why would they need to fit anyone up when everyone is doing it? (apart from me
). If you are not certain about the method or accuracy of a particular check just bin it and wait 30 seconds for the next one. The one that got away will not stay got away for long.
Laser seeking SAMs may soon be the next Max-power acessory !!
C
Laser guided ones would be better sometimes
madcop said:
In answer to the question, the van will have been parked in an area where the operators know vehicles readily exceed the limit. This may be data recorded from the instalation of ARCHER devices prior to their attendance. If the general flow of the traffic was in the region of 66 mph in a 50mph, it will have been quite apparent to the officers operating that device.
If you think about it though, A static speed camera site has no way of forming opinions at all. The device is triggered when a car goes through the site in excess of the target limit and is activated to produce two photographs in evidence. The same principle is applied with the speed vans.
The rest of the evidence will have been taken care of by calibration procedures and technical expertise by the operators.
Madcop, this ARCHER data recording device you have mentioned, interesting does this have to be used?
For example, officer measures speed of a vehicle with laser gun, no data recording device is attached, no photographic evidence, ONE policeman in attendance, many vehicles on same stretch of road?
You also mention "technical expertise" - what if the operator has not had specific training on the device?
bobthebench said: The method of detection was legal, as for reliable though ?
Try www.acpo.police.uk-policies/rpet.pdf. It's quite lengthy.
This might persuade all concerned that relaibility is in dispute.
Website address actually:
www.acpo.police.uk/policies/rpet.pdf
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff