Not stopped, but NIP received - help appreciated.
Discussion
I was recently zapped by plod on an open stretch of dual carriageway - in excess of 90mph.
Police car was parked in field entrance with small tripod (about 1m high) and small box (about shoe box size) on top pointing towards oncoming traffic.
NIP has been received by my company with a notification that 'allegation is supported by police officer evidence'. Photographic evidence section of this form is crossed out.
At the time of the incident I was not stopped by the officer.
As I passed, I noted that there was only one officer stood by the side of the road, I dont think that there was a second officer in the car but I could not be sure.
Can anyone give me advice as to whether there would be any supporting evidence from the roadside gadgetary to support the officers evidence or is it just a case of my word against his.
Roadpounder
Police car was parked in field entrance with small tripod (about 1m high) and small box (about shoe box size) on top pointing towards oncoming traffic.
NIP has been received by my company with a notification that 'allegation is supported by police officer evidence'. Photographic evidence section of this form is crossed out.
At the time of the incident I was not stopped by the officer.
As I passed, I noted that there was only one officer stood by the side of the road, I dont think that there was a second officer in the car but I could not be sure.
Can anyone give me advice as to whether there would be any supporting evidence from the roadside gadgetary to support the officers evidence or is it just a case of my word against his.
Roadpounder
He may have digital camera evidence.
Sounds like that was what was on the tripod, attached to a laser speed trap.
Even if it is his word vs yours, the magistrates will go with the officer of the law in a 50/50 situation.
Your only way out is if you were unsure who was driving the car, and other people have access to your car and also deny it. E.g work colleague sharing the journey and you swapped a few times. It is unlikely (but not impossible) that the digital camera evidence can pick out sharp and specific enough driver details for prosecution.
However, for what it's worth, I would say you would be wise just to take the points and fine, and keep an eye out for similar traps in the future. It might be worth buying a laser jammer, too.
Sounds like that was what was on the tripod, attached to a laser speed trap.
Even if it is his word vs yours, the magistrates will go with the officer of the law in a 50/50 situation.
Your only way out is if you were unsure who was driving the car, and other people have access to your car and also deny it. E.g work colleague sharing the journey and you swapped a few times. It is unlikely (but not impossible) that the digital camera evidence can pick out sharp and specific enough driver details for prosecution.
However, for what it's worth, I would say you would be wise just to take the points and fine, and keep an eye out for similar traps in the future. It might be worth buying a laser jammer, too.
If you only get 3 points, take it !! 90 is a bit fast to get caught.
I'm even thinking of taking the FPN points for me (+10mph) evasive action - I know how bitchey some 'strates can be. But then again..
Oh, and in this case, my standard recomendation: get a bike for next summer, and give the finger to 'em.
I'm even thinking of taking the FPN points for me (+10mph) evasive action - I know how bitchey some 'strates can be. But then again..
Oh, and in this case, my standard recomendation: get a bike for next summer, and give the finger to 'em.
Thanks Domster
Worst thing about it was that I spotted the trap and had my foot hard on the brakes - however he must have got me prior to braking.
One odd thing I noticed was that the officer turned round to look at my car disappearing up the road as if to get the registration plate.
As usual with these things it all happens so quickly that you cant collect all the evidence to mount a decent defence.
I don't know whether you know the answer to this but on the NIP the photographic evidence section is crossed out - does this mean that he did not have a camera?
Thanks again
Roadpounder
Worst thing about it was that I spotted the trap and had my foot hard on the brakes - however he must have got me prior to braking.
One odd thing I noticed was that the officer turned round to look at my car disappearing up the road as if to get the registration plate.
As usual with these things it all happens so quickly that you cant collect all the evidence to mount a decent defence.
I don't know whether you know the answer to this but on the NIP the photographic evidence section is crossed out - does this mean that he did not have a camera?
Thanks again
Roadpounder
Never never take the fixed penalty. Ask them to provide evidence. You cannot possibly be done for 90 unless there is some proof via technology, or they followed you. The norm would then be to pull you. My guess is they are trying it on. I got done by a similar box on the M56 last year and refused to supply any information. I then got a seriously stroppy letter and again i refused to confess. It is more than 12 months now and I have heard nothing. Bear in mind this is a numbers game and all they want is the revenue. Give the buggers a hard time and the worst is it will cost you a bit more, good luck.
quote:
small tripod (about 1m high) and small box (about shoe box size) on top pointing towards oncoming traffic.
Sounds very much to me like a mini Gatso. If my memory serves me right they use the same 'type 24' radar unit in a normal roadside Gatso FIP. The ones I have come across have some sort of remote control that displays you speed to the cop. If so then his case will be that in his opionion your were exceeding the speed limit and the radar equipment coroborated his opinion. He would say that noted the registration of your car for later prosecution. If so, then you are very likely to loose if you go to court and say yes you were driving.
I would either take the NIP or claim you cant remember who was driving, but one cop on his own is more than capable of 'doing' you!
Good look
This puzzles me a bit.
If there was a photo, with you, your plate, and speed of vehicle, then no problem.
However, if there is no such piccie, there is this little thing called "continuity of evidence". How do they prove that it was YOUR car going at that speed?
COE is the thing that used to stop them using video, 'cos it was proven to be be unreliable (read, easy to fiddle) in court.
If there was a photo, with you, your plate, and speed of vehicle, then no problem.
However, if there is no such piccie, there is this little thing called "continuity of evidence". How do they prove that it was YOUR car going at that speed?
COE is the thing that used to stop them using video, 'cos it was proven to be be unreliable (read, easy to fiddle) in court.
nomore - if the photo evidence box is crossed out, then it does suggest they don't have a pic of you. Could explain why the policeman was reading your plate as you sped away?
However, that would suggest he was using a standard laser/radar trap without camera facility, and it would be his word vs yours.
It would be worth asking for the full case against you (if there was photographic eveidence, type of trap used, whether or when it was calibrated etc.)
If it is just the policeman recording your plate and doing stuff 'manually' the beaks are still likely to go with his word vs yours.
Again, only defence may be if you 'weren't' driving, as he would not be able to prove it was you, or if you could prove that there is another car of the same make, colour and similar reg that was in the area at the time, and you were somewhere else. Dodgy, to be honest.
For more help and advice, better than mine for sure!, try www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk as they often have a traffic cop helping out with answers from the other side of the fence.
Rgds
Domster
However, that would suggest he was using a standard laser/radar trap without camera facility, and it would be his word vs yours.
It would be worth asking for the full case against you (if there was photographic eveidence, type of trap used, whether or when it was calibrated etc.)
If it is just the policeman recording your plate and doing stuff 'manually' the beaks are still likely to go with his word vs yours.
Again, only defence may be if you 'weren't' driving, as he would not be able to prove it was you, or if you could prove that there is another car of the same make, colour and similar reg that was in the area at the time, and you were somewhere else. Dodgy, to be honest.
For more help and advice, better than mine for sure!, try www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk as they often have a traffic cop helping out with answers from the other side of the fence.
Rgds
Domster
..but was it a SAFE speed?
This is what bugs me. There seems to be this slaveish following of speed limits, regardless of the safety.
I will be very honest with you here. My little car is not very good in high winds (on motorways), but I am entitled to drive at 70mph - when infact this may not be safe.
I suspect you have a car that can easily cope with the conditions, and is therefore safer than mine. Yet you're goin' darn for it... mad. quite mad.
This is what bugs me. There seems to be this slaveish following of speed limits, regardless of the safety.
I will be very honest with you here. My little car is not very good in high winds (on motorways), but I am entitled to drive at 70mph - when infact this may not be safe.
I suspect you have a car that can easily cope with the conditions, and is therefore safer than mine. Yet you're goin' darn for it... mad. quite mad.
"I will be very honest with you here. My little car is not very good in high winds (on motorways), but I am entitled to drive at 70mph - when infact this may not be safe."
That is a good point. My 1.5 tonne Rover feels perfectly rooted to the ground at 90+ and I suspect a ‘tiv or equivalent would feel solid as a rock close to double that speed but my girlfriends Fiat Panda feels wildly unsafe at just 30! This may be way off the subject but when it comes to safety I feel that the Fiat it less safe than riding a motorbike with no helmet - yet it (if physically possible in a 750cc) is legally able to travel at 70mph on a motorway and 60mph on twisty, windy country roads.
This raises the question; when is common sense going to prevail in the police force; I know doing 90 is pushing it but can the copper honestly say that NOMORE was endangering anyone?
That is a good point. My 1.5 tonne Rover feels perfectly rooted to the ground at 90+ and I suspect a ‘tiv or equivalent would feel solid as a rock close to double that speed but my girlfriends Fiat Panda feels wildly unsafe at just 30! This may be way off the subject but when it comes to safety I feel that the Fiat it less safe than riding a motorbike with no helmet - yet it (if physically possible in a 750cc) is legally able to travel at 70mph on a motorway and 60mph on twisty, windy country roads.
This raises the question; when is common sense going to prevail in the police force; I know doing 90 is pushing it but can the copper honestly say that NOMORE was endangering anyone?
Good point! my bike feels far safer in almost any condition (except ice) than any car I have driven. Ok, that's my opinion, and I haven't driven a Tiv yet. But the point is that some machines are built for speed, and others are not.
Yet we still have the same laws applied to all of us. What is this going to change?
Ha ! - rather than raise the limit for sporty vehicles, I bet they continue to lower it for EVERYONE.
Yet we still have the same laws applied to all of us. What is this going to change?
Ha ! - rather than raise the limit for sporty vehicles, I bet they continue to lower it for EVERYONE.
Thanks guys for all the responses.
It seems like the case will be an uphill battle if I contest it.
I have looked at some of the other 'safer driving' (speeding) sites and I am fairly convinced that the gadget on the tripod was a mini gatso with remote readout in the coppers hand.
I may ask for the case against me to see what info they have.
With regard to speed, I would say that the dual carriageway was a straight piece of road with dry sunny conditions at the time. Traffic was light and I the car felt secure and steady. The sole purpose of a speed trap on this section of road must be to collect money. There was not even a junction near at the point of the alleged offence.
It does bug the hell out of me that this country is slavishly following rules that are set by others rather than placing more responsibility upon the individual to drive safely and respectfully for themselves and other road users.
p.s. I use my car extensively all over Britain and cover over 40,000 miles a year.
Roadpounder
It seems like the case will be an uphill battle if I contest it.
I have looked at some of the other 'safer driving' (speeding) sites and I am fairly convinced that the gadget on the tripod was a mini gatso with remote readout in the coppers hand.
I may ask for the case against me to see what info they have.
With regard to speed, I would say that the dual carriageway was a straight piece of road with dry sunny conditions at the time. Traffic was light and I the car felt secure and steady. The sole purpose of a speed trap on this section of road must be to collect money. There was not even a junction near at the point of the alleged offence.
It does bug the hell out of me that this country is slavishly following rules that are set by others rather than placing more responsibility upon the individual to drive safely and respectfully for themselves and other road users.
p.s. I use my car extensively all over Britain and cover over 40,000 miles a year.
Roadpounder
I have always been a subscriber to the notion that driver training is the key - not more and more rules and regulations.
I am but 21 but I have had more training in the past four years than 99% of all other road users (Test, Theory Test, Pass Plus, IAM, Skid Pan, Track Training). I know that I have only been on the road for four years but over that time I have covered over 100,000 miles and never had any incidents that were unavoidable (such as a cow jumping into the side of my car!) and certainly none that were my fault.
I feel this is because I have benefited from the extensive training I was given.
But I bloody well don't potter along at 30mph. I enjoy a spirited drive like the next Petrolhead and have been paying through my teeth to enjoy a 200bhp car since the age of 19. Nothing is more exciting than pushing the thresholds of you and your cars performance but it has always been within the margins of my training.
Speed is fine when coupled with the right car, and especially with the right driver.
An old fart that only had to prove that he was of sound health to receive a licence AND THATS IT is bound to sneer at the safer but faster driver overtaking his Hillman Imp as it wheezes its way along. Unfortunately this is also the sort of person that has the sort of emptiness in life that needs to be filled with a whinging letter to the powers that be. The sheer numbers of complainers on our roads coupled with the easy money attitude of the Government and Police Forces means that their selfish demands are met. Thus the result is more speed bumps, limits, cameras, calming devices, lower DD limits and negative propaganda.
When will the government take a look at the driver AND THE PEDESTRIANS rather than the speeds their cars are doing and see that this is the problem.
A licence is compulsory for a driver but the wild variations of standards that drivers on our roads displayed to attain these is quite scary. But a pedestrian (reputed to be the cause of 73% of all road related fatalities) needs no licence to stagger in front of our cars - and don’t even get me started on bloody horses and cyclists.
Uncle Tony should train us all better rather than punishing the drivers for our moments of 'lunacy'.
But that would not make the police any money, so I think we are all buggered.
I am but 21 but I have had more training in the past four years than 99% of all other road users (Test, Theory Test, Pass Plus, IAM, Skid Pan, Track Training). I know that I have only been on the road for four years but over that time I have covered over 100,000 miles and never had any incidents that were unavoidable (such as a cow jumping into the side of my car!) and certainly none that were my fault.
I feel this is because I have benefited from the extensive training I was given.
But I bloody well don't potter along at 30mph. I enjoy a spirited drive like the next Petrolhead and have been paying through my teeth to enjoy a 200bhp car since the age of 19. Nothing is more exciting than pushing the thresholds of you and your cars performance but it has always been within the margins of my training.
Speed is fine when coupled with the right car, and especially with the right driver.
An old fart that only had to prove that he was of sound health to receive a licence AND THATS IT is bound to sneer at the safer but faster driver overtaking his Hillman Imp as it wheezes its way along. Unfortunately this is also the sort of person that has the sort of emptiness in life that needs to be filled with a whinging letter to the powers that be. The sheer numbers of complainers on our roads coupled with the easy money attitude of the Government and Police Forces means that their selfish demands are met. Thus the result is more speed bumps, limits, cameras, calming devices, lower DD limits and negative propaganda.
When will the government take a look at the driver AND THE PEDESTRIANS rather than the speeds their cars are doing and see that this is the problem.
A licence is compulsory for a driver but the wild variations of standards that drivers on our roads displayed to attain these is quite scary. But a pedestrian (reputed to be the cause of 73% of all road related fatalities) needs no licence to stagger in front of our cars - and don’t even get me started on bloody horses and cyclists.
Uncle Tony should train us all better rather than punishing the drivers for our moments of 'lunacy'.
But that would not make the police any money, so I think we are all buggered.
Sorry this reply is a bit late, but I thought I would post it anyway. We received a letter from the law regarding a Gatso. The car was registered to the company so we said we were unsure who was driving it but would investigate. It took them ages to respond and chase up and eventually we told them it was a customer who had to use the car (we said European company details as Euro licences are welcome here and can get insurance so it would be a more believeable story). Sometimes cases are dropped if there is not enough evidence. When I was 17 I was stopped for worn tyres and didn't know to say I was on my to get them changed. Anyway I was given ticket and my licence taken away by them pending points. I contested (against the "advice" of the police officer) and when it came to court they dropped the case, I think it was because the ticket had the wrong year on it! (It was in January and he had put the wrong(previous) year!!!
Good Luck
Good Luck
I understand that a prosecution must be supported by two pieces of evidence - one, photographs, the other, your completed NIP saying you were the driver.
If you don't complete and return the NIP, you might be prosecuted for that, so assuming here that you do return the NIP, if the Police are then unable to confirm where and when you may inspect the photographs, which must mean they don't have them, you cannot be prosecuted, since the second limb of evidence is absent.
Comments?
Gibson
If you don't complete and return the NIP, you might be prosecuted for that, so assuming here that you do return the NIP, if the Police are then unable to confirm where and when you may inspect the photographs, which must mean they don't have them, you cannot be prosecuted, since the second limb of evidence is absent.
Comments?
Gibson
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff