Theoretical Speeding Question

[renault12ts]

This is very interesting, please advise where one would go to get a certificate saying my speedo was under reading.

You mean Dave's speedo?

 

[Bellow]

was not any kind of admission, it was simply to say dave was there..

An admission of being there is an admission - and it's the first of two pieces of evidence required to convict.
Did 'Dave' get shown the read out of his speeding?

 

[flango]

This is very interesting, please advise where one would go to get a certificate saying my speedo was under reading.

Jay thats a good angle, most of the Northern Police forces traffic cars are done at IRS in Nottingham LINKY

 

[brucemillar]

This is very interesting, please advise where one would go to get a certificate saying my speedo was under reading.

I'm sorry did you mean Dave's speedo was under reading?

I was convicted in Scotland (M74 Southbound) clocked by Motorway Police at 147mph (allegedly). When they went to show me the VASCAR reading(s) the memory had failed on their VASCAR. So they could not provide two readings.

Not to bore you all with the details. I was convicted of speeding but at the speed that I had admitted too. This meant that I did not have to re-sit my test and received three month ban and £700 fine.

In court the calibration of my speedo was questioned. This was not seen as relevant as I had pleaded guilty and the Police VASCAR was clearly malfunctioning.

 

[brucemillar]

My point being..

If the Policeman was on his own and has no corroborating evidence (Camera or witness) then it is simply his word against yours (sorry Dave's).

Was Dave given a copy of a ticket? If not I would tell Dave to forget it.

 

[jaymanek]

My point being..

If the Policeman was on his own and has no corroborating evidence (Camera or witness) then it is simply his word against yours (sorry Dave's).

Was Dave given a copy of a ticket? If not I would tell Dave to forget it.

Dave got no ticket, no paper at all...

Got to look into this speedo thing as its got to help.

 

[jaymanek]

Jay thats a good angle, most of the Northern Police forces traffic cars are done at IRS in Nottingham LINKY

They wont help conflict of interest as they work for police.

 

[flango]

My point being..

If the Policeman was on his own and has no corroborating evidence (Camera or witness) then it is simply his word against yours (sorry Dave's).

Was Dave given a copy of a ticket? If not I would tell Dave to forget it.

Take that to it's logical conclusion though an experienced traffic officer Vs Dave in court who are the bench going to believe?

The word of a traffic officer with no corroboration is good enough to get a prosecution. I've seen cases with no vascar or video successfully prosecuted on the officers testimony alone based on his reading of his calibrated speedo, admittedly before on board video was standard.

The question is as someone as already pointed out would an under resourced Police force pursue such a prosecution

 

[jaymanek]

So is DAVE best to ask for evidence as soon DAVE receives the letter? Any suggestions on how to word this?

Re the speedo thing I wonder if I got a passenger to photograph DAVES speedo at a certain speed along with a tomtom in view?

 

[flango]

They wont help conflict of interest as they work for police.

Just an independent testing and calibration outfit aren't they? your moneys as good as the Police surely all you are asking for is an accuracy report of your speedo. Another one that used to do our race cars was Richfield Speedograph again in Nottingham might be a better bet?

 

[Deleted member 37751]

So is Dave best to ask for evidence as soon as Dave receives the letter?

*cough*

Ftfy.

 

[flango]

So am I best to ask for evidence as soon as I receive the letter? Any suggestions on how to word this?

Re the speedo thing I wonder if I got a passenger to photograph my speedo at a certain speed along with a tomtom in view?

Most forces won't give you access to the evidence unless you elect for a court hearing first. However some will so it's worth a try can ask my neighbour tonight he's a traffic cop and SWMBO will be in later to give the view from the other side

I think only an official certificate of testing would be admissible as evidence but I'll get SWMBO to confirm

 

[jaymanek]

*cough*

Ftfy.

seems daves mate is as thick as dave...

 

[Deleted member 37751]

seems daves mate is as thick as dave...

Don't be too hard on Dave, he's just been caught speeding and I'm sure he's got enough on his mind already.

 

[st13phil]

The fact the officer was alone makes no difference unless it was not a traffic car and then it does

Why's that, Ian? I was under the impression that the opinion of one Police Constable plus a calibrated device - e.g. speedo - were sufficient as evidence, regardless of whether they are Trafpol

 

[flango]

Why's that, Ian? I was under the impression that the opinion of one Police Constable plus a calibrated device - e.g. speedo - were sufficient as evidence, regardless of whether they are Trafpol

It's normally only Road Traffic, Road Crime and ARV vehicles that have calibrated speedo's. A traffic Officer who has been trained in speed recognition and assessment will normally work one of these vehicles and be a Class 1 police driver. A constable in a panda car would not have been trained to the level as a class 1 officer and unlikely a general police vehicle would have a calibrated speedo. Thats why the police in transit vans, pick ups etc gave up stopping people for speeding on motorways, procedure now is to call in a traffic car preferably a marked one.

I'm not saying the evidence of a general constable and a corroborative device wouldn't stand up but it would give a defence lawyer a good shot at getting their client off.

 

[Frugal]

With a view to ascertaining whether they will prosecute etc, Dave may wish to craft a Freedom of Information Act request for the past few years' worth of speeding statistics held by the constabulary in question, including number/proportion that were taken to court (and proportion of those that resulted in successful prosecutions), how many relied on no corroborating evidence etc

 

[st13phil]

So is DAVE best to ask for evidence as soon DAVE receives the letter? Any suggestions on how to word this?

As Ian has already said, DAVE isn't entitled to any evidence unless and until DAVE pleads Not Guilty - which is probably pretty pointless as he was stopped at the time, so it will be his word against the Officer. Bear in mind also that an early guilty plea attracts a discount from the sentence tariff.

DAVE would be well advised to join PePiPoo and ask for advice over there as there are some very experienced people who know more about traffic law than most.

One option may be to go for a Newton Hearing (google it), which is basically where DAVE admits that he was exceeding the speed limit, i.e. he enters a Guilty plea, but not by the amount he was summonsed for. That may be difficult to argue in the circumstances though, as DAVE will have to convince the Mag's that the Officer "was mistaken" in his recording of the speed and DAVE needs to get the alleged speed down to 99mph or less to pretty much guarantee avoiding a short ban. This may be an area where representation could be helpful if DAVE wants to avoid a good deal of study pre the hearing.

There are mixed views about using a paid representative to put mitigation. If DAVE is well educated and articulate, there is no reason why he couldn't make the statement himself. If he is nervous of doing that then perhaps submitting a written statement to the Mag's and reading it out would be a good way to go. The Mag's will be unimpressed by any hardship that a ban causes DAVE himself, as that's the point of the punishment Instead, DAVE should concentrate on how him being banned from driving will cause significant hardship and/or damage to others - employees, family, etc.

One final thing: a short ban will leave DAVE's licence effectively without points for totting purposes, which may be a better option than driving around like Miss Daisy with 9 or more points for the next three years. Just a thought.

 

[st13phil]

It's normally only Road Traffic, Road Crime and ARV vehicles that have calibrated speedo's.

OK, I understand.

However, in DAVE's case, due to the alleged speed involved (40mph above the posted limit), it would be hard to see that even a lowly Panda driver couldn't form a judgement that the speed limit was being exceeded. Coupled with "After the incident I returned to the Police Garage and the vehicle was tested on a rolling road whereupon the speedometer was found to have an error of x mph at the speed noted", and I'd say DAVE's goose was cooked.

 

[Beno]

As Ian has already said, DAVE isn't entitled to any evidence unless and until DAVE pleads Not Guilty - which is probably pretty pointless as he was stopped at the time, so it will be his word against the Officer. Bear in mind also that an early guilty plea attracts a discount from the sentence tariff.

DAVE would be well advised to join PePiPoo and ask for advice over there as there are some very experienced people who know more about traffic law than most.

One option may be to go for a Newton Hearing (google it), which is basically where DAVE admits that he was exceeding the speed limit, i.e. he enters a Guilty plea, but not by the amount he was summonsed for. That may be difficult to argue in the circumstances though, as DAVE will have to convince the Mag's that the Officer "was mistaken" in his recording of the speed and DAVE needs to get the alleged speed down to 99mph or less to pretty much guarantee avoiding a short ban. This may be an area where representation could be helpful if DAVE wants to avoid a good deal of study pre the hearing.You
There are mixed views about using a paid representative to put mitigation. If DAVE is well educated and articulate, there is no reason why he couldn't make the statement himself. If he is nervous of doing that then perhaps submitting a written statement to the Mag's and reading it out would be a good way to go. The Mag's will be unimpressed by any hardship that a ban causes DAVE himself, as that's the point of the punishment Instead, DAVE should concentrate on how him being banned from driving will cause significant hardship and/or damage to others - employees, family, etc.

One final thing: a short ban will leave DAVE's licence effectively without points for totting purposes, which may be a better option than driving around like Miss Daisy with 9 or more points for the next three years. Just a thought.

Dave aught to read this its spot on advise