Theoretical Speeding Question

[LTD]

Does Dave's car have a speed limiter fitted ?

Dave's speed limiter might have been set to, say 95mph, but the calibration being out might have allowed the car to faster than intended ...

 

[brucemillar]

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.

See my previous post on my experience of this.

I would be sceptical about a solo officer on the M1 entering a pursuit and making a stop for speeding. Then not presenting a ticket so that Dave can at least query his stop with the Police.

 

[Mr. B]

My friend, lets call him "Dave" is travelling back from a party late at around 3am after dropping all of his friends home. Dave hasnt touched a drink.

He is on the M1 heading north after the 50mph is over with, taking advantage of a completely open road, when Daves heart sinks as he notices the unmistakeable blues and twos up his rear end.

Unfortunately dave's car has a speedo from a similar model, but with a smaller engine and Dave realised earlier that night, that the speedo must be under reading somewhat.
However Dave did not feel he was anywhere near triple digits at the time of the incident.

Officer is by himself and accuses dave of travelling at 110 mph for at least the 0.75 miles that Mr very tired looking Plod was following.

Dave does not notice any official cameras or recording equipment but then lets face it, Dave was pretty tired at 3am and just wanted to get out of the unmarked vehicle and get to his orthopaedic mattress.

The deal was done in just a few minutes, the officer explained that the matter will go through to a civilian at the office who will decide course of action.
Plod was actually pretty reasonable and did not try to lecture Dave or anything. Dave says he even turned a blind eye to the metal number plates.

Dave was obviously speeding but he honestly does not think 110mph can be correct. Of course dave has no real way of proving this.

Dave had points years ago for phone use, but these have long since expired.

Dave has researched google and its pretty evident that he will probably face a ban of a few weeks or so at best.

What to the panel think is the likely outcome for Dave and has anyone else been caught at similar speeds... What tactic was employed at court time?

Dave just plans on being honest and simply stating that he needs his licence for his daily activities (who doesnt though?) and that he is normally a very good boy.

Dave is a little worried poor chap... I laughed at Dave for being an imbecile.

Without further information it would appear to me as though 'Dave' has been reported on summons for the offence of exceeding the 70 mph limit.

'Dave' didn't get issued with a FPT because 100 mph + is outside of the guidelines for FPT's.

The officer has made reference to 0.75 of a mile.

It would appear that the officer has carried out what is known as a 'following check' on the speed of 'Daves' vehicle.

My reason for believing this course of action is because 'Dave' fails to mention being shown readings from a VASCAR device which would show 'Dave' his average speed over the distance of 0.75 of a mile. It would also 'Dave' the time it took him to travel said distance.

VASCAR's are difficult to operate at night because reference points are required and in the dark with no street lighting they can be difficult to find. Therefore 'following checks' are often used.

The officer is therefore relying on the accuracy of his speedometer, which would have been calibrated from new. The officer must then check the calibration of his speedometer over a measured distance after he has reported 'Dave' for speeding. He is also relying on the fact that he has maintained a constant distance behind 'Dave' for the duration of the check.

If you elect a court appearance make sure his speedometer has been checked ASAP after dealing with you.

The fact the officer is alone makes no difference, he merely needs corroborating evidence for his opinion that 'Dave' is speeding, which the calibrated speedo provides. It must be checked afterwards.

Hope this helps.

 

[V12]

My father's memory isn't what it used to be. He says he took it to the local commercial MB dealer who was able to provide a print out of the innacurate speedo. Guess they use a rolling road or something?

Perhaps I should start a thread on the sprinter. Started life as a 412d. After some engine trouble they took the engine and auto box from a 500sel. It is strange to drive in a nice way. Small things like the pas pump is slightly higher pressure so the steering is nice and light. It has a modified c36 exhaust box and sounds like a lambo.
Finally it has 2x120 litre LPG tanks under the body.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MBClub UK

 

[st13phil]

See my previous post on my experience of this.

I would be sceptical about a solo officer on the M1 entering a pursuit and making a stop for speeding.

Scottish law has different requirements for evidence corroboration than English law.

In England, the opinion of one Constable corroborated by a calibrated device(*), or the opinion of two Constables is sufficient to secure a conviction.

(*) There are exceptions to the requirement for a device to be calibrated, but many Forces don't prosecute based on an uncalibrated device

 

[jaymanek]

Well when the letter arrives dave will be talking to a solicitor, I think its got to help rather than dave trying to fumble through the legalities.

 

[Druk]

It's going to be fun at the next Nuneaton GTG with Jay and Dave arguing over ownership of a wide-bodied 126.


.

 

[Mr. B]

Well when the letter arrives dave will be talking to a solicitor, I think its got to help rather than dave trying to fumble through the legalities.

Don't take the following the wrong way as I am only trying to offer advice;

I think Dave may need a reality check.

It is alleged that he was travelling at 110 mph on the M1.

It's 3am in the morning and there is no other traffic on the road except for a Police car which has been following Dave for 0.75 of a mile.

I appreciate Dave didn't realise it was a Police car but if I was exceeding the speed limit (which Dave accepts) on an open stretch of m/way and I could see headlights behind which were matching my speed, I would want to know what they were doing.

I would be slowing down to see if the headlights matched my speed or whether they continued to overtake me. If they slowed down, that alone should indicate to Dave that perhaps all is not well.

It would appear to me that Dave didn't notice the headlights behind. To conduct a 'following check' your talking of a distance of roughly 300 / 400 yards, so it's not as though Dave shouldn't have noticed the headlights on an open stretch of m/way with no other traffic.

Dave clearly wasn't paying enough attention to his surroundings.

Dave excepts speeding but is alleging a speedometer fault.

A cheap way to test his speedo would be to drive back onto the M1 and time himself between two SOS boxes when travelling at 70 mph. They are 1 mile apart (not calibrated). He will then be able to work out a true speedo reading and it should give him an indication as to whether his is faulty. Bear in mind it will be + / - several mph as most speedos are.

Dave can then decide whether he wants to go to the expense of having his speedo checked at 110 mph.

Dave needs to put his hand on heart and ask himself whether he was exceeding the 100 mph as most experienced drivers can tell without looking at their speedo.

Be careful about seeking legal advise from solicitors as very few are experienced in dealing with speeding offences and will charge Dave a fortune for saying a few lines in court which in most cases still get the same result ie. fine and a disq for a period of 28 days (example).

What goes in Daves favour is the fact that there was no other vehicles on the road (except the obvious) at the time of the alleged offence, weather and road conditions were presumably very good, nobody was put in any danger as a result of Daves speed. Speed alone is not dangerous other factors need to come into play.

If Dave is faced with a short ban don't forget to tell him to notify his insurance company as they may refuse to pay out other than 3rd party if he needs to claim b4 his renewal.

Plus if he fails to notify them when his renewal is due he may be guilty of making a false declaration to obtain insurance which will invalidate his insurance.

As I said in the beginning only try to help.

 

[neilrr]

As someone said earlier, Dave needs to get over to pepipoo & ask the experts there.

Here, however well intentioned, much of the advice given on PCNs, tickets & trouble with plod involving driving is wrong.

 

[219]

There are also some legal minds , who specialise in motoring law , over on Pistonheads , particularly in the ' Speed , Plod and the Law ' forum .

 

[renault12ts]

Dave was speeding...

 

[donubenz]

Dave, sorry Jay,
have a look at this web site
MOTORING RULES AND REGULATIONS

I believe that a police car using a speedo to prosecute has to demonstrate that it is accurate and calibrated. So the advice so far that you need to plead guilty to see the evidence sounds correct even if it is only that you exceeded the limit.
I am not sure I would admit to having a defective speedo in my car as you could also face a prosecution for this offence!
A well versed lawyer should help, hopefully you may not need one as the letter may never fall on the mat. The chief constable is the guy who decides if a prosecution is worth pursuing and all matters are strictly regulated as far as the law and the police are concerned. So any loophole that can cause the case to fail will prevent it from going to court, for example if the single policeman did not get the car speedo checked within 24hours of the offence.

Good luck with this.

 

[219]

Calibration is only critical when the margin over the limit is , well , marginal .

At an alleged speed in the low 80's , close to the 10%+1 guideline , calibration would be vital ; but for a speed in excess of 100 , even with an 'ordinary' uncalibrated speedo , there is little doubt of guilt , although there might be room for negotiation to have the alleged speed brought down to 99 mph , or if very lucky , to 96 mph which would make a ban discretionary in some jurisdictions .

 

[bolide]

Seems terribly un-British to me to have to plead Not Guilty to see the evidence. And potentially receiving a larger fine as a result strikes me the same way

Nick Froome

 

[MicB]

QC needed.....been there and done that.

Mic

 

[scillyisles]

Don't take the following the wrong way as I am only trying to offer advice;

I think Dave may need a reality check.

It is alleged that he was travelling at 110 mph on the M1.

It's 3am in the morning and there is no other traffic on the road except for a Police car which has been following Dave for 0.75 of a mile.

I appreciate Dave didn't realise it was a Police car but if I was exceeding the speed limit (which Dave accepts) on an open stretch of m/way and I could see headlights behind which were matching my speed, I would want to know what they were doing.

I would be slowing down to see if the headlights matched my speed or whether they continued to overtake me. If they slowed down, that alone should indicate to Dave that perhaps all is not well.

It would appear to me that Dave didn't notice the headlights behind. To conduct a 'following check' your talking of a distance of roughly 300 / 400 yards, so it's not as though Dave shouldn't have noticed the headlights on an open stretch of m/way with no other traffic.

Dave clearly wasn't paying enough attention to his surroundings.

Dave excepts speeding but is alleging a speedometer fault.

A cheap way to test his speedo would be to drive back onto the M1 and time himself between two SOS boxes when travelling at 70 mph. They are 1 mile apart (not calibrated). He will then be able to work out a true speedo reading and it should give him an indication as to whether his is faulty. Bear in mind it will be + / - several mph as most speedos are.

Dave can then decide whether he wants to go to the expense of having his speedo checked at 110 mph.

Dave needs to put his hand on heart and ask himself whether he was exceeding the 100 mph as most experienced drivers can tell without looking at their speedo.

Be careful about seeking legal advise from solicitors as very few are experienced in dealing with speeding offences and will charge Dave a fortune for saying a few lines in court which in most cases still get the same result ie. fine and a disq for a period of 28 days (example).

What goes in Daves favour is the fact that there was no other vehicles on the road (except the obvious) at the time of the alleged offence, weather and road conditions were presumably very good, nobody was put in any danger as a result of Daves speed. Speed alone is not dangerous other factors need to come into play.

If Dave is faced with a short ban don't forget to tell him to notify his insurance company as they may refuse to pay out other than 3rd party if he needs to claim b4 his renewal.

Plus if he fails to notify them when his renewal is due he may be guilty of making a false declaration to obtain insurance which will invalidate his insurance.

As I said in the beginning only try to help.

Excellent post - I concur with everything you have said.

 

[st13phil]

Seems terribly un-British to me to have to plead Not Guilty to see the evidence. And potentially receiving a larger fine as a result strikes me the same way

Welcome to 21st-Century British Motoring Law. The whole system is stacked to coerce encourage the accused to roll over with as little effort as possible on behalf of the State.

 

[Dieselman]

Welcome to 21st-Century British Motoring Law. The whole system is stacked to coerce encourage the accused to roll over with as little effort as possible on behalf of the State.

If they are actually guilty, surely that's a good thing as it keeps costs and time down to a minimum.

 

[st13phil]

If they are actually guilty, surely that's a good thing as it keeps costs and time down to a minimum.

I don't have a problem with that, and for a roadside stop it's unlikely to be an issue.

When it does become an issue is when someone receives an NIP through the post for an offence they believe they didn't commit, perhaps 12 or 14 days earlier. If they were provided the evidence at that stage (which wouldn't be either difficult or costly to do) they could decide whether or not they wanted to defend the case based upon the evidence available, rather than just a non-specific accusation. Not much to ask, is it?

As it stands, the accused has to forfeit the chance of a lower penalty just to find out whether there's valid evidence that they've committed an offence. That's hardly justice, is it?

 

[renault12ts]

I don't have a problem with that, and for a roadside stop it's unlikely to be an issue.

When it does become an issue is when someone receives an NIP through the post for an offence they believe they didn't commit, perhaps 12 or 14 days earlier. If they were provided the evidence at that stage (which wouldn't be either difficult or costly to do) they could decide whether or not they wanted to defend the case based upon the evidence available, rather than just a non-specific accusation. Not much to ask, is it?

As it stands, the accused has to forfeit the chance of a lower penalty just to find out whether there's valid evidence that they've committed an offence. That's hardly justice, is it?

True.

But in this case Dave knows he was speeding...just not by how much. The problem is twofold...he has a duff speedo which may be an offence...and has hot seen the evidence from the Policeman.