# Unusual speeding offence....



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

A friend of mine is being prosecuted for riding in excess of 30mph with no evidence whatsoever other than the opinions of two traffic policemen. One jumped into the road and flagged him over and cautioned him saying he thought he was doin 60mph. Obviously the guy contested this and it's now going to court.

Anyone else been nabbed this way? I've asked a traffic policeman I know and he's asked around and no-one in his dept has ever used this method of nicking someone..


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

I dont see how that can possible go anywhere.

Innocent until *proven* guilty...


----------



## was (Mar 24, 2003)

R1

it sounds like a police have fxxk all evidence to prosecute, they cant submit a â€˜thoughtâ€™ in court.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

was said:


> R1
> 
> it sounds like a police have fxxk all evidence to prosecute, they cant submit a â€˜thoughtâ€™ in court.


They do though that's the problem. A traffic policemans considered by the court to be an 'expert' at determining speed, so, rather like a doctors medical opinion is taken as fact, he word is good in court. I do believe it has to be verified by a second policeman and in this case it has (despite the fact the 2nd copper wasn't even looking :? ).


----------



## TTotal (Aug 12, 2002)

No way can that go through court, get your pal to produce witnesses to say otherwise ?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

As he was a motorcyclist he should be assumed guilty. :wink: :wink:

Actually would be a doddle to defend. Run some videos of different cars and bikes at various speeds and get the two 'experts' to guess the speeds under oath for accuracy. That'll test their expertise. It's not always easy to assess speed.

Sounds like it will get dropped.


----------



## was (Mar 24, 2003)

r1 said:


> was said:
> 
> 
> > R1
> ...


point taken but without any evidence how can the cops *prove* your mate was speeding?


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

garyc said:


> As he was a motorcyclist he should be assumed guilty. :wink: :wink:
> 
> Actually would be a doddle to defend. Run some videos of different cars and bikes at various speeds and get the two 'experts' to guess the speeds under oath for accuracy. That'll test their expertise. It's not always easy to assess speed.
> 
> Sounds like it will get dropped.


'Apparently' as they're experts you can't be seen to doubt their expertise - you can however try to discredit their judgement on that particular day.

Any other thoughts?


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

TTotal said:


> No way can that go through court, get your pal to produce witnesses to say otherwise ?


Fancy being one? :wink:


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Surely you cannot be prosecuted just for being assumed to be over a speed limit. The police should say approximately at what speed the vehicle was travelling. To acertain this with any reliability requires calibrated speed detection equipment, a following vehicle with a calibrated speedo or a measured distance and calibrated timing equipment. In the absence of any of these I would be very disappointed if this went to court.

Incidentally at 60 mph there is the possibility of an instant disqualification. To have this administered in this manner would be intolerable.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

r1 said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > As he was a motorcyclist he should be assumed guilty. :wink: :wink:
> ...


Join the Freemasons. :wink:


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

ag said:


> Surely you cannot be prosecuted just for being assumed to be over a speed limit. The police should say approximately at what speed the vehicle was travelling. To acertain this with any reliability requires calibrated speed detection equipment, a following vehicle with a calibrated speedo or a measured distance and calibrated timing equipment. In the absence of any of these I would be very disappointed if this went to court.
> 
> Incidentally at 60 mph there is the possibility of an instant disqualification. To have this administered in this manner would be intolerable.


Just to clarify: THIS IS GOING TO COURT. I know it's not fair, I know it seems extraordinary - thats why I posted it!!! :wink:

I'e read the police statements and one officer says in his opinion the vehicle was travelling between 50-60mph and the other officer claims 50-55mph. It's unlikely he'll get more than 3 points as they cannot prove what actual speed was, however (I'll repeat) in theorey they can prosecute for the violation 'travelling in excess of the speed limit'.

Be aware - the police DO have the power to prosecute on the basis of their judgement.

Freemasons? Not a bad idea but I don't think they let bikers in!


----------



## head_ed (Dec 10, 2002)

They don't.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

In your "mate's" place I would seek legal advice and some professional representation. If the Police are alowed to guess people's speed now, what is the point is paying for hand-held radar speed traps and calibrated speedos if all they need to say is "looked about 55-60 MPH - You're nicked"?


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

ag said:


> In your "mate's" place I would seek legal advice and some professional representation. If the Police are alowed to guess people's speed now, what is the point is paying for hand-held radar speed traps and calibrated speedos if all they need to say is "looked about 55-60 MPH - You're nicked"?


Dunno.


----------



## TTurbo (Jul 5, 2002)

There have been quite a few cases where people have succesfully been prosecuted for speeding on the word of the police and no other evidence.

All the police have to say is that in their opinion the vehicle was travelling in excess of a certain speed - they are obviously unable to quote an exact speed that the vehicle was travelling.

I found this very hard to believe when I first heard it, if 2 police said they'd seen me burgling a property I doubt there'd be a conviction in the absence of any other evidence so why should speeding offences be different?


----------



## David_A (May 7, 2002)

Probably better asking on pistonheads under the plod section, but as a first question is he being prosecuted for speeding or for another careless driving/reckless/due care type of deal?

Dave


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

David_A said:


> Probably better asking on pistonheads under the plod section, but as a first question is he being prosecuted for speeding or for another careless driving/reckless/due care type of deal?
> 
> Dave


Just speeding.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

TTurbo said:


> There have been quite a few cases where people have succesfully been prosecuted for speeding on the word of the police and no other evidence.
> 
> All the police have to say is that in their opinion the vehicle was travelling in excess of a certain speed - they are obviously unable to quote an exact speed that the vehicle was travelling.
> 
> I found this very hard to believe when I first heard it, if 2 police said they'd seen me burgling a property I doubt there'd be a conviction in the absence of any other evidence so why should speeding offences be different?


That is outrageous.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Sounds like the experiences of those 'caught' speeding in France.

No evidence, just a "you were travelling at this speed" so you're nicked.


----------



## uppTTnorth (Jul 5, 2003)

I had the police try just the same thing (stepping out into the road) to stop me, its not clever i know, but i just rode round him thinking ohh f**k , and never heard a thing.Just lucky that time i guess !


----------



## misrule (May 6, 2002)

I've heard of this before -- though it sounds pretty strange.

I would have thought a decent lawyer could kick it into touch.

On Monday, I saw a uniformed cop trying on the latest styles in a shoe shop with his car parked on a double yellow line nearby. I should have issued a citizen's parking ticket. 

Mark


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

IIRC - this situation has been in place since year dot.

probably (I'm guessing) going back to the days when radar was only used as an early warning system, and the most accurate stopwatch was good for counting minutes....

Certainly, if the cops said they *thought* you were doing 35 in a 30, you would stand an excellant chance of getting off.

(Or more to the point, they wouldn't stop you in the first place).

However - the issue is not exactly how much your maye was speeding by, but the fact that he was speeding.

Let's face it - 95% of the driving population could probably stand by the side of the road for 10 mins and pick out a car that was going twice as fast as everyone else.....

Not saying it's fair - but it's the way it is :?

(and yes, IIRC, it does take testimony of 2 cops to equal 'evidence')


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Don't I Recognise You? said:


> However - the issue is not exactly how much your maye was speeding by, but the fact that he was speeding.
> 
> Let's face it - 95% of the driving population could probably stand by the side of the road for 10 mins and pick out a car that was going twice as fast as everyone else.....


Yes, I agree with this...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Hanging's too good... :wink:


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

Don't I Recognise You? said:


> IIRC - this situation has been in place since year dot.
> 
> probably (I'm guessing) going back to the days when radar was only used as an early warning system, and the most accurate stopwatch was good for counting minutes....
> 
> ...


Err, I didn't say he was travelling at 60mph - thats what the police are claiming - he seems to think he was doing c40mph.


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

Even if the 2 coppers have guessed 2 differing speeds (i.e. 1 estimated 50-55 and the other 50-60), they are both estimating that your mate was over the speed limit. Therefore, they will probably be able to prosecute your mate without a problem as they are both estimating that he was speeding.

On the other hand, it's not very likely that one copper says he was doing 50-60 and the other says he was only doing 30, is it.

Whatever, I still think they are pulling a fast one.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

r1 said:


> Err, I didn't say he was travelling at 60mph - thats what the police are claiming - he seems to think he was doing c40mph.


sorry fella - hadn't picked up on that.


----------



## fastasflip (May 13, 2003)

Get the Bobby in the box, get him to say how much of an expert he is, then throw your pen across the room and ask him to estimate it's speed.........works a treat :lol:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Don't I Recognise You? said:


> r1 said:
> 
> 
> > Err, I didn't say he was travelling at 60mph - thats what the police are claiming - he seems to think he was doing c40mph.
> ...


If he is going to admit to 40mph, he may as well accept the rap for 60mph. If he fights it, he has to fight the offence, not the claimed speed, otherwise he is going to get done anyway as he is admitting the officers are correct in assessing that he was speeding in the first place. If he admits that will be a small logical profression for the bench to assume that the officers are also correct in the 60mph speed. Besides arguing the speed will probably make the bench less lenient on sentencing.

Fight it or accept it?


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

garyc said:


> Don't I Recognise You? said:
> 
> 
> > r1 said:
> ...


I don't believe he would have to fight the offence (regardless of the claimed speed).

If the magistrate truly believes that the officers estimate of the speed is way off then I think they would have to assume innocence. How else would you decide on a punishment? It's either that the officers are correct or they are wrong. Guilty or innocent. You would not be able to say that you do not believe their statement but you do believe an offence was commited. I _think _thats his reasoning.

It's going to be an interesting one either way. The first hearing is for him to plead either guilty or not guilty to their statements - obviously he will be pleading not guilty. My money says they won't take it any further. :?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

r1 said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Don't I Recognise You? said:
> ...


I'd agree they may drop it. But, if he does admit to doing 40mph, and questions the 60mph, he would still be admitting guilty to speeding per se. And that is the offence. Exceeding the speed limit would be the charge - the amount of excess mph is merely a guidline to sentencing. Technically admitting to 1mph over limit but denying 10mph over is still an admission of guilt. So if he pleads not guilty, aand then in court says that he was doing 40mph NOT 60mph claimed, he would have just admitted guilt to speeding.

If the bench reject the pigs' 60mph claim but still find reason to believe that the limit was exceeded, they could still find for the prosecution. Best tack must therefore be to admit to nothing, bring credibility of police 'expertise' into question, and hope burden of proof is on the law to fully vlaidate their claim.

It will be interesting. Magistrates may well blindly side with the police - or throw it out as unproven. Who will they side with? Biker or police?

Still time to join the Freemasons.

Keep us posted.


----------



## jonr (Sep 19, 2003)

i saw this on another website, looks like it can be proven in court, the precedence exists

"Just saw something on telly that reminded me of a conversation I had with a few forum members last year and it reminded me to look it up. Well, I did, and I can confirm that you can be convicted of speeding based solely on the opinion evidence of more than one person (no speed guns, speedometers or the like). The relevant case is Brighty v Pearson [1938]4 All ER, and the relevant section of the RTR Act 1984 says:

s.89 (2) ...shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness...

Obviously it's mainly applicable where you are driving 60 in a 30 zone (so it's fairly easy to tell), but it does exist."


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

jonr said:


> i saw this on another website, looks like it can be proven in court, the precedence exists
> 
> "Just saw something on telly that reminded me of a conversation I had with a few forum members last year and it reminded me to look it up. Well, I did, and I can confirm that you can be convicted of speeding based solely on the opinion evidence of more than one person (no speed guns, speedometers or the like). The relevant case is Brighty v Pearson [1938]4 All ER, and the relevant section of the RTR Act 1984 says:
> 
> ...


Yep I thought it must do otherwise the officers wouldn't have bothered going to court :?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

We're doomed. :wink:


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

> Posted: 18 Mar 2004 20:52 Post subject:
> The relevant case is Brighty v Pearson [1938]4 All ER, and the relevant section of the RTR Act 1984 says:
> 
> s.89 (2) ...shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness...


One Dibble can provide the evidence if his evidence is corroborated. This does not need to be another Dibble, it can be a radar gun, vascar etc. Indeed, when a person is convicted it is the opinion of the Dibble backed up by the device and not the other way round. New legislation had to be enacted to allow the use of unattended devices and cameras.

If someone threw a pen across a court and suggested that represents a car driving along a road, the result may be laughter combined with a serious loss of credibility. It may even be suggested the pen thrower gives his proven estimate before any other comparison was made.

Does this not go down to the basic honesty of the person involved? Is he strong enough to admit guilt (he admits to doing 40 in a 30 limit) or can't he face the consequence of his own action? We are not talking about 1 or 2 mph over the limit.

However, if I was in this situation there may well be various defence ploys put into play  and 3.2TTC has my serious sympathies over this.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

What I don't understand about all this is how the copper observes the speed of the motorcycle - must have been for a few seconds to get a good assessment of the speed - then manages to stand in the road a decent distance in front to flag the bike down.

If we allow three seconds continuous observation to 'judge' the speed correctly then the bike must have been at least 264 ft away (if, indeed it was travelling at 60mph). If we now allow only 2 seconds for the copper to make his mind up and get out into the road we must add another 176 ft to this. If we now make a reasonable allowance for the bike to stop - surely the copper did not jump out immediately in front of the bike - so say another 100 ft (even this assumes that the rider will have passed the copper before finally stopping). Therefore this gives a total distance of 540ft or 180yds. If you look 180yds down the road you need to be superman to judge the speed of a bike - especially if it coming towards you - parallax and all that!

Now, even if the copper's mate is stationed said 180 yds down the road, in order to get a good judgement of speed as the bike goes directly past him, and radios the other copper up to effect the 'flag down' - you'd need an extra few seconds and attendant distance to do that - then I would contend that the first copper may be able to judge the speed but the second hasn't got a hope in hell!

Challenge them in court ............... I damn well would ............. unless he was riding around a roundabout at the time .... continuously :wink:


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

garvin said:


> What I don't understand about all this is how the copper observes the speed of the motorcycle - must have been for a few seconds to get a good assessment of the speed - then manages to stand in the road a decent distance in front to flag the bike down.
> 
> If we allow three seconds continuous observation to 'judge' the speed correctly then the bike must have been at least 264 ft away (if, indeed it was travelling at 60mph). If we now allow only 2 seconds for the copper to make his mind up and get out into the road we must add another 176 ft to this. If we now make a reasonable allowance for the bike to stop - surely the copper did not jump out immediately in front of the bike - so say another 100 ft (even this assumes that the rider will have passed the copper before finally stopping). Therefore this gives a total distance of 540ft or 180yds. If you look 180yds down the road you need to be superman to judge the speed of a bike - especially if it coming towards you - parallax and all that!
> 
> ...


This was the first defence that I came up with - and by using Highway Code braking distances for motorbikes the case is pretty convincing. However after getting a friend to ask within a traffic dept of the plod the average time a officer gave as reasonable for an accurate estimate was between 05-1 sec which kind of negates that argument. However, it's still pretty 'decredibilitising' (  ) to the officer when using this figure so it'll certainly be a line used.

To Guy: I wonder how moral you'd be if your license (and your only method into the workplace) was at stake...


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

r1 said:


> ............ the average time a officer gave as reasonable for an accurate estimate was between 05-1 sec


Well, I could almost believe this of an experienced officer judging the speed of a bike going directly past him. But this is not the case is it - this officer just cannot credibly claim he can judge the speed of a motorbike coming towards him in this range of timing.

A good 'motoring' lawyer would absolutely tear the copper to shreds in court. BTW there are lawyers who specialise in motoring cases - they are employed by people seeking/refuting damages etc. in accidents and they are very skilled and knowledgeable about all the police 'techniques'.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

garvin said:


> r1 said:
> 
> 
> > ............ the average time a officer gave as reasonable for an accurate estimate was between 05-1 sec
> ...


Do you know / have experience of any I can pass on?


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

r1 said:


> Do you know / have experience of any I can pass on?


My cousin used to be married to one before she divorced him. I have not seen him for over ten years but his name is Bernie Rowe and he used to operate out of a partnership in Bristol - probably a partner in his own right by now. Sorry can't remember the precise name of the partnership.


----------



## stgeorgex997 (Feb 25, 2004)

R1 is spot on with his comments, normal Police would struggle to get this to court, but traffic officers are 'experts' in their field and are deemed to be able to correctly assess speed.

There are a few stated cases of this otherwise the Police wouldn't even attempt a prosecution


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

If anyones remotely interested, the plea (not guilty) was heard last month and the case is next Monday. The guys got a motoring solicitor on the case who's quietly confident.

I'll let you know what happens next week. :?


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

yes please


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

r1 said:


> To Guy: I wonder how moral you'd be if your license (and your only method into the workplace) was at stake...


R1
Sorry for not replying earlier, the thread had moved on and I missed your comment. 
You are quite right in raising the question - that's why I added the last line to my post:


Guy said:


> However, if I was in this situation there may well be various defence ploys put into play and 3.2TTC has my serious sympathies over this.


Best of luck for the hearing and it would be interesting to learn how the guy gets off - or if he doesn't, it would still be interesting to know what line the defence brief took. In todays world it does seen rather unfair to get done this way.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

***UPDATE***

Well, the case was heard this morning and, suprise suprise, the guy got off because the filth were too lazy to turn up. :lol: :lol:

As it happens they didn't stand a chance anyway as only one of them had submitted a report and it takes two to count as evidence. Silly plod.

What a waste of money though. The court are paying costs so all in all it's cost the taxpayer over a grand for it to be thrown out in about 60 seconds. :roll:


----------



## dimitt (Apr 21, 2004)

good to hear that it didnt end up in more waste of time court appearances... (thought they might have postponed it till the plods 'could make it')...

cheeky monkeys [smiley=policeman.gif]


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

dimitt said:


> good to hear that it didnt end up in more waste of time court appearances... (thought they might have postponed it till the plods 'could make it')...


Thats exactly what I thought but apparently the judge is a renowned arse and hater of incompetence (fair enough) and almost certainly wouldn't have allowed it anyway.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

good to hear the result 

not so chuffed with the waste of time, effort and public money tho :evil:


----------



## ttimp (Jul 9, 2003)

r1 said:


> ***UPDATE***
> 
> Well, the case was heard this morning and, suprise suprise, the guy got off because the filth were too lazy to turn up. :lol: :lol:
> 
> ...


Feckin' scandalous waste of public money, your money and my money - good news for the biker though, despite my feelings about speeding (even 40) in a 30 limit.


----------

