Speeding ticket for doing 34 in a 30 zone despite being in a 40

Johno100

CHR15 wrote: »

I'm sure I saw on one of those "Police Stop!" type progs the Police asked when the last drink was consumed, if it was within 15 minutes, they don't breathalyze. In that scene they just kept them talking/checking until 15 minutes had passed.

I believe that is more down to the fact someone might still have traces of alcohol in their mouth and that would give a misleading reading, rather than waiting 15 just to get a higher reading.

TBagpuss

CHR15 wrote: »

I'm sure I saw on one of those "Police Stop!" type progs the Police asked when the last drink was consumed, if it was within 15 minutes, they don't breathalyze. In that scene they just kept them talking/checking until 15 minutes had passed.

I think this may also be because immediately after drinking you breath will have more alcohol in, so you could give a 'false positive' - if they wait until 20 minutes after the last (reported) drink then the test is less likely to be vulnerable to a challenge that it was not accurate. - e.g is you took a mouthful of brandy and then did a breth test you would probably test positive even though you would not be anywhere near the legal limit (assuming you hadn't drunk any other alcohol)

i suspect that the 15-20 minutes is longer than is needed but designed to ensure that that kind of challenge can't be made.

Retrogamer

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

I do wish you would all stop encouraging the OP to "fight this injustice". It will cost him more in the long run particularly as there is discrepancy in the events as told...

If what the OP has told us is correct i'd be interested to hear how it will cost him in the long run.
Bearing in mind on the facts presented the OP appears to be in trouble for doing 34mph in a 40mph zone.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It wouldn't even need to be 4 mph.
As I mentioned in a different thread a couple of days ago, the ACPO state that the equipment used by the police has an accuracy of +/- 2 mph at speeds below 66 mph and that this should be accepted as the threshold for prosecution.
Taking that into account, the OP would only needed to have slowed by 2 mph, something that wouldn't have taken much if they were already slowing down.

I think that figure regarding the accuracy of the equipment is a bit out dated. I read that more modern equipment is a lot more accurate and that's why Scottish police are looking to pull over anyone speeding even if it's just 1mph over the limit.

shaun_from_Africa

Retrogamer wrote: »

I think that figure regarding the accuracy of the equipment is a bit out dated. I read that more modern equipment is a lot more accurate and that's why Scottish police are looking to pull over anyone speeding even if it's just 1mph over the limit.

The figure of 2% is in the current ACPO document:
http://www.cambs-police.co.uk/roadsafety/docs/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

9.7
Police speed equipment are tested and approved to work with a maximum tolerance of +/-2mph up to 66mph and 3% for all speeds higher than 66mph, so it is possible to use those tolerances as a prosecution threshold.

Car_54

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

The figure of 2% is in the current ACPO document:
http://www.cambs-police.co.uk/roadsafety/docs/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

The ACPO document is not current: ACPO is defunct.

In any event, the guidelines went on to say:

"These guidelines are intended to assist officers in the exercise of their individual discretion ... They do not restrict and are not intended to restrict or fetter that discretion so as to form the basis for any complaint ...

This guidance ... has no bearing on whether the law has been broken ..."

Lord_Baltimore

agrinnall wrote: »

Minority Report

"In a future where a special police unit is able to arrest murderers before they commit their crimes..."

Thanks. I suspected it was a film or TV Drama which is why I didn't bother searching for it. To some people films are real life .

maninthestreet wrote: »

Incorrect - the blood alcohol level can continue to rise for some time after drinking alcohol has ceased.

Everybody knows that. The specific amount of alcohol cited was 'half a pint of shandy'. If you stop drinking after that amount you will be, and continue to be, within legal tolerances.

Just how long do you think it takes to reduce speed by just 4mph???

More time than it takes for a camera to record the event, evidently. Do you have 'facts' about the OP's reaction times? I didn't think so.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And I wish that you would stop trying to get the OP to accept a penalty for an offence that may well not have even happened.

Or that may well have happened. The OP can take his chances with your advice or mine.

George_Michael wrote: »

http://www.forcon.ca/learning/alcohol.html
What's the saying?
When in a hole, stop digging.

See above. Try to think it through .

Retrogamer wrote: »

If what the OP has told us is correct i'd be interested to hear how it will cost him in the long run.
Bearing in mind on the facts presented the OP appears to be in trouble for doing 34mph in a 40mph zone.

The camera evidence is also fact. There's no 'if' aspect either.

shaun_from_Africa

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

The camera evidence is also fact. There's no 'if' aspect either.

Correct, and the OP is adamant that the camera evidence (the photograph) clearly shows their car still in a 40 mph limit.

Car_54 wrote: »

The ACPO document is not current: ACPO is defunct.
In any event, the guidelines went on to say:

"These guidelines are intended to assist officers in the exercise of their individual discretion ... They do not restrict and are not intended to restrict or fetter that discretion so as to form the basis for any complaint ...

This guidance ... has no bearing on whether the law has been broken ..."

The ACPO may well be defunct but does this mean that the figures they supplied stating the accuracy of speed measuring equipment are no longer valid?
After all, it's highly unlikely that they would simply have plucked a random figure out of the air.
The same 2mph/3% tolerance figures can be found on many different websites such as this one:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_cameras
which gives a police reply to a FOI request.

The speedmeter shall be assessed by comparing its readings with a vehicle fitted with a speed measuring system having an accuracy of at least ±1 mph. Measurements at different speeds up to the maximum stated by the manufacturer shall be made.
Simulated speeds may be used for speeds above 120 mph. The speedmeter shall give a positive error no larger than 2 mph (or 3% above 66 mph) and a negative error of no greater than 5 mph or 10% above 50 mph (see 8.2)

So if the police know that the equipment used can over read by 2mph at 30mph, would they be wise to risk a prosecution for someone charged with doing 32mph in a 30 limit?

I'm not saying or implying that speed measuring devices in use now are not more accurate, but if they are, surely there must be something available to discount the figures that I've quoted.

Lord_Baltimore

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Correct, and the OP is adamant that the camera evidence (the photograph) clearly shows their car still in a 40 mph limit.

I suppose it's a reasonable assumption that the OP has all the camera evidence? I suppose the OP can evidence that he adequately slowed down at the dissected zones monitored by the camera? He can find out in Court.

I wish him well.

Ectophile

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

I suppose it's a reasonable assumption that the OP has all the camera evidence? I suppose the OP can evidence that he adequately slowed down at the dissected zones monitored by the camera? He can find out in Court.

I wish him well.

Are you suggesting that the prosecution might be deliberately withholding evidence from the defence?

[Deleted User]

More than 2 now

still no response from the OP

Interested to see the photos though.