Speeding and Driving without due care

ontheroad1970

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's a stitch up. They know it's basically impossible to prove you weren't speeding (unless you have a dashcam with speed display) and their speed guns are janky nonsense. If you want you to be speeding they just point the gun in the wrong place until it reads over the limit.

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

GPS won't save you, as the speed on it isn't live.  So I'd check what you hear from down the pub, if I were you.  Try bringing the GPS enabled files, and you'll be laughed out of court and given an eye watering bill for their expert, on top of a fine and a £620 not guilty costs.

What do you mean "isn't live"? It records the speed every second, or every 10th of a second on some units, based on distance travelled. It's highly accurate too, a few orders of magnitude better than a speed gun and better than car speedometers.

People have used GPS evidence to overcome accusations of speeding before. At the very least, it creates significant doubt and means that the speed gun evidence alone is not enough to reach the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".

There is nearly always a lag.  Therefore they won't stand the forensic scrutiny that would be required.

Car_54

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's a stitch up. They know it's basically impossible to prove you weren't speeding (unless you have a dashcam with speed display) and their speed guns are janky nonsense. If you want you to be speeding they just point the gun in the wrong place until it reads over the limit.

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

GPS won't save you, as the speed on it isn't live.  So I'd check what you hear from down the pub, if I were you.  Try bringing the GPS enabled files, and you'll be laughed out of court and given an eye watering bill for their expert, on top of a fine and a £620 not guilty costs.

People have used GPS evidence to overcome accusations of speeding before. At the very least, it creates significant doubt and means that the speed gun evidence alone is not enough to reach the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Do you have a reputable source for that assertion?

ontheroad1970

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's a stitch up. They know it's basically impossible to prove you weren't speeding (unless you have a dashcam with speed display) and their speed guns are janky nonsense. If you want you to be speeding they just point the gun in the wrong place until it reads over the limit.

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

GPS won't save you, as the speed on it isn't live.  So I'd check what you hear from down the pub, if I were you.  Try bringing the GPS enabled files, and you'll be laughed out of court and given an eye watering bill for their expert, on top of a fine and a £620 not guilty costs.

What do you mean "isn't live"? It records the speed every second, or every 10th of a second on some units, based on distance travelled. It's highly accurate too, a few orders of magnitude better than a speed gun and better than car speedometers.

People have used GPS evidence to overcome accusations of speeding before. At the very least, it creates significant doubt and means that the speed gun evidence alone is not enough to reach the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Your advice is very poor, I'm afraid and risks costing people thousands.  Someone could stump up with their dash cam data, and then they are faced with an expert who will almost certainly smash apart any reasonable doubt attempt, and the offender would be responsible not just for the £620 + fine, but also  the expert's costs and fees also.  

Manxman_in_exile

[Deleted User] said:

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's a stitch up. They know it's basically impossible to prove you weren't speeding (unless you have a dashcam with speed display) and their speed guns are janky nonsense. If you want you to be speeding they just point the gun in the wrong place until it reads over the limit.

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

GPS won't save you, as the speed on it isn't live.  So I'd check what you hear from down the pub, if I were you.  Try bringing the GPS enabled files, and you'll be laughed out of court and given an eye watering bill for their expert, on top of a fine and a £620 not guilty costs.

People have used GPS evidence to overcome accusations of speeding before. At the very least, it creates significant doubt and means that the speed gun evidence alone is not enough to reach the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Do you have a reputable source for that assertion?

There's somebody down the pub who knows somebody that knows somebody else who... 

Manxman_in_exile

shrimptiger said:

So for the DWDCA, i seriously don't think i am at fault...

How do you come to that conclusion?

As I recall you were stopped by the police who told you that they had observed you weaving in and out of traffic and changing lanes (which you don't deny but you say you always indicated correctly!) and you even admit in your first post that you undertook two vehicles in order to make progress when the opportunity arose.  (And didn't the police think you'd been racing another driver because somebody undertook both you and a vehicle ahead of you on the first undertake, and you - very unwisely - chose to follow them?)

Unless I've missed something in the intervening pages (which I could well have done) I'd have thought a DWDCA conviction was pretty much a dead cert and you are deluding yourself to imagine otherwise.

ontheroad1970

The only problem with DWDCA it is fairly easy to enforce and fairly difficult to disprove because it is to an extent subjective.  All they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt is that your driving fell below the standard of a reasonable and careful driver.  

Car_54

ontheroad1970 said:

The only problem with DWDCA it is fairly easy to enforce and fairly difficult to disprove because it is to an extent subjective.  All they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt is that your driving fell below the standard of a reasonable and careful driver.  

Which shouldn't be difficult in the OP's case. The HC says you should not overtake on the left. A careful and competent (NB not "reasonable") driver obeys the HC.

TooManyPoints

People have used GPS evidence to overcome accusations of speeding before. At the very least, it creates significant doubt and means that the speed gun evidence alone is not enough to reach the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Your advice is very poor,

Indeed it is, but not quite for the reasons stated.

There is widespread misunderstanding regarding the burden of proof in speeding matters. An approved device operated in the correct manner is presumed to be reliable unless the contrary can be proved. The only thing (at the close of the prosecution’s case) that the court must be sure of beyond reasonable doubt is that the device was an approved one and that it had been operated correctly. The defendant can try to cast doubt on that, but producing evidence from another unapproved device (such as a Satnav) will not do that. The court has no reason to accept that a reading from an unapproved device is correct whilst one from an approved device is not.

Moving on, if the prosecution provides evidence (which the court accepts) that the device was an approved one and it was operated correctly, the burden of proving the contrary shifts to the defendant. He is no longer in “reasonable doubt” territory. He must prove (on “the balance of probabilities”) that the device cannot be relied upon. He must prove that it cannot be held reliable on the particular occasion concerned, not that “there is a possibility that this/that/the other might have happened”. It is a tough task and needs expert assistance. Simply pitching up saying “my Satnav says otherwise” (and even providing evidence of that) will end in failure accompanied by a large bill.

Ergates

[Deleted User] said:

What do you mean "isn't live"? It records the speed every second, or every 10th of a second on some units, based on distance travelled. It's highly accurate too, a few orders of magnitude better than a speed gun and better than car speedometers.

GPS devices can measure speed accurately *over distance* they cannot be considered accurate for a single point in time.  Civilian GPS devices, especially ones working an a noisy environment (like a road, surrounded by lots of bits of metal that reflect GPS signals all over the place) are only accurate to within a few metres.  This is fine for navigation, but can make a significant difference when determining how far you've travelled in the last 0.5 seconds to calculate speed.  This is especially true if/when the speed of the vehicle is changing rapidly.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] said:

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's a stitch up. They know it's basically impossible to prove you weren't speeding (unless you have a dashcam with speed display) and their speed guns are janky nonsense. If you want you to be speeding they just point the gun in the wrong place until it reads over the limit.

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

GPS won't save you, as the speed on it isn't live.  So I'd check what you hear from down the pub, if I were you.  Try bringing the GPS enabled files, and you'll be laughed out of court and given an eye watering bill for their expert, on top of a fine and a £620 not guilty costs.

People have used GPS evidence to overcome accusations of speeding before. At the very least, it creates significant doubt and means that the speed gun evidence alone is not enough to reach the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Do you have a reputable source for that assertion?

Cracknell v Willis established that machines cannot be considered infallible. Defendants must be allowed to challenge them on the basis of other evidence, not merely defects in the machine itself.

There was a story on the BBC about someone using GPS evidence from his own DIY logger to beat a speeding accusation, but I can't find it now. In any case, it has been established at the High Court that the defendant is able to introduce their own evidence to demonstrate that they were not speeding, and that the speed gun cannot be considered infallible even if evidence is presented to show that it was calibrated and working on the day (and such evidence is almost never produced anyway).