Speeding and Driving without due care

caprikid1

So just read the thread and try and get the right facts.
1. You were undertaking
2. You were effectively weaving through traffic 
3. Overtaking above the speed limit.

Does not create a great picture when repeated in court.

Given the above just plead guilty. The best way to stick it to the police is get a dashcam and don't break the law / drive like a twonk.

[Deleted User]

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

We were talking about hand held speed cameras. The fixed ones are more reliable but not infallible.

Still an approved device in the hands of an experienced operator, and a real challenge to oppose with evidence based on a consumer device with a real risk of expensive failure.  Pub lawyers are as effective as pub scientists - not effective at all.

Multiple people have used GPS evidence to prevail in court, often representing themselves.

Speaking of pub lawyers, what are your qualifications?

ontheroad1970

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

We were talking about hand held speed cameras. The fixed ones are more reliable but not infallible.

Still an approved device in the hands of an experienced operator, and a real challenge to oppose with evidence based on a consumer device with a real risk of expensive failure.  Pub lawyers are as effective as pub scientists - not effective at all.

Multiple people have used GPS evidence to prevail in court, often representing themselves.

Speaking of pub lawyers, what are your qualifications?

I'm not the one opposing established law - you are and you haven't answered the question of your qualifications so obviously you are no lawyer.  So more than one have convinced a possibly lay bench that their data creates reasonable doubt.  How many have failed?  Many more I'd wager.  I'm not the one giving advice that risks them being out of pocket by thousands.  Are you prepared to reimburse those that follow your advice? Thought not.

Your advice is irresponsible as you are not guarding against the risk of it going against those you are advising.  They could be tens of thousands out of pocket - but that doesn't matter, does it?  Going into court saying that the GPS data is enough is certainly no slam dunk - quite the opposite.  

Go to pepipoo and go to the fire pit section and put your position there.  There they have actual lawyers - one of them is here by the name of Antony.  I would doubt that they would advise as a sensible method turning down 3 points or a course to take it into court in the way you have on another thread.  

There is no such thing as certainty in a court.  It can leave you seriously out of pocket, so you speaking in absolutes adds no authority to your position - quite the opposite.

Car_54

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

We were talking about hand held speed cameras. The fixed ones are more reliable but not infallible.

Still an approved device in the hands of an experienced operator, and a real challenge to oppose with evidence based on a consumer device with a real risk of expensive failure.  Pub lawyers are as effective as pub scientists - not effective at all.

Multiple people have used GPS evidence to prevail in court, often representing themselves.

Can you please point us to reports of some of those "multiple" cases?

ontheroad1970

[Deleted User] said:

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

We were talking about hand held speed cameras. The fixed ones are more reliable but not infallible.

Still an approved device in the hands of an experienced operator, and a real challenge to oppose with evidence based on a consumer device with a real risk of expensive failure.  Pub lawyers are as effective as pub scientists - not effective at all.

Multiple people have used GPS evidence to prevail in court, often representing themselves.

Can you please point us to reports of some of those "multiple" cases?

There were two cases linked on the previous page.  No precedents set, though and I suspect there would be many many more failures.  

Manxman_in_exile

[Deleted User] said:

[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.
...

Your second sentence might be correct, but the first isn't, is it?

Surely all that Cracknell v Willis decided is that a defendant has an inalienable right to put forward evidence that tends to show that he is innocent - it doesn't say anything about the fallibility or otherwise of machines (specifically the Lion Intoxyliser).

In Cracknell the magistrates court simply refused to hear evidence on behalf of the defendant that he had not drunk sufficient alcohol for the Intoxyliser reading to be correct, and that therefore the machine must be faulty.  Rarher surprisingly* the High Court agreed with the magistrates.

All the House of Lords decided was the perhaps uncontroversial finding that the magistrates were wrong not to allow the defendant to adduce evidence as to how much he had had to drink.  The decision says nothing at all about the probative value of that indirect evidence - not even that it has to be credible or to be believed.  Just that a court can't refuse to admit it.

Although the case centres on a breathalyser m/c it's not about the reliability or fallibility of the m/c, it's just a case saying that a court can't refuse to listen to evidence that indirectly questions that reliability.  It doesn't say that a court has to believe that evidence or that it can necessarily overturn the presumption that an approved device is working correctly.   


*What amazes and worries me is that it needed a House of Lords decision to find that that was the law.

Manxman_in_exile

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

We were talking about hand held speed cameras. The fixed ones are more reliable but not infallible.

Still an approved device in the hands of an experienced operator, and a real challenge to oppose with evidence based on a consumer device with a real risk of expensive failure.  Pub lawyers are as effective as pub scientists - not effective at all.

Multiple people have used GPS evidence to prevail in court, often representing themselves.

Can you please point us to reports of some of those "multiple" cases?

There were two cases linked on the previous page.  No precedents set, though and I suspect there would be many many more failures.  

The House of Lords' decision in Cracknell sets a precedent - but I don't think it's what rigolith thinks it is.

Manxman_in_exile

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

We were talking about hand held speed cameras. The fixed ones are more reliable but not infallible.

Still an approved device in the hands of an experienced operator, and a real challenge to oppose with evidence based on a consumer device with a real risk of expensive failure.  Pub lawyers are as effective as pub scientists - not effective at all.

Multiple people have used GPS evidence to prevail in court, often representing themselves.

Speaking of pub lawyers, what are your qualifications?

All that Marrable shows is that a District Judge decided that a bench of magistrates had not reached a perverse or irrational decision in deciding that evidence from a GPS tracker cast sufficient reasonable doubt on a speeding charge for the defendant to be acquitted.  It doesn't set a precedent and is probably a one-off.  I suspect that if the defendant had been convicted in the magistrates and he had appealed, the very same District Judge would have upheld that conviction.

I think it's a leap too far (and potentially a very expensive one) to suggest to drivers that a dashcam/GPS will give them a get out of jail free card in respect of speeding charges.  I suspect it might work in between 1% and 5% max of prosecutions.

It also puts defendants at risk of losing a lot more financially than they need to.

As others have said, if your idea really worked everybody would know about it by now - or is there some huge conspiracy in the judicial system to make sure the sheeple don't find out about it?

ontheroad1970

Manxman_in_exile said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

We were talking about hand held speed cameras. The fixed ones are more reliable but not infallible.

Still an approved device in the hands of an experienced operator, and a real challenge to oppose with evidence based on a consumer device with a real risk of expensive failure.  Pub lawyers are as effective as pub scientists - not effective at all.

Multiple people have used GPS evidence to prevail in court, often representing themselves.

Can you please point us to reports of some of those "multiple" cases?

There were two cases linked on the previous page.  No precedents set, though and I suspect there would be many many more failures.  

The House of Lords' decision in Cracknell sets a precedent - but I don't think it's what rigolith thinks it is.

Fair enough - I hadn't read the links and assumed magistrate courts.  Like you say, that one wasn't about a consumer device.

born_again

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

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. 

DPP vs Marrable?

It wasn't that one, this was over a decade ago... But that case is interesting, thanks for mentioning it. The final judgement was:

"The magistrates dismissed the case against the defendant on the basis that the GPS tracker device cast a reasonable doubt as the speed of the vehicle."

and

"It was clearly established in Cracknell v Willis [1988] RTR 1 that evidence from an approved device was not conclusive evidence."

And just how much did they spend on a good defence barrister? No doubt far more then the fine would have been, and out of the range of Joe Average.