Speed awareness course

Stubod

chrisw said:

Stubod said:

Ifing it fairly easy on motorways as I tend to stick in the LH lane at around 60, likewise on roads where the national speed limit of 60mph applies as I tend to drive these at around 50.

Why do people do this? What's wrong with doing an indicated 70 or 60? There's sufficient error in the speedo and limit allowance to stay within the limits.

This is what causes drivers following to become frustrated and impatient and results in unnecessary accidents.

...when was the last time you were able to do more than 60 in the LH lane??  and if  you get "frustrated and impatient" by this then you should not really be driving

....as for "uneccessary" accidents...you mean as as opposed to necessary ones??

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints said:

Get a dash cam with GPS to protect yourself.

I wonder how much protection it will afford, though. To prosecute a speeding offence, the police will produce evidence that the speed was measured by an approved device, operated in the correct manner. Unless any doubt is cast on that evidence, the prosecution will succeed. Attempting to cast doubt by producing evidence from an unapproved device, which are not themselves particularly accurate anyway, is no guarantee of success.

Far more likely to succeed is the introduction of evidence that shows that either the device was faulty or was not operated correctly. That will take expert assistance and the cost of that help is not likely to be reimbursed even if the defence is successful. 

Yes, the key is to cast doubt. You need to make a good argument in court that the GPS speedometer is accurate. Ideally test it and provide evidence that it is similar to the car's speedo (it will read slightly higher), and your MOT to show that the speedo has been tested.

Modern GPS devices actually track multiple satellite constellations, including the EU's Galileo, the Russian GLONASS, and the Chinese Compass systems. One very useful property of such receivers is that they do not require calibration. The only calibration necessary is done to the satellites. Therefore, as long as you can cite some good sources explaining that (technical descriptions of each system will make it clear) you can defend against claims your equipment is not calibrated or not "approved" by some arbitrary body.

As for accuracy, they are extremely accurate and will list the maximum error in their datasheets. Typically it is better than 0.1m/s.

Another option is to have two, because the chance of both being faulty is extremely low, and they will agree with each other precisely. You can also get devices that connect to the OBD-II port in the car and record the speedometer reading. That is backed up by your MOT, and will be a consistent % under the GPS reading by design. It is important to explain that the discrepancy is because the law allows the speedo to read a little under, but never over, the actual speed. You can cite the regulation.

It depends somewhat on the judge because some of them aren't interested, but others are aware of relevant case law. I don't have the cases to hand right now, but one in particular resulting in a ruling that stated that for the trial to be fair there must at least exist the possibility of challenging the evidence from the speed trap. It cannot be considered infallible and beyond question.

It's a very unsatisfactory situation where innocent people can be convicted based on a court's tendency to accept police evidence without question, but there are also many instances of people being found innocent due to their GPS, or these days more accurately GNSS, evidence.

According to the RAC, 1 in 6 speeding accusations is eventually dropped, so while the police aren't going to give us any data I think it's likely that a fair number get discontinued when the victim responds with GPS data.

[Deleted User]

Stubod said:

Pennylane said:

I am using the speed limiter all the time now but I feel I am on edge remembering to use it, looking at lamposts etc. I used to be a very relaxed driver but I don’t feel I am any more.  Been driving 50 years and never caught speeding before, never been in an accident and only ever got one parking ticket.  My family think it’s hilarious as they tease me  for driving too slowly.  

I got "caught" about 20 years ago, but was let off with a "chat" as they did not have the "gun" on me at the time. Ever since then I have done my best to adhere to all speed limits.

Ifing it fairly easy on motorways as I tend to stick in the LH lane at around 60, likewise on roads where the national speed limit of 60mph applies as I tend to drive these at around 50.

The problem is the 30, and (now 20mph) limits as they feel really slow, and I usually find a lot of the motoring public don't think these limits apply to them so there is always somebody either tailgating or overtaking...but I do find adaptive cruise control to be a real help...

20 can be a bit awkward depending on how your car's gears are set up, assuming it even has a gearbox. Cars tend to be tuned for efficiency around 30, and smooth acceleration around 20. EVs are better for 20 zones.

I always slow down to well under the limit when I see a camera. About 10 MPH for a van one, maybe 15 MPH for a hand-held one because those are particularly dodgy. It can be a bit low in a 30 zone, but if they ask I'll say I saw someone who look like the police gesturing at me so slowed down. They aren't police in most cases, by the way, they are civilians pretending to be police.

If you are accused and intend to challenge it, always call them as witnesses and question their ability to operate the device correctly. The manuals for them are all available online so it's easy to go through the operating procedure looking for deviations from the manual. Often they haven't checked the calibration of the device themselves either, so any claim they make that it was tested on the day is hearsay.

As for the LH lane on the motorway, it's difficult now we have Smart Motorways. The left hand lane is the most dangerous, as that's where broken down vehicles will be stopped. You have to be constantly alert to that, and crashes involving stationary vehicles are a common occurrence. Worse still, not using that lane can itself be an offense. Best thing to do is drive a bit faster than the trucks in that lane, so you have an excuse (you are overtaking them).

Car_54

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

Get a dash cam with GPS to protect yourself.

I wonder how much protection it will afford, though. To prosecute a speeding offence, the police will produce evidence that the speed was measured by an approved device, operated in the correct manner. Unless any doubt is cast on that evidence, the prosecution will succeed. Attempting to cast doubt by producing evidence from an unapproved device, which are not themselves particularly accurate anyway, is no guarantee of success.

Far more likely to succeed is the introduction of evidence that shows that either the device was faulty or was not operated correctly. That will take expert assistance and the cost of that help is not likely to be reimbursed even if the defence is successful. 

Yes, the key is to cast doubt. You need to make a good argument in court that the GPS speedometer is accurate. Ideally test it and provide evidence that it is similar to the car's speedo (it will read slightly higher), and your MOT to show that the speedo has been tested.

It depends somewhat on the judge because some of them aren't interested, but others are aware of relevant case law. I don't have the cases to hand right now, but one in particular resulting in a ruling that stated that for the trial to be fair there must at least exist the possibility of challenging the evidence from the speed trap. It cannot be considered infallible and beyond question.

Two small(ish) points: (1) The MOT is irrelevant - speedometers' accuracy is not tested. (2) Most likely there will be no judge, but a bench of three magistrates.

Much more importantly, if the accuracy of the speedmeter is challenged, the prosecution will bring in expert witness(es). In the event of a guilty verdict the defendant will have to meet their four-figure costs, in addition to the normal costs, fine and victim surcharge.

[Deleted User]

Car_54 said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

Get a dash cam with GPS to protect yourself.

I wonder how much protection it will afford, though. To prosecute a speeding offence, the police will produce evidence that the speed was measured by an approved device, operated in the correct manner. Unless any doubt is cast on that evidence, the prosecution will succeed. Attempting to cast doubt by producing evidence from an unapproved device, which are not themselves particularly accurate anyway, is no guarantee of success.

Far more likely to succeed is the introduction of evidence that shows that either the device was faulty or was not operated correctly. That will take expert assistance and the cost of that help is not likely to be reimbursed even if the defence is successful. 

Yes, the key is to cast doubt. You need to make a good argument in court that the GPS speedometer is accurate. Ideally test it and provide evidence that it is similar to the car's speedo (it will read slightly higher), and your MOT to show that the speedo has been tested.

It depends somewhat on the judge because some of them aren't interested, but others are aware of relevant case law. I don't have the cases to hand right now, but one in particular resulting in a ruling that stated that for the trial to be fair there must at least exist the possibility of challenging the evidence from the speed trap. It cannot be considered infallible and beyond question.

Two small(ish) points: (1) The MOT is irrelevant - speedometers' accuracy is not tested. (2) Most likely there will be no judge, but a bench of three magistrates.

Much more importantly, if the accuracy of the speedmeter is challenged, the prosecution will bring in expert witness(es). In the event of a guilty verdict the defendant will have to meet their four-figure costs, in addition to the normal costs, fine and victim surcharge.

Indeed, the system is basically designed to ensure innocent people can't defend themselves. Even if they win they often lose out financially. Recovering costs from the police is difficult.

Your best bet really is to have GPS evidence and hope they drop it before proceeding to court.

It's also advisable to submit your defence at the last moment so they don't have time to organise all these expert witnesses.

Car_54

[Deleted User] said:

Car_54 said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

Get a dash cam with GPS to protect yourself.

I wonder how much protection it will afford, though. To prosecute a speeding offence, the police will produce evidence that the speed was measured by an approved device, operated in the correct manner. Unless any doubt is cast on that evidence, the prosecution will succeed. Attempting to cast doubt by producing evidence from an unapproved device, which are not themselves particularly accurate anyway, is no guarantee of success.

Far more likely to succeed is the introduction of evidence that shows that either the device was faulty or was not operated correctly. That will take expert assistance and the cost of that help is not likely to be reimbursed even if the defence is successful. 

Yes, the key is to cast doubt. You need to make a good argument in court that the GPS speedometer is accurate. Ideally test it and provide evidence that it is similar to the car's speedo (it will read slightly higher), and your MOT to show that the speedo has been tested.

It depends somewhat on the judge because some of them aren't interested, but others are aware of relevant case law. I don't have the cases to hand right now, but one in particular resulting in a ruling that stated that for the trial to be fair there must at least exist the possibility of challenging the evidence from the speed trap. It cannot be considered infallible and beyond question.

Two small(ish) points: (1) The MOT is irrelevant - speedometers' accuracy is not tested. (2) Most likely there will be no judge, but a bench of three magistrates.

Much more importantly, if the accuracy of the speedmeter is challenged, the prosecution will bring in expert witness(es). In the event of a guilty verdict the defendant will have to meet their four-figure costs, in addition to the normal costs, fine and victim surcharge.

It's also advisable to submit your defence at the last moment so they don't have time to organise all these expert witnesses.

AIUI you have to disclose the basis of your defence before the trial can be scheduled. Ambushing the prosecution is the preserve of Perry Mason.

TooManyPoints

AIUI you have to disclose the basis of your defence before the trial can be scheduled. Ambushing the prosecution is the preserve of Perry Mason.

Indeed you do. Before your trial there will be a "Case Management" hearing. At this, the issues in dispute will be identified and the evidence both sides intend to bring to address it noted. As the defendant you cannot be compelled to do this but you would be very unwise not to do so. If you do ambush the prosecution they will ask for and almost certainly be granted an adjournment so that they can prepare a counter argument. In the event you are convicted the prosecution will, in all probability, ask for the extra costs they have incurred to be paid.

A criminal trial should not be approached as some sort of game. Here's confirmation of that in a passage from "The objectives and content of the first Criminal Procedure Rules". It was penned by Lord Justice Auld following his Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales:

I can understand why, as a matter of tactics, a defendant might prefer to keep his case close to his chest. But that is not a valid reason for preventing a full and fair hearing on the issues canvassed at the trial. A criminal trial is not a game under which a guilty defendant should be provided with a sporting chance. It is a search for truth in accordance with the twin principles that the prosecution must prove its case and that a defendant is not obliged to inculpate himself, the object being to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. Requiring a defendant to indicate in advance what he disputes about the prosecution case offends neither of those principles." 
  

Manxman_in_exile

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

SpudGunPaul said:

grandadgolfer said:

rollingmoon said:

Pennylane said:

I would still have preferred a classroom based course.

Been there and, believe me, you've missed nothing. Well done for not getting three points.

When you do a classroom you realise what a racket it is......20 odd people paying £100 and they do 2 sittings a day 5 days a week.
Its like being back at school when you go in everyone heads for the tables at the back and always somebody asking to many questions and trying to be a smart  alec

Best way to beat their racket is by not committing criminal offences. 

Sadly no guarantee, those mobile speed traps are pretty unreliable. It's usually easier to just take the course than proving that in court.

You've made this allegation before.  Do you perchance have any evidence of this, because if people use your 'advice' some may challenge the offence in court to their great expense.  

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/23452613.speeding-ticket-error-said-driver-going-57mph-tybridge-street/

Fortunately the victim had proof they were not speeding, probably a dash cam with GPS speedometer.

The mobile ones don't have the secondary measurement, the two photos with white lines on the road. They also aren't fixed and the van moves when other vehicles go past it, gusts of wind hit it etc.

As the article notes, the police are well aware that radar based speed cameras are unreliable.

But that article is irrelevant regarding the point that was being put to you, isn't it?

You'd said that "those mobile speed traps are pretty unrelible" and ontheroad1970 challenged you if you had any evidence of that.

The article you link to is about a fixed radar speedtrap that (because of the nature of the radar measurement) requires a secondary speed check to confirm the indicated speed.  In the newspaper case that secondary check wasn't carried out because of human error.

In the case of mobile speed traps (which is what you were being challenged about) the measurement is, I understand, by laser, so the problems experienced in radar measurement are irrelevant - aren't they?  (And don't require a secondary check).

TooManyPoints

In fact, the measuring equipment (whatever it is) is the secondary check. The primary check is the officer's opinion. But on a road other than a motorway, that is insufficient. It must be corroborated either by a second officer of by a system of measurement. This is covered in the Road Traffic Regulations Act s89(2):

(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.

This does not apply on motorways where a driver can be convicted on the evidence of the opinion of one police officer.

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints said:

AIUI you have to disclose the basis of your defence before the trial can be scheduled. Ambushing the prosecution is the preserve of Perry Mason.

Indeed you do. Before your trial there will be a "Case Management" hearing. At this, the issues in dispute will be identified and the evidence both sides intend to bring to address it noted. As the defendant you cannot be compelled to do this but you would be very unwise not to do so. If you do ambush the prosecution they will ask for and almost certainly be granted an adjournment so that they can prepare a counter argument. In the event you are convicted the prosecution will, in all probability, ask for the extra costs they have incurred to be paid.

A criminal trial should not be approached as some sort of game. Here's confirmation of that in a passage from "The objectives and content of the first Criminal Procedure Rules". It was penned by Lord Justice Auld following his Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales:

I can understand why, as a matter of tactics, a defendant might prefer to keep his case close to his chest. But that is not a valid reason for preventing a full and fair hearing on the issues canvassed at the trial. A criminal trial is not a game under which a guilty defendant should be provided with a sporting chance. It is a search for truth in accordance with the twin principles that the prosecution must prove its case and that a defendant is not obliged to inculpate himself, the object being to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. Requiring a defendant to indicate in advance what he disputes about the prosecution case offends neither of those principles." 
  

You misunderstand. It's not a game, it's just that there is zero benefit to you to giving them additional time to work on it. The court will arrange dates giving them reasonable time to prepare.

As I said, the best thing is to have your own evidence that casts doubt on the prosecution's. Ideally two separate instruments measuring your speed. If you don't have that, then you look at other options.

Unfortunately these trials are not a search for truth in many cases.