Speed awareness course

[Deleted User]

Manxman_in_exile said:

[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).

As I said, I don't have all the links to hand at the moment. There has been extensive testing of the laser ones to show that they are dodgy though. There was a great video demonstrating how they could fail, but I can't find it now.

The point I'm making is that you need to have your own evidence to demonstrate that theirs is at least questionable. Ideally two different instruments measuring your speed. GPS and OBD-II, or GPS and camera that can see your speedo. At a pinch you could also use dashcam footage, measuring time between two points, but it's more work because you have to show accurate measurements for those two points. The police are rarely held to such a high standard.

TooManyPoints

You misunderstand.

I understand the Criminal Procedure Rules perfectly well. I was addressing this: 

It's also advisable to submit your defence at the last moment

There is no “last moment” as far as the CPRs are concerned. Both sides should be prepared to submit the bases of their cases when required by the court (and at the Magistrates’ Court that will usually be at the Case Management Hearing). Since there is invariably a decent interval between then and the trial date, both sides should have adequate time to prepare.

ontheroad1970

All I am going to say is that it's easy to risk other people's money based on poor defences.  Media reports are and have never been reliable evidence.

TooManyPoints

All I am going to say is that it's easy to risk other people's money based on poor defences.

Or even your own. Here’s one (£11,000)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32733002

and another (a cool £30,000):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints said:

All I am going to say is that it's easy to risk other people's money based on poor defences.

Or even your own. Here’s one (£11,000)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32733002

and another (a cool £30,000):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

That guy was an idiot. Clearly didn't take legal advice, or ignored it.

TooManyPoints

That guy was an idiot. Clearly didn't take legal advice, or ignored it.

Which one? 

Mr Pickup (the £11,000 man): 

He denied breaking the 70mph speed limit and questioned whether it was his car that had been clocked. 

His defence counsel questioned the accuracy of the in-car police speed camera so the prosecution hired an expert who rented an airfield and an Audi R8 to carry out tests, the results of which were presented to the court. 

Pickup was fined £675, given six points on his licence and ordered to pay the full prosecution costs - which included the testing - of £10,384.

 Mr Keedwell (the £30,000 man): 

… said he has spent £30,000 fighting the fine, including about £21,000 on barristers' fees and £7,000 in court costs, plus travel expenses to and from court.

Of course, a lawyer has a duty to give his client the best advice, so you may be right - they ignored it. Actually I can believe that in Mr Keedwell's case. But in Mr Pickups? Nah.

mark1959

A speed awareness course is much cheaper. Unless of course they were well above the speed limit, so why bother contesting?

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints said:

That guy was an idiot. Clearly didn't take legal advice, or ignored it.

Which one? 

Mr Pickup (the £11,000 man): 

He denied breaking the 70mph speed limit and questioned whether it was his car that had been clocked. 

His defence counsel questioned the accuracy of the in-car police speed camera so the prosecution hired an expert who rented an airfield and an Audi R8 to carry out tests, the results of which were presented to the court. 

Pickup was fined £675, given six points on his licence and ordered to pay the full prosecution costs - which included the testing - of £10,384.

 Mr Keedwell (the £30,000 man): 

… said he has spent £30,000 fighting the fine, including about £21,000 on barristers' fees and £7,000 in court costs, plus travel expenses to and from court.

Of course, a lawyer has a duty to give his client the best advice, so you may be right - they ignored it. Actually I can believe that in Mr Keedwell's case. But in Mr Pickups? Nah.

Both of them. The guys counsel too, you don't go in with no evidence of your own on just the hope that you can find fault in the prosecutions evidence or get something from the witnesses.

You also have to wonder why if they knew the police were getting that test done they didn't get their own test done to refute it. It's not difficult, a trivial misconfiguration of the device can produce incorrect results and they have demonstrated that easily.

Sadly this has little to do with justice. Consider that the prosecution won without actually demonstrating that the measurement made on the day was accurate beyond a reasonable doubt, just that the device can work under some circumstances.

TooManyPoints

I must disagree. 

There is a general principle, supported by case law, that an approved device operated in the correct manner can be relied upon to be accurate. If the prosecution produces evidence to support that, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that it cannot be relied upon. It is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the device was accurate on each and every occasion nor is it their task to show that there are no circumstances in which it may be erroneous. 

Leaving aside Mr Pickup, who I believe was simply trying it on, aided and abetted, disgracefully in my opinion, by his counsel, all Mr Pickup had was his absolute belief that he had not exceeded the speed limit. His brief’s attempt to show that the device “could have” been triggered by another vehicle was never going to fly. He may have been right – but he had to show not merely that it could have produced an erroneous reading, but that it actually did. Showing that it “could have” malfunctioned does not cast sufficient doubt on the reliability of the device.

Manxman_in_exile

[Deleted User] said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

[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).

As I said, I don't have all the links to hand at the moment. There has been extensive testing of the laser ones to show that they are dodgy though. There was a great video demonstrating how they could fail, but I can't find it now.

The point I'm making is that you need to have your own evidence to demonstrate that theirs is at least questionable. Ideally two different instruments measuring your speed. GPS and OBD-II, or GPS and camera that can see your speedo. At a pinch you could also use dashcam footage, measuring time between two points, but it's more work because you have to show accurate measurements for those two points. The police are rarely held to such a high standard.

If all that you say is true, why isn't your advice reflected in any of the threads on pepipoo?

Even on the board dedicated to these sorts of questions there hasn't been a relevant post since 2017(!) and nothing more recently to suggest that current mobile speed traps are unreliable...

FightBack Forums -> Technical Discussion of Enforcement Devices (pepipoo.com)