Pulled over - alledged speeding

Okell

Petriix said:

What exactly does the NIP say? Was the speed limit actually 60? No one has ever shown a NIP for lower than 10% +2mph over the limit so 74 in a 70 is unlikely to get you pulled over. If, on the other hand, you were doing 70 or over in a 60 limit then there's no point questioning it further. 

It isn't a NIP.  She was pulled over at the side of the road - no NIP necessary.

Despite being asked exactly what it was the OP has replied only that it was a "letter" - not exactly helpful.

However, it would appear to have been a condtional offer of a fixed penalty.

Okell

Missmac13 said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Yes, it was manned. The police officer was in the car with it.

If and when you get an offer of a course or fixed penalty, you have a choice - accept it, or refuse it and opt for court, where you can dispute the officer's testimony.

What's your defence? "I don't know what speed I was doing, or whether it was over 60 or not"...?

My defense is that I was not exceeding the speed limit and the dash cam he showed me coukd have been any car as it was unidentifiable. The officer even said 'you can just about see your tail lights'.
It records for a short time then cuts off probably because the car is not in his sight any more. I turn off at the junction where I presume he has broken the speed limit himself in order to 'catch' me, if it was indeed me in the first place. He then follows me for a bit longer but no further allegations of speeding except the bit on the motorway which you can't definitively prove it's me as it's too far away.

Despite what you think the video shows from the tiny in-car display you've been shown, I'm sure the police officer will give sworn evidence that he maintained unbroken visual contact with your car from the point at which he first became aware of you to the point that he pulled you over.

How will you counter that evidence?

forgotmyname

Agree about the fact it may cost you more going to court, years back I got caught on a road where the road works had moved down the road
but they left the lower speed limit signs in the same place and the camera van just happened to choose that spot to parkup.

Contacted my insurance and they said it wouldnt affect my premium so fighting it would have cost me a day off work which was more than
just paying the ticket.  If I had more points or the insurance was going to cost substantially more then it may have been worth fighting.

Is it worth it?

Ectophile

Okell said:

Missmac13 said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Yes, it was manned. The police officer was in the car with it.

If and when you get an offer of a course or fixed penalty, you have a choice - accept it, or refuse it and opt for court, where you can dispute the officer's testimony.

What's your defence? "I don't know what speed I was doing, or whether it was over 60 or not"...?

My defense is that I was not exceeding the speed limit and the dash cam he showed me coukd have been any car as it was unidentifiable. The officer even said 'you can just about see your tail lights'.
It records for a short time then cuts off probably because the car is not in his sight any more. I turn off at the junction where I presume he has broken the speed limit himself in order to 'catch' me, if it was indeed me in the first place. He then follows me for a bit longer but no further allegations of speeding except the bit on the motorway which you can't definitively prove it's me as it's too far away.

Despite what you think the video shows from the tiny in-car display you've been shown, I'm sure the police officer will give sworn evidence that he maintained unbroken visual contact with your car from the point at which he first became aware of you to the point that he pulled you over.

How will you counter that evidence?

If the OP was initially only a blob in the distance, and gradually the cop car caught up and they pulled over the OP, then all we really know is that the cop car was driving faster than the OP.

Normally, you'd expect the cop car to follow reasonably closely behind the suspect for some time, to ensure that the speed on the cop's speedometer is pretty much the same as the speed the suspect was doing.

In this case, you would have to determine how far away the OP was at the start (e.g. by measuring the apparent size of the car on the video, or counting marker posts at the side of the motorway), and measure how long it took the cop car to catch up, in order to work out the relative speeds of the two cars.  From that you could work out how fast the OP was going.  I don't know if anyone has actually done that.

sheramber

The policeman did not catch the OP until she had left the motorway and presumably  was no longer speeding.

The police stated they were doing 74 mph and did not catch her up so she was doing at least 74 mph. 

peter12345678910

Some police are over zealous, this can easily extend to the people of the court. Just saying you may not find justice in a court room.

But to be honest Police tend to judge speed relatively. It is why all cars suddenly drive tortoise speeds when the spot the car with the top knot?

LightFlare

OP - take it on the chin.

Impossible to defend since you haven’t actually mentioned that you are 100% certain you weren’t speeding - just veiled suggestions that you did t think you were and an admission that they do, but they just have t been caught untill now.

Once in 20years - you are still “ahead”

That could be a very expensive way of finding out who the courts believe

Baldytyke88

Missmac13 said:

Sorry for all the questions.
Not normally one to speed. Never been done in over 20 years.
Not even convinced I was speeding but too afraid to challenge it.

But you haven't actually said what speed you were doing.

What did you say to the officer when he challenged you?

Okell

Ectophile said:

Okell said:

Missmac13 said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Yes, it was manned. The police officer was in the car with it.

If and when you get an offer of a course or fixed penalty, you have a choice - accept it, or refuse it and opt for court, where you can dispute the officer's testimony.

What's your defence? "I don't know what speed I was doing, or whether it was over 60 or not"...?

My defense is that I was not exceeding the speed limit and the dash cam he showed me coukd have been any car as it was unidentifiable. The officer even said 'you can just about see your tail lights'.
It records for a short time then cuts off probably because the car is not in his sight any more. I turn off at the junction where I presume he has broken the speed limit himself in order to 'catch' me, if it was indeed me in the first place. He then follows me for a bit longer but no further allegations of speeding except the bit on the motorway which you can't definitively prove it's me as it's too far away.

Despite what you think the video shows from the tiny in-car display you've been shown, I'm sure the police officer will give sworn evidence that he maintained unbroken visual contact with your car from the point at which he first became aware of you to the point that he pulled you over.

How will you counter that evidence?

If the OP was initially only a blob in the distance, and gradually the cop car caught up and they pulled over the OP, then all we really know is that the cop car was driving faster than the OP...

But that isn't what the OP has told us.

She's told us that the police officer told her that he was travelling at 74mph and wasn't gaining on her. so we know that at the time he was travelling at 74mph he was not going faster than she was.  All this in a 60 limit

Of course the OP could suggest that the officer was mistaken, but without more I think the court will be more likely to believe the officer's evidence than not.

(I also suspect that the OP's car was never a blob in the distance, but at some point passed the police officer)

... Normally, you'd expect the cop car to follow reasonably closely behind the suspect for some time, to ensure that the speed on the cop's speedometer is pretty much the same as the speed the suspect was doing.

In this case, you would have to determine how far away the OP was at the start (e.g. by measuring the apparent size of the car on the video, or counting marker posts at the side of the motorway), and measure how long it took the cop car to catch up, in order to work out the relative speeds of the two cars.  From that you could work out how fast the OP was going.  I don't know if anyone has actually done that.

And I wouldn't be surprised if that was done here.

In principle what you describe is how VASCAR and other in-car speed measuring devices work.

There was a lengthy thread on pepipoo a couple of years ago where a driver posted the police car video of a speed check and the video showed distances travelled and elapsed time as the car being followed went under several bridges.  The driver swore blind that he only exceeded the speed limit for a few seconds at a time despite the video clearly and incontrovertibly showing him travelling at over 112mph for extended periods of time.

Okell

Baldytyke88 said:

Missmac13 said:

Sorry for all the questions.
Not normally one to speed. Never been done in over 20 years.
Not even convinced I was speeding but too afraid to challenge it.

But you haven't actually said what speed you were doing.

What did you say to the officer when he challenged you?

I suspect the OP has no idea what speed she was traveliing at or that she was in a 60mph limit