Challenge speeding offence

paul_c123

Keep_pedalling said:

You have already been given all the advice needed over on the FTLA forum, you are not going to get the answer you are looking for here.

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/police-evidence-is-my-defence-and-they-still-insist-to-prosecute-process-is-the-/

You must reply to the NIP naming the driver, failure to do so will leave you with 6 points a large fine and massively increased insurance premiums for the next few years. 

If you still think you have a case then refuse the speeding course or fixed penalty and have your day in court, but be prepared to still get the 3 points, but with a much bigger fine plus costs.

That's one of the better FTLA threads I've read in a while!

Yorkshirebloke68

​The police claim their equipment is correct. I assert that the equipment was being operated incompetently during the measurement session in question.

​If the operator was demonstrably unable to maintain a lock on the vehicle for the second measurement (resulting in the "58 MPH on grass" reading), there is reasonable doubt regarding the integrity and stability of the initial 55 MPH reading.

​The entire evidence set is a "poisoned pill." You cannot rely on part of a measurement session when the other part proves the session generated false, spurious data. Also they provided me with doubts with their own evidence! It feels like your saying they can add milliseconds to the timings now ? Not the facts they gave  or tried explaining when questioning it.  Rieks of high pressure to accept it regardless 

LightFlare

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

​The police claim their equipment is correct. I assert that the equipment was being operated incompetently during the measurement session in question.

​If the operator was demonstrably unable to maintain a lock on the vehicle for the second measurement (resulting in the "58 MPH on grass" reading), there is reasonable doubt regarding the integrity and stability of the initial 55 MPH reading.

​The entire evidence set is a "poisoned pill." You cannot rely on part of a measurement session when the other part proves the session generated false, spurious data. Also they provided me with doubts with their own evidence! It feels like your saying they can add milliseconds to the timings now ? Not the facts they gave  or tried explaining when questioning it.  Rieks of high pressure to accept it regardless 

take the opportunity to challenge it in court then 

TadleyBaggie

paul_c123 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

You have already been given all the advice needed over on the FTLA forum, you are not going to get the answer you are looking for here.

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/police-evidence-is-my-defence-and-they-still-insist-to-prosecute-process-is-the-/

You must reply to the NIP naming the driver, failure to do so will leave you with 6 points a large fine and massively increased insurance premiums for the next few years. 

If you still think you have a case then refuse the speeding course or fixed penalty and have your day in court, but be prepared to still get the 3 points, but with a much bigger fine plus costs.

That's one of the better FTLA threads I've read in a while!

It was funny when he accused the site administrator of being a cop, then reported the administrator's post to the administrator. 

Yorkshirebloke68

That is the only choice I feel I have to be heard .. its not right that they knowingly set up extra harsh fines etc just to be heard . The police were informed of this and just fired back " we know we're right.  Im a decorated veteran unemployed atm and this can be devastating for me with driving job hunts as well as living off savings. It makes the fear of the process a punishment and is causing many months of stress . 
 Also know a thing about aiming through optics at distance, a field is a missed target . also i have done administration of speed and distance tests.. adding milliseconds as extra evidence but waiting until i have to go to the massive fine risk of court,  just to be heard ?isnt fair or reasonable 

Goudy

There are two images or camera hits if you like that have been recorded but the police only need one (and opinion) for a handheld device.

We don't really need to go into detail about how these cameras work, just they bounce a signal off your vehicle and another a split second later and work out the speed between the two readings that are milliseconds seconds apart.

In your case the officer has done this process twice and either one on it's own is (almost) enough to convict you

The first hit showing 55mph at 204.5 meters from the recording device. (second image in the post)

The second hit showing 58mph at 354.5 meters from the recording device.

The difference in time and distance being shared on those images is as already explained, whole seconds and nearest half metre. So without more data it may or may not "prove" anything either way, but that doesn't really matter in this instance, the two images together aren't the evidence being used to try and convict you of speeding.
They are sharing them with you as either one will be used as evidence, they don't need both.

From what I understand, the police need primary and secondary evidence of speeding to get a conviction.
There are obviously differences in the way the police collect primary and secondary evidence based of the type of device being used.

A fixed device can collect both with multiple images. One used as primary and one as secondary.
 
With a handheld device it is known to be difficult for an officer to use the device to get both (see the first image), so the primary can be one hit on the device and for secondary evidence  the officers "prior opinion" is used.

This "prior opinion" is the reason the officer will give in court as to why they pointed the device at you in the first place, it's almost a given that it's accepted like this.

The police's evidence is they thought you were speeding AND an image from their device. 
(Prior opinion alone isn't enough for a conviction)

So your time and distance complication may not prove or disprove anything.
But any one of the two images and the officers prior opinion is more than enough to convict you unfortunately.

facade

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

​The police claim their equipment is correct. I assert that the equipment was being operated incompetently during the measurement session in question.

​If the operator was demonstrably unable to maintain a lock on the vehicle for the second measurement (resulting in the "58 MPH on grass" reading), there is reasonable doubt regarding the integrity and stability of the initial 55 MPH reading.

The entire evidence set is a "poisoned pill." You cannot rely on part of a measurement session when the other part proves the session generated false, spurious data.

Interesting idea, I suspect not. When Our Boys launch a sidewinder, they only need fire it as soon as they get a lock, it doesn't matter if they lose the lock after it is away if the lock was valid at the time of firing.

If they have a valid measurement at 58MPH then you are bang to rights, it doesn't matter if the operator sneezed right after the measurement was completed and pointed the device at a field. (But I wonder why it has a similar speed for the field rather than zero, I suspect the speeds are an overlay on a linked video, and can be measured at a slightly different time.

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

It feels like your saying they can add milliseconds to the timings now ? Not the facts they gave  or tried explaining when questioning it.  Rieks of high pressure to accept it regardless 

No, we are saying that because milliseconds are not given you cannot know the exact times, only within the range +0 to +999ms.

My digital clock currently says 11:39.

It said that from 11:39:00 and will continue to say it until 11:40:00 It could well have been 11:39:55 when I looked at it, I only know the time was between 11:39:00 and 11:39:59, and using it to work out a speed would give a large potential error.

There is high pressure to accept it and dispose of the matter with a course or a smaller fine, rather than tie up the legal system, which is why being found guilty in Court will come with a much higher fine (plus a Crime Tax of 40% called "Victim Support Surcharge") plus any costs incurred. (I'm surprised that there isn't VAT on top, it is probably already included...)

(And also why a "guilty plea" earns a discount as it saves a lot of time, work and expense)

LightFlare

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

That is the only choice I feel I have to be heard .. its not right that they knowingly set up extra harsh fines etc just to be heard . The police were informed of this and just fired back " we know we're right.  Im a decorated veteran unemployed atm and this can be devastating for me with driving job hunts as well as living off savings. It makes the fear of the process a punishment and is causing many months of stress . 
 Also know a thing about aiming through optics at distance, a field is a missed target . also i have done administration of speed and distance tests.. adding milliseconds as extra evidence but waiting until i have to go to the massive fine risk of court,  just to be heard ?isnt fair or reasonable 

3 points and a £100 fine OR a driver awareness course would hardly be crime of the century

the chance of a course is probably long gone (assuming the date format in the photos is correct and the offence was in July)

You still (I think) havent answered the question of what the prevailing limit actually was/is

Yorkshirebloke68

The primary image ...is the field 

matt_drummer

Just out of curiosity, do you know what your indicated speed was at the time?

You haven't said.