Challenge speeding offence

user1977

Money_Grabber13579 said:

Okell said:

facade said:

Okell said:

<snip>

But nobody here is telling him that his speed calculation is wrong and that the police have a slamdunk case against him

<snip>

I and others have pointed out that the times on the 'photos are clock times and the difference between them is not necessarily 33-26=7 seconds, but can in the worst case be 33.000 - 26.999= 6.001 seconds, which gives a result above the limit for his average if you use the distances on the frames.

We have suggested that since the Police wouldn’t drop the allegation when confronted by the OP's calculation, that they must have reliable evidence of him speeding that they are confident will stand up in Court, which is close enough to to a slam dunk for me to suggest that £100 now is better than risking a small fortune, lots of time and considerable stress on in Court in the future.

I know, but 

1.  I'd be very reluctant to tell someone in the OP's position that they "must be wrong" and that it's a "slam dunk" that they will be convicted.

Out of interest, how many police forces don’t use 10% + 2 when deciding when to prosecute? Not that I’m sure this helps in this case given there seems to be evidence of doing 58mph at some point.

I don't know the answer, but it doesn't help by the time they have decided to prosecute - in court, if you're over the limit then you're guilty.

Keep_pedalling

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

RandomTourist said:

The process goes like this:

Speed gun instantaneously measures speed. 

If it's over the tolerance, police office requests driver's details from registered keeper.

Police can, if asked, supply pictures to help identify the driver: the pictures have no other purpose.

RK can ignore this - if so it's a guaranteed fine and 6 points and inflated insurance premiums for some years

Or RK can tell the police

Same for the driver (whether the same person as the RK or not)

So now the driver has responded.

Driver has potentially three choices, two of which depend on the driver being reasonably sure the offence has been committed.

1. Awareness course. Benefit: no points, no record on driving licence. Cost: about the same as (2), pplus some time.

2. Fixed penalty. £100 and 3 points; the points are unlikely to have any impact on employment or insurance (unless the driver keeps collecting them....)

The third option will arrive if the driver does nothing, or if they opt for it:

3. Court appearance. Once again there are choices:

3a Plead guilty - outcome much the same as 2 but likely to be financially worse (you are using up court time which we all pay for through our taxes)

3b Plead not guilty. Now the courts are required to accept that the speed gun (even if calibration were out of date) is functioning correctly. To demonstrate that it was not, the defendant will need to bring an expert witness to contradict the evidence of the police's expert witness. In the event of conviction, the defendant will need to pay both lots of costs as well as a fine and a victim surcharge and the court costs. The evidence will hinge on (a) identifying vehicle and driver and (b) instantaneous measurement being correct. (a) is a slam-dunk. 

Now a number of people here and on FTLA who know the process very well indeed have explained this. They see (b) as being a slam-dunk too, and are trying to save you time and money. It's too late now to save you points.

If you feel lucky, go for it. But do please let us know what the outcome is. If you are found not guilty there will be useful information for the folk on FTLA as well as elsewhere.

Totally ignored the stats AGAIN?. How can 7 seconds using even video evidence provided contains measurements 
150m covered Q: is this correct? Yes 353m - 203 m ="150m
Time 7 seconds and stating I was 55mph and trying to suggest 58mph using a field ? No? OK ignore the faulty photo ? Why provide it then ? Answer this How can a vehicle do 55mph and speed up cover, but cover only 150m when that would be 175m at least, ? How ? Because the gun is right but its measurements of distance is wrong? 
Its flawed to bits.  
Who are the flta members that know so much? Traffic cops? camera operators? Driving lawyers ? As no one has suggested they are anything other than opinions.. I mentioned im a veteran as it gives credibility to understanding range and optics plus I hold a science degree and have ran tests on speed time distance. Im not claiming the gun may not be accurate , but its claimed  its milliseconds shot says I was travelling at 55mph,  which in itself is a  technicality offence , not reckless , as a much heavier campervan can shoot by at 60mph ( mines a stealth camper but not registered so technically the 50mph speed i know about) .. the whole thing causes questions that have still not been answered with the contradiction of evidence which is all I asked for to be explained without a shadow of doubts.  All im hearing is opinions,  not backed up with links, facts or even legal case reasoning.  The govt website states demand non contradiction.  
Last post as this is useless speaking to no one who offers anything but please this etc . !!!!!! I know the routine favours caving in to bullying and intimidating fine aspects .. if you all never stand up for yourself because of money ? basic physics.  

And you totally ignored my earlier reply explaining that the time stamps show no decimal places so can only be used to provide a range of possible average speeds because the actual interval is 7s +/- 1s giving a range of possible average speeds between 42mph and 56mph.

Far from proving that you were not doing the speeds you were clocked at it shows that you could easily have been doing exactly what you were measured doing. 

Basic maths!

paul_c123

Money_Grabber13579 said:

Out of interest, how many police forces don’t use 10% + 2 when deciding when to prosecute? Not that I’m sure this helps in this case given there seems to be evidence of doing 58mph at some point.

I think they're going to use 58mph as the recorded speed, which is over the threshold. They draw a line.

WellKnownSid

The biggest issue is - whether innocent or guilty - the OP is suffering heavily from confirmation bias. This is causing them to go down a rabbit hole that’ll pretty much guarantee a successful prosecution.

I don’t know anything about the military but in civilian life such as aviation a lot of time and money is put into situational awareness and objective decision making to avoid falling into such traps.

Alanp

I’ve not read every reply to this thread but it seems to me that if the op wants to fight this , they might be better getting legal advice from someone who specialises in motoring offences..

Barkin

Lordy, 8 pages in and we're still talking about distances and average speeds!

I'm gonna need another box of popcorn...

facade

Having shown that the information on the photographs yield a range of speeds between 42 & 56 MPH, remember that these are average speeds over the distance, unless the vehicle was travelling at constant speed throughout, then it will have been travelling at a greater speed than the average at some point, and the camera should have recorded it, so the # 58MPH could well indicate the last measured speed when a vehicle was in frame and is certainly over 10%+2 in a 50. 

(But in Court, a proven 51 in a 50 is sufficient for conviction, they usually allow a tolerance before starting prosecution to avoid clogging the courts with people trying to cast doubt on a +1mph reading)

Wonka_2

Alanp said:

I’ve not read every reply to this thread but it seems to me that if the op wants to fight this , they might be better getting legal advice from someone who specialises in motoring offences..

They tried that (on the ftla.uk site and it went even worse for them than here) 🤣🤣

born_again

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

Totally ignored the stats AGAIN?. How can 7 seconds using even video evidence provided contains measurements 
150m covered Q: is this correct? Yes 353m - 203 m ="150m
Time 7 seconds and stating I was 55mph and trying to suggest 58mph using a field ? No? OK ignore the faulty photo ? Why provide it then ? Answer this How can a vehicle do 55mph and speed up cover, but cover only 150m when that would be 175m at least, ? How ? Because the gun is right but its measurements of distance is wrong? 
Its flawed to bits.  

7 seconds at a constant 50 mph is 156  meters

You said you were behind a vehicle doing 40 mph.
Ergo. To then cover 150 mtr in 7 seconds, you must have gone faster than 50 mph 🤷‍♀️58 would sound in the ball park.

Slam dunk, wham bam thank you mam 😶‍🌫️

If you want any chance of winning in court you are looking at employing one of the £10K a hour legal people who the rich & famous use..

Can you afford that?

HHarry

paul_c123 said:

Okell said:

The most likely explanation of the photos the police have sent you is that they are to assist you in "identifying the driver", and they do not necessarily form any part of the evidence that they will rely on when (or if) they prosecute you. 

From the first picture, and I may be wrong, I believe it is "wheat".

Let's face it, its a pretty terrible pic to send out in the circumstances. They could have selected 2 much better ones.

 I have to agree.  One picture of 58mph wheat and one at 55mph which is below the ‘usual’ threshold for prosecution.