TUGGED BY the POLICE last Friday Lunchtime

[Xtractorfan]

I have to sympathise with you, In court a police officer must produce evidence of your speeding, but as said he will make your case very weak with his explanation of the circumstances......The only saving grace I see on your behalf.. if plod came up behind you then he would have had to be breaking the speed limit to even get in behind you,which gives you added fuel to your argument... if you passed him..ie at a junction or similar.. and he followed you then his word will be taken as gospel..

 

[M80]

If it's down to "he was speeding", "no I wasn't", my dosh would be on the success of Plod.
The legalities sound iffy but I don't have a clue if correct or not.

Too late here but has anyone considered using a 'dashcam'?
I remember a wagon proving a car at fault for causing an accident on a slip road due to having one, that caught my interest.
I've seen an 'app' for Android that allows your phone to do this, with time, date, speed and GPS overlay, not proof positive (not calibrated) but must be convincing.

 

[drdel]

Its always easy to be wise after the event but what, exactly, was written on the ticket?

In the days when I drove over 35,000 miles a year I carried a portable dictation machine and, when stopped by anyone (police, traffic census, customs and excise at ports) here and overseas I said I needed to record the conversation because that was my company's rules for their car drivers (not really). Most smartphone mobiles will record.

It worked on more than one occassion, similar to yours, concidently it was also generally when driving a 'flash' motor (Ferraris usually) when jealousy had clearly got the benefit of them.

If your buddy would attend court as a witness you might stand a chance but as many other members have said the odds are probably stacked in their favour.

 

[Chrishazle]

It's a Porsche thing - only time I've been pulled in this country was in a red 944 - accused of jumping a red light I knew I had not - it turned amber as I got level with it, I chose to accelerate across the junction rather than screech to a halt in the middle of the junction. Drop your right foot in even a 944, she leaps.

Trouble was it was in Aberdeen, I live way down south, going to the Procurator Fiscal would take at least 6 months - and I had no idea where I would be in 6 weeks let alone 6 months! Only time I've ever had points on my licence, I was incenced!!

One day I'll take revenge on Aberdeen police - I'll have one behind me, stand on the anchors and get the resulting "crunch" from behind - then insist the copper in the passenger seat books the driver for "due care and attention " and "consideration for other road users" and anything else we can think of!!

 

[RobWheatley]

You say he was a lone police officer, was it a motorway/traffic unit patrol or just a standard plod patrol as it is the only time a lone PC in a motorway unit that can stop you for speeding (has to be video equipped and he should have asked if you wanted to see or shown you the video)
If it was a standard plod car, was it video equipped, if not they have no proof of how fast you were or were not going as they have the standard speedometer, to prosecute for speeding they HAVE to be calibrated and have an up to date certificate.

Even if they (he) was in a motorway car they also HAVE to follow you for a given distance (usually about 1/10th of a mile) at a CONSTANT distance so that they can prove that you are not at a different speed than they are (so if on the video your car is clearly getting bigger you are not travelling at the same speed) (that is what the white squares are for on some roads, that is so that they can check the equipment)
It is only a speed camera (fixed or mobile) that do it via radar etc as they can calculate the closing speed/passing speed, they have to take a photo (or two) or a plod standing on the path that can do you without following.

 

[Rory]

Some stated cases:

Weatherhogg v John 1931 - Defence asserted that the officers reading of the speedo was opinion and should be inadmissable. Court ruled it was a matter of fact, not opinion.

Nicholas v Penny 1950 - Defence appealed where the driver had been convicted on the evidence of one officer & a speedo because no evidence had been given as to the accuracy of the speedo. Conviction upheld because no evidence of accuracy was required for the speedo, unless the margin of speed over the limit was very small.

Swain v Gillete 1974 - Defence appealed against the evidence of two officers & a speedo on the grounds that the no evidence of accuracy of the speedo had been given. Conviction upheld, not only did Nicholas v Penny apply, but as the two officers were together & had formed their opinions simultaneously, that was enough without any mechanical evidence.

 

[d215yq]

which though not particularly challenging, you would need a reasonably well sorted car to maintain 50-60mph safely.

In terms of road holding it may be ok to do 50-60 "safely" in your well sorted car, but in terms of sight around the bends it may not be safe (i.e. could you stop in the distance you can see?).

So maybe if it isn't for speeding outright it is for "inappropriate use of speed", and comes under dangerous or careless driving, in which case the limit is irrelevant?

Now I know very few of us actually drive the sight that we can see (even i don;t do that and i drive slowly), but i can only see taking it to caught as possibly opening a can of worms...and whereas the outright speeding charge maybe thrown out without evidence, if it comes down to something more objective like inappropriate use of speed then I can only see them take the side of the police officer.

 

[E320mark]

What a moron!! Do these people not understand that certain elements of the general public will never like or respect the police?? Things like this only make things worse for themselves and the ordinary law abiding citizen starts to lose some of the respect that they had! An unmarked traffic car flew past me on a motorway today, I was close to 80 & he passed me like I was stopped, no blue lights, nothing, they are not above the law either!
Part of me thinks take it to court & make a complete prat out of him but the court will probably side with him!

 

[RobWheatley]

Some stated cases:

Weatherhogg v John 1931 - Defence asserted that the officers reading of the speedo was opinion and should be inadmissable. Court ruled it was a matter of fact, not opinion.

Nicholas v Penny 1950 - Defence appealed where the driver had been convicted on the evidence of one officer & a speedo because no evidence had been given as to the accuracy of the speedo. Conviction upheld because no evidence of accuracy was required for the speedo, unless the margin of speed over the limit was very small.

Swain v Gillete 1974 - Defence appealed against the evidence of two officers & a speedo on the grounds that the no evidence of accuracy of the speedo had been given. Conviction upheld, not only did Nicholas v Penny apply, but as the two officers were together & had formed their opinions simultaneously, that was enough without any mechanical evidence.

They now HAVE to use video to prove guilt, Innocent until proven guilty in this country, there is loads about the different ways (provida & vascar) that can be used.

 

[Naraic]

"Innocent until proven guilty". I've always found that an interesting statement, since it almost assumes guilt will be proven. Why is it not "innocent unless proven guilty"?

 

[@mark]

Very dangerous to let this go to court as it will be your word against his especially as the offence will be exceeding 40 mph. So they don't need to convince the court you were doing 50mph etc, just that you were exceeding the 40mph limit.

I have been through the courts twice in my lifetime on both occasions because I knew I was in the right with the belief that the system will always come down on the side of truth.

On both occasions I have seen an elderly magistrate or judge believe the lies being told to them and then rule against me.

If you have no other points on your license taking the 3 points and fine may actually be the cheapest option.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

If you have no other points on your license taking the 3 points and fine may actually be the cheapest option.

Sadly, that may be true, but it is not justice.

Neither is the common tactic of "accept a fixed penalty here and now. It could cost you £1,000 if you take it to Court".

I have been in court and watched policemen and their expert witnesses lie. From their body language it was obvious to me, but it seems that the court was either able to overlook, or perhaps not to notice.

We really do live in an imperfect world.

 

[drmw]

At risk of sounding the pedant - unless I am mistaken, any prosecution must, repeat must be specific.

Opinion has suggested "exceeding a 40mph limit" as sufficient for prosecution.

Extrapolate that - say "exceeding a 40mph limit" was 45mph - slap on the wrist, 3 points. Equally then, "exceeding a 40mph limit" at 120mph? Somewhat more serious I think - yet if "exceeding a 40mph limit" was the total offence, how would the courts differentiate? They couldn't. They would need to know the actual speed.

To the OP - if (and only you know) the account you gave is 100% true and complete - there was no speeding, nothing that could be considered dangerous let alone illegal, then this forum is not the vehicle on which to base your decision.

If the police can not give proof, then there can be no case to answer - it takes balls, but if there has been no economy with the truth then I think you need to not just hope this will go away, but apply the principle that often the best form of defence is attack. Kick up a fuss - demand to see the evidence and basis of the charge.

BTW - you haven't answered one specific question asked at the outset of this thread - what is written on the ticket?

Ultimately though, the matter is simple - disregard everyone's opinion on this thread. Talk to a lawyer - explain the circumstances, itemise what is on whatever bit of paper you have been given and ask the simple question - can I be prosecuted based on human subjectivity (ie "I think ...") - then make your call !

 

[dizzy lizzy]

you may be innocent this time.......have you ever been over the speed limit and got away with it....I suspect we all have at some time or other in our driving life. Yes it is annoying if you are pulled and you are innocent, and yes it is annoying that a lot of police do not have people skills and talk to us as if we were retarded dumbos......but when all is said and done....swings and roundabouts...is it worth persuing and the aggro involved. I would be annoyed if I was pulled and I was not exceeding the speed limit....but I think I would just put it down to bad luck and bad policing because I no doubt have exceeded the speed limit and have been lucky not to have been caught.

 

[Mic]

you may be innocent this time.......have you ever been over the speed limit and got away with it....I suspect we all have at some time or other in our driving life. Yes it is annoying if you are pulled and you are innocent, and yes it is annoying that a lot of police do not have people skills and talk to us as if we were retarded dumbos......but when all is said and done....swings and roundabouts...is it worth persuing and the aggro involved. I would be annoyed if I was pulled and I was not exceeding the speed limit....but I think I would just put it down to bad luck and bad policing because I no doubt have exceeded the speed limit and have been lucky not to have been caught.

I think you are the only contributor to this Forum who has ever exceeded the permitted speed limit......shame on you.

Mic

 

[drmw]

you may be innocent this time.......have you ever been over the speed limit and got away with it....I suspect we all have at some time or other in our driving life. Yes it is annoying if you are pulled and you are innocent, and yes it is annoying that a lot of police do not have people skills and talk to us as if we were retarded dumbos......but when all is said and done....swings and roundabouts...is it worth persuing and the aggro involved. I would be annoyed if I was pulled and I was not exceeding the speed limit....but I think I would just put it down to bad luck and bad policing because I no doubt have exceeded the speed limit and have been lucky not to have been caught.

Very philanthropic

 

[Developer]

Very philanthropic

Lizzy likes stamps.......

 

[SSR S500]

If its a case of your word against a police officer's then I think the magistrates will favour the officer as he knows better because of his job, hence why some of them treat and talk to people like idiots.

Strange how many porsche drivers on this forum have had similar experiences. Copper may have been a liittle jealous and wanted to get one over on a Porsche driver. You do get some very decent police officers, but I'm sure the Twats outnumber them by a good ratio.

 

[Naraic]

Lizzy likes stamps.......

No, that's philandery.

 

[dizzy lizzy]

I think you are the only contributor to this Forum who has ever exceeded the permitted speed limit......shame on you.

Mic

ha ha....and I still believe in Santa and the tooth fairy:lol: