TUGGED BY the POLICE last Friday Lunchtime

[drmw]

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.

That must depend on the nature of the alleged offence - be seen throwing a brick through a window, then I agree - this one however appears to be completely subjective, given the "I think"s cited, so the key words in your post are "knows better" - the original report as written undermines the existence of any knowledge on the part of plod !

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.

well and truly

 

[Ben Longden]

Facts v opinion.

Get him to prove the facts, and have your brief pursue that line in court.
Insist absolutely on rejecting the plods opinion. Can "it" come up with evidence that would stand up to independant scrutiny.

Then I would be lodging an complaint regarding the plods preferred use of opinion to facts with the plodmeisters.

 

[Myros]

I seem to recall

that two ordinary citizens may give an opinion that someone was speeding, or one police officer in England and Wales. In Scotland, it has to be two plods.
The only time Joe public's opinion equates to the police's is in opinion on drunkenness. Then we are just as well or ill-informed.

I'd say get a brief ( your membership fo the AA/RAC or other combo may help here) get a statement from your chum, and go to court. If no-one struggles against injustice, then the baddies have already won.

 

[br0ke]

If you can waste half a day, do what I did.

Let it go to court, make him write up all his rubbish (he might mess up his statement anyway and give you grounds for fighting it).
Then stand up in front of the magistrate, apologise profusely and take the £60 fine and 3 points.
I believe it is only when you plead not guilty that the case is adjourned and it moves to a higher level.

As a minimum, it makes him write all his story down.

Their laser was 100m out, but they clocked my at 650m as I rounded a corner. It would have cost a fortune to fight it but as I only had 3 points - and on the balance of probability was speeding, I took it.
It was a good experience. I'll not roll over so quickly next time.

 

[drdel]

back on the 13th I asked ... Its always easy to be wise after the event but what, exactly, was written on the ticket?

I haven't yet seen this answered but it is the key bit of data - without what the 'ticket' actaully states we're wll just shooting in the dark and thus most of what we say will be wide of the mark.

Consequently the thread is now going around in circles.

 

[Matt32AMG]

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 !

On the ticket it says I was doing 60mph in a 40 MPH zone which is BS. More so in that there is a sharp blind lefthand corner to negotiate, and I was well aware of the speed limit that applied to the 362metres in question. It really is a jumped up charge.

 

[Matt32AMG]

For what it is worth I have requested in writing under the freedom of information act, evidence of the speed that I was alledged to be doing and where exactly, from Hampshire police. Note, not a record of the speed the police car was doing to catch me up, but the speed I was doing.

Watch this space as I predict I 'll get nothing.

P.S. thanks to all who responed to this post.

 

[47p2]

Best of luck with it.

p.s. There's a cute wee blonde policewoman in this area that I would love to be tugged by

 

[drdel]

Freedom of Information is only usually given if its in the 'public interest, so your chances are slim. A better bet could be the Data Protection Act, and making Data Subject Access Request, but they can ask for a fee and take 21 days from when you've paid.

As the claim is for doing 60 in a 40 zone the 50% difference ain't going to be explained by calibration challenges. I reckon you're on a hiding for nothing and should put this down to the rich tapestry of life - nobody every said it was going to be fair!!!

 

[Myros]

you shouldn't need a subject access request

a straightforward request under s.35(2) of the DPA is all you need, information required to formulate a legal defence/secure a legal opinion. It isn't mandatory disclosure, but will look very iffy if you make the request, and it isn't complied with, and they then use the exact info you requested to prosecute you. Very iffy indeed.

You can try and get a court order under s.35(1), but the magistrate himself can order disclosure, and adjourn for you to act on the info, if you haven't been given chance to by the hearing date.
art 6 of the ECHR applies, right to a fair trial.

I still say get a brief and a statement from your chum. Principles are expensive, but well worth defending.

 

[chris1200]

MESSAGE TO OP: I know you asked for the thoughts and opinions of others and as you can see you now have every opinion under the sun. I'm sure everyone will agree when I say that you really do need to seek professional legal advice on this matter if you're going to contest it. Most opinions here are given with the greatest intentions....but with little or no substance when it comes what is likely to happen.

 

[stivesvelo]

You have my sympathy as I've been in a similar situation (on a bike) & was accused of doing over a 100mph for 3/10 of a mile in a 60, by a policeman alone in his car up a country lane (Pidley sheep Lane) where it would have been difficult to ever achieve the speed & follow me in his car. (I was doing about 80+ with an electrical misfire), at the time he said that he had to do nearly 100 mph to catch up.

It boiled down to the lying turds word against mine, 6 points & a heavy fine after pleading for my license. What the prosecuting council kept repeating was that the motorcyle was 1000cc motorbike, I think the magistrates must have a chart saying 1000cc motorcycle = almost 200mph & gets there in the blink of an eye so he must be guilty (it was an old heavy Laverda & not capable of anything like it, particularly on the day).

That was over 15 years ago & it still grieves me, sadly because of that & a couple of incidences when I was a young teacher who resembled someone else (once a checked shirt & the other a greatcoat) I have apretty dim view of our friends in blue

So they no doubt have a chart saying Porche = 200mph+ in pretty quick time & all Porsche drivers are maddened speed freaks.

I would recommend paying the fine & keeping shtum except for when one of the many charity collectors rings you up for donations to police 'funds' diary contibutions etc etc which the poor buggers need our money for as they are so badly paid & have a pension scheme under attack. If they had a better approach to the man on the street they would be more successful in a lot of ways.

Me bitter and twisted, how could you possibly think that???

 

[jberks]

The law is often a criminal racket. This is proven by the fact that you are given a choice between taking a discounted fine or arguing with the thinly veiled threat that if you do they'll make it nasty for you. That threat in my book brings the law into disrepute.
As for policemen, well they're a mixed bunch.
I've met many very good ones but ..
A few weeks ago I came up to some lights on a dual carriageway behind a vectra. We all moved off and the vectra crawled up to 30 (in a 40), matching the speed of the car on it's inside and blocking the road. I sat behind, perhaps slightly closer than I'd normally to indicate I wanted to pass. Nothing. Eventually they flashed the hazards. My wife commented that she though the driver may be drunk so be careful.
Mean time the car on the inside had moved off, leaving the inside lane clear. The vectra stubbornly sat there. So after a mile of this I gave up and passed on the inside, pulled out, admittedly flashed my hazards back and continued to pull away at 40. I glanced in my mirror to see this slow vectra right up my rear bumper. (for once) I didn't take the bait, ignored them and drove sensibly at 40. A minute later I see blue lights flashing in the grill of the vectra. Unmarked police car.
We had a chat, I got a condescending ticking off from the wpc driver. She said she was doing 40 and had a car on the inside. I said, no, you were doing 30 and clearly if I was able to pass on the inside there was more than enough room for you to pull over, but I'm not going to get into an argument with you She then accused me of road rage as I'd flashed my hazards at her. I didn't start it! and we didn't discuss her bumper riding, presumably done in the hope that I'd jump on the brakes or else tear off into the distance.
She didn't give me a ticket I'm glad to say, though I'm not sure what she could have charged me with without it being a court case (dangerous driving etc) and I'd have fought that.
I'm still angry about it now and that was weeks ago. So I sympathise. It would be nice to get these power hungry lying coppers off the streets. I can understand how these kids feel if they get this level of unjustified crap every time they go out in their hoodies.

I'm confused though. I've always been told that they couldn't issue a ticket without proof. So a radar gun, or 2 coppers in a traffic car with a calibrated speedo over an average distance is required. That's why they have to follow you over a distance. A ticket has to state what speed you were clocked at and due to the above rules, in my experience, generally show less than you were actually doing. A vague 'over the limit' won't cut it. So, what exactly does the ticket say?
There are plenty of solicitors that will give you a free consultation. If what you say is accurate, I'd certainly have chat with a lawyer for nothing.
My Dad once got a ticket for driving with a trailer in the outside lane of the M1. He said to the coppers that if they'd seen him there they much have also seen the arctic pull out on him. Would they have preferred to have been attending a serious RTA and been cutting him out of his car?
He wrote a letter of complaint to the chief constable. Got a letter back dropping the charges. Just a thought.

Talking of the bent law. There was a case today. Tragic in that a child was killed but the facts of the case allegedly are that the driver was a learner on her first lesson, didn't know how to brake and didn't take any avoiding action. they jailed her for 2 years. This is a mother of 3 with a clean record and showing great remorse who'll probably so traumatised that she'll never get behind the wheel again.. Now I know when I taught my daughter to drive, I spent the first 30 mins practicing stopping. I shout STOP, you hit the brake and clutch. Only when I was confident that this was instinct did we go off the drive. This poor lass didn't have that. Learners when they pannick, freeze so avoiding action is a non starter. So I could see that the accompanying driver hadn't done all the could have, but I can see no real blame on the driver. Certainly not 2 years worth. Her accompanying driver wasn't prosecuted. Where's the justice or sense in that?

 

[Ben Longden]

There are small "in car" video cameras that can be used to provide indisputable evidence.
they record sound as well as vision.

Oh, if you wanted to, most cop cars now have the cameras in them, but they only start recording when the PIC switches on the party lights.... sooooo, you could ask them to provide video proof (of their atrocious driving)....

These in car DVRs, as they are known automatically start recording when the ignition is switched on, and write to an SD card. Once the card gets full, it writes over the top, and will stop recording (in some cases 60 seconds after a crash) or when you hit the stop switch.

Insurance companies love them, as they cut right to exactly what happened. No "he said, she said" stuff.

Wouldnt it be nice to say to mr plod (lower case intentional), that "everything s/he says is being recorded and can and will be used as evidence against them."

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Talking of the bent law. There was a case today. Tragic in that a child was killed but the facts of the case allegedly are that the driver was a learner on her first lesson, didn't know how to brake and didn't take any avoiding action. they jailed her for 2 years. This is a mother of 3 with a clean record and showing great remorse who'll probably so traumatised that she'll never get behind the wheel again.. Now I know when I taught my daughter to drive, I spent the first 30 mins practicing stopping. I shout STOP, you hit the brake and clutch. Only when I was confident that this was instinct did we go off the drive. This poor lass didn't have that. Learners when they panic, freeze so avoiding action is a non starter. So I could see that the accompanying driver hadn't done all the could have, but I can see no real blame on the driver. Certainly not 2 years worth. Her accompanying driver wasn't prosecuted. Where's the justice or sense in that?

An excellent post JB. I too am skeptical about the honesty, excellence and expertise of some of our police "traffic" people. Exceeding the speed limit without giving visual and audible warning is very dangerous and should immediately constitute an offence, in my view. Because they are exemplars, the punishment should also be exemplary. Period.

On the latter case, is the supervising driver not responsible for the actions of the supervised (trainee) driver?

Certainly, when Prince Charles has a flying "incident", it is invariably the aviator in the seat next to him who carries the can.

 

[reepers13]

havent read all of this as its too much but to answer your first post.

1. what ACTUAL evidence did the officer say he had that you were speeding?
2. did he have a white hat (traffic officer)?
3. did you see a camera stuck to the front windscreen?

speaking from experience and going by what you have said id say he didnt provide sufficant evidence. saying he had to speed up to catch you is not enough to convict.

got to CAB and you acn get free advice or seek a solicitor who will advise you accordingly

im speaking from experience of being in the job for 2yrs hence my questions and advice.

feel free to pm me if you wish to know anything further

 

[Palmer]

havent read all of this as its too much but to answer your first post.

1. what ACTUAL evidence did the officer say he had that you were speeding?
2. did he have a white hat (traffic officer)?
3. did you see a camera stuck to the front windscreen?

speaking from experience and going by what you have said id say he didnt provide sufficant evidence. saying he had to speed up to catch you is not enough to convict.

got to CAB and you acn get free advice or seek a solicitor who will advise you accordingly

im speaking from experience of being in the job for 2yrs hence my questions and advice.

feel free to pm me if you wish to know anything further

That white hat stuff is aload of nonsense.

 

[Xtractorfan]

That white hat stuff is aload of nonsense.

No it's not.. I've seen cops wearing them...

 

[Miffy]

That white hat stuff is aload of nonsense.

I thought they were supposed to bag and store all drug related evidence?

 

[Palmer]

Haha leats u guys like a joke lol.

I meant that the person i quoted made a remark about if they were wearing a police man hat. Its aload of tosh that they cannot fine / arrest you if they dont have their hat on, its a myth.