PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Speeding help
Vinboy
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 14:28
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Member No.: 27,703



My first forum, so hope it works.
Yesterday I was on my motorbike traveling through a quiet village. Up pops a yellow vest 30 yards in front of me and points a device at me. On passing the chap, I noticed he was a Community Support Officer, with what looked like a radar gun, now under his arm. He got out his notebook and I assume wrote down my reg after I had passed. Can I be prosecuted if he caught me, even though I was not stopped, and there is no camera evidence ? .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 14:28
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 14:51
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Yes. They'd have to serve a notice of intended prosecution on the registered keeper within 14 days.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jobo
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 15:04
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521



edit

This post has been edited by jobo: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 15:13


--------------------
jobo

anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ict_guy
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 15:07
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 18,924



I take it you have a legal number plate (correct size with the correct font etc etc)? Many of us bikers have a slightly smaller plate/font and risk the £30 non endorsable fixed penalty, but it does make it slightly harder to read at a quick glance rolleyes.gif

How fast do you think you may have been going?

This post has been edited by ict_guy: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 15:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vinboy
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 15:18
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Member No.: 27,703



Thanks, standard number plate and probably about 40 mph !!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ict_guy
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 15:24
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 18,924



QUOTE (Vinboy @ Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 16:18) *
Thanks, standard number plate and probably about 40 mph !!


Like Southpaw has said, the NIP must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days of the offence. That speed would certainly be an offer of a fixed penalty - 3 points and £60 fine. Or, you may be eligable for a speed awareness course, you'll have to wait and see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vinboy
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 15:27
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Member No.: 27,703



Thanks. My queery is therefore the officers word againt mine, with no photo evidence, and not being stopped at the time. I thought they had to show the evidence ? Also, can I claim that the device may have caught the following traffic as I am such a narrow target ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 16:09
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



The word of one witness corroborated by an approved device is sufficient evidence to convict you. There is no requirement for photos or video. You can claim what you like but the CSO will no doubt claim they targeted you and unless you can show otherwise it'll be difficult to disprove that.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vinboy
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 16:25
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Member No.: 27,703



THanks for that. THe ACPO guidelines suggest that "The accuracy of mobile devices must be checked by driving a vehicle with a calibrated speedometer through the beam at a predetermined speed, at the commencement and completion of operations at each location (the speed being compatible with the site being checked). Is there any mileage in challenging this as there was only 1 cso at the schene ?

Also if I can provide evidence that he was not "clearly visible to the public and the target vehicle throughout the check" ie he was obstructed by a telegraph pole, would that stand up ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 16:53
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



There is no requirement for the operator to be visible. If you can cast doubt on the accuracy of the device then do so. However, just because there is one operator doesn't necessarily mean that the checks have not been done.

All this is academic unless and until you receive an NIP.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vinboy
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 17:57
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Member No.: 27,703



OK, finally then, if I was speeding, will it always end in a NIP? or can the officer issue just a warning (I refer to your suggestion of "unless")
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 18:13
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



A warning can be issued (as with community speedwatch schemes) but this would be unusual. I'm afraid it's a case of wait and see.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vinboy
post Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 08:56
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Member No.: 27,703



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 17:53) *
There is no requirement for the operator to be visible.


The adviceon the "Legal" section of this site suggests this is a requirement, even the ACPO guidelines suggest it to be so, so not sure why you state there is no requirement !!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemo
post Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 08:59
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
From: -------------
Member No.: 2,073



QUOTE (Vinboy @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 09:56) *
The adviceon the "Legal" section of this site suggests this is a requirement, even the ACPO guidelines suggest it to be so, so not sure why you state there is no requirement !!

Does it state that it is a requirement in law ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vinboy
post Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 09:02
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Member No.: 27,703



no idea, they are refered to as ACPO guidelines !!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemo
post Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 09:12
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
From: -------------
Member No.: 2,073



QUOTE (Vinboy @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 10:02) *
no idea, they are refered to as ACPO guidelines !!

Its may be referred to as 'guidelines, but it is titled a 'Code of Practice'.

But irrespective whether is is considered guidelines or a CoP, with no requirement in statute for speed enforcement to be visible, conspicuous or advertised, then a breach of the guidance laid out in the RPET document does not automatically create a defence or mitigtation of an offence so detected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vinboy
post Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 09:21
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Member No.: 27,703



QUOTE
But irrespective whether is is considered guidelines or a CoP, with no requirement in statute for speed enforcement to be visible, conspicuous or advertised, then a breach of the guidance laid out in the RPET document does not automatically create a defence or mitigtation of an offence so detected.


therefore, in Law, the guidelines can be flouted, ie Officer hidden in a bush, no calibration proof, the device has not been checked against a police vehicle fitted with a certified calibrated speedometer,several vehicles in field of view, etc..... and the offender can still be found guilty. Shamefull really !!! Waste of time having guidelines if they cannot be used in mitigation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Transit man
post Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 09:34
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,002
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
From: Worcestershire
Member No.: 18,111



I would imagine that officers operating speed detection need to be fully qualified in that equipments operation. Would this be the case with CSO's?

Seems to me that to have CSO's on every street with a "gun" & therefore the authority to issue summons's is the thin end of the wedge. How much longer before my granny is invited to act as judge, jury & executioner on her road because speeding MUST be stopped

This post has been edited by Transit man: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 09:34


--------------------
Now driving a Mercedes Sprinter, the Transit died of too much work.
Results for last 5 years:-
12 PPC tickets received, 0 paid
2 Council tickets received, 0 paid (both canceled)
2 Nip's in 40 years 1 paid (damn!)
1 SAC, duly educated!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemo
post Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 09:35
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
From: -------------
Member No.: 2,073



QUOTE (Vinboy @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 10:21) *
therefore, in Law, the guidelines can be flouted, ie Officer hidden in a bush, no calibration proof, the device has not been checked against a police vehicle fitted with a certified calibrated speedometer,several vehicles in field of view, etc..... and the offender can still be found guilty.

There are requirements of statute; requirements which have been established by case law; requirements of Type Approval and then there is 'guidance'. And one shouldn't necessarily be confused for another.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vinboy
post Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 09:45
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Member No.: 27,703



QUOTE (nemo @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 10:35) *
There are requirements of statute; requirements which have been established by case law; requirements of Type Approval and then there is 'guidance'. And one shouldn't necessarily be confused for another.


Would that be a YES or NO to mortal man ??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:35
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here