PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

78mph in 60mph zone, Clocked at 78mph but suspect the speed is too high
NAC1960
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:25
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,974



I recently recieved a NIP for doing 78mph on the A59 near Clitheroe, Lancashire. The speed limit is 60mph.

The police used an Ultralyte 1000 Laser gun with a camera.

In the photo evidence provided by the police there is a car infront of me and a car on the opposite side of the road which has just passed the police Laser.

A screenshot of the photo evidence is attached.

I suspect that the white vehicle travelling in the opposite direction has interfered with the laser beam and caused an overestimate of my vehicles speed.

Is this likely ?

Also -

Is it correct that the police must provide evidence that they recorded all the relevant information at the time including vehicle types, directions, speeds , and the presence of any other vehicle that might have affected the measurement?

Thanks

This post has been edited by NAC1960: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:40
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Advertisement
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:37
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,547
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



You may want to edit that photo to take off your vehicle details

QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:25) *
I suspect that the white vehicle travelling in the opposite direction has interfered with the laser beam and caused an overestimate of my vehicles speed.
Is this likely ?

No - and you would have to produce proper evidence to support that if you want to challenge the reading (which being an authorised device will be presumed to be correct).

QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:25) *
Is it correct that the police must provide evidence that they recorded all the relevant information at the time including vehicle types, directions, speeds , and the presence of any other vehicle that might have affected the measurement?

No

Looks like textbook "ping" to be honest - just too fast for a course, so £100 and 3pts is the likely outcome.

This post has been edited by AntonyMMM: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BertB
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:43
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 497
Joined: 14 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,087



QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:25) *
I suspect that the white vehicle travelling in the opposite direction has interfered with the laser beam and caused an overestimate of my vehicles speed.

Is this likely ?


In what way do you think it interfered? The picture appears to show your vehicle with a set of crosshairs targeting it after the white vehicle has passed. The reading takes a fraction of a second. If the you mean the other vehicle was recorded instead, a vehicle travelling away from the operator would show a minus speed, i.e. -78mph

QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:25) *
Is it correct that the police must provide evidence that they recorded all the relevant information at the time including vehicle types, directions, speeds , and the presence of any other vehicle that might have affected the measurement?


They will show the evidence they have. I'm not sure what you mean about all relevant information over and above what as been provided. What are the details on the NIP?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:46
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:25) *
Is it correct that the police must provide evidence that they recorded all the relevant information at the time including vehicle types, directions, speeds , and the presence of any other vehicle that might have affected the measurement?

At this time they are simply requesting the driver details for an alleged offence. They don't have to provide anything.

As already noted, this is fixed penalty territory so if you know you were exceeding the limit then it's probably wise to consider that.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:51
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:25) *
Is it correct that the police must provide evidence that they recorded all the relevant information at the time including vehicle types, directions, speeds , and the presence of any other vehicle that might have affected the measurement?

They don't have to provide you with anything unless and until you take the matter to court (by which time the opportunity to accept a fixed penalty will have passed). Then they will only show you what they intend to rely on to convict you. If you want to see anything else you must demonstrate to the court why you want to see it and they will decide if it must be disclosed or not. You cannot simply "go fishing" by asking them to produce anything you fancy.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:56
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



What speed do you think you were doing ?

Unless its an effect of the zoom lens, that looks like a very small gap to be behind a car at 78 mph in 60 mph traffic
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NAC1960
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:28
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,974



QUOTE (BertB @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:43) *
QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:25) *
I suspect that the white vehicle travelling in the opposite direction has interfered with the laser beam and caused an overestimate of my vehicles speed.

Is this likely ?


In what way do you think it interfered? The picture appears to show your vehicle with a set of crosshairs targeting it after the white vehicle has passed. The reading takes a fraction of a second. If the you mean the other vehicle was recorded instead, a vehicle travelling away from the operator would show a minus speed, i.e. -78mph

QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:25) *
Is it correct that the police must provide evidence that they recorded all the relevant information at the time including vehicle types, directions, speeds , and the presence of any other vehicle that might have affected the measurement?


They will show the evidence they have. I'm not sure what you mean about all relevant information over and above what as been provided. What are the details on the NIP?


I understand that laser guns work by measuring the time taken for the beam to be reflected from the target vehicle. If the beam is partially reflected from an object closer than the target vehicle the time of reflection will reduce and give an overestimation of the target velocity.

According to the manual, the Ultralyte1000 would not give a negative velocity for a vehicle moving away from the gun.

QUOTE (Redivi @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:56) *
What speed do you think you were doing ?

Unless its an effect of the zoom lens, that looks like a very small gap to be behind a car at 78 mph in 60 mph traffic


I don't think I would have been going any more than 70mph.

The distances in the photo are very foreshortened. The bollard in the background is about 100m away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:34
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 16:25) *
I understand that laser guns work by measuring the time taken for the beam to be reflected from the target vehicle. If the beam is partially reflected from an object closer than the target vehicle the time of reflection will reduce and give an overestimation of the target velocity.

It's a bit more complicated than that. It's actually a series of pulses that need to significantly corroborate to confirm the speed.

It's possible the exact conditions occurred to 'fool' the measurement but unless there's a blatant error in the video the onus would be for you to demonstrate this actually occurred rather than it could have occurred.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NAC1960
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:46
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,974



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 16:34) *
QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 16:25) *
I understand that laser guns work by measuring the time taken for the beam to be reflected from the target vehicle. If the beam is partially reflected from an object closer than the target vehicle the time of reflection will reduce and give an overestimation of the target velocity.

It's a bit more complicated than that. It's actually a series of pulses that need to significantly corroborate to confirm the speed.

It's possible the exact conditions occurred to 'fool' the measurement but unless there's a blatant error in the video the onus would be for you to demonstrate this actually occurred rather than it could have occurred.


Yes.

I have been reading the gun instruction manual. This indicates that if that if anything had interfered with the 'lock' on my vehicle the gun would produce an error message and not given a velocity reading.

Looks like I was going faster than I had thought.

mellow.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:55
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 16:28) *
I don't think I would have been going any more than 70mph.

Then you are considering challenging the speed alleged for no reason (at least none that will affect the outcome).

Enforcement in a 60mph limit begins at 68mph so you have no argument that enforcement should not have been taken (and in any case that would be bound to fail). A fixed penalty will be offered up to 86mph (so whether you were travelling at 70mph or 78mph a fixed penalty would be offered). The only possible gripe you may have is that 70mph would see the offer of a course (provided you had not done one for an offence committed in the three years prior to this one) whilst 78mph would not.

Since you cannot challenge the speed alleged unless you take the matter to court and since by then the offer of a course or a fixed penalty will have been withdrawn your concern over the speed alleged is pointless. Remember that the offence is exceeding the 60mph limit, not travelling at 78mph.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:56
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (NAC1960 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 16:46) *
Looks like I was going faster than I had thought.

That is the most likely explanation. They are not 100% foolproof mind but it's not an easy task to challenge (especially as you know you were exceeding the limit).


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:09
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