Hi i have been advised that this is the place to get some sensible advice for my court case which is up and coming end of September.

I will give you the facts as i have them and my defense ,which may or may not be delusional.

driving home one evening from work 8.00pm in a Citroen berlingo 1.9d van.

came of a roundabout with 4 other cars ,the van in front of me was traveling extremely slow about 15-20 mph ,so i passed it and carried on down the road ,speed limit is 60mph that part of the road is .7miles long fairly straight then another roundabout . as approached the roundabout i was aware of a car behind me filling my mirrors and the back of the van with its headlights extremely aggressively.

i passed through the roundabout then another roundabout and travelled along a straight as fast as the berlingo would go ,to get away from the idiot behind who had worried me ,i had managed to put a bit of distance between myself and the following vehicle but as i slowed for a sharp bend this car was all over me again,i went round the bend as quickly as i could with this car pushing me all he way,the police have said i went round the bend on the wrong side crossing double white lines doing 70mph ,(if i had managed to get the van to go round the bend at 70mph then i would definetly be driving for a lliving )we then went along a straight and as i approached the next roundabout there were other cars on the road so i slowed down to let this maniac pass as i had the reassurance of other motorists .
from the minute this car came right up behind me there had only been him and i ,it was back in early spring so it was dark.but the road is lit .

as i turned down the entrance road to our estate the blue lights went on ,i couldn't believe it .
i was charged with doing 70mph in a 60mph speed limit .
the policeman was fairly aggressive ,kept saying he knew me (he didn't) kept asking how many points i had (none).
i had an opportunity to speak to one of his colleagues later expressed my unhappiness with his attitude and the fact they had pushed me along the road . he advised me to report the policeman concerned to his inspector . unusual reaction i thought. he knew the officer concerned
i also spoke to a traffic policeman at a later date,he advised me without a calibrated speedo and the correct training for pursuit ,the whole thing wouldn't stand up in court .

i have recieved the summons which describes a car which is barely capable of doing 70mph. in .7 of a mile, doing it for 300 yards then slowing down for the roundabout which would take another 100 yards assuming we had got to 70 mph .
a citroen beringo will do 0-60 in 19.6 seconds .
who would the courts accept as corroboration that my facts that the van wont do the speeds the police have charged me with ?
assuming i can prove it would be impossible for it to get to 70 at all never mind for 300 yards ,and the fact it is unlikely they have a calibrated speedo or have recieved training to pursue,have i got a reasonable case to fight this case?
easy option here take the 3 points and shut up ,i cant ,if i had been caught for speeding no problem
was i driving fast yes ,but not as fast as these guys made out .
why didnt they charge me with dangerous driving and if i get the right result could they come back and charge me with crossing a double white line?
and finally if someone could point me in the right direction regards a specialist speeding solicitor in Cardiff area i would appreciate it .

This post has been edited by jimmythejock: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 - 11:33

I haven't made any assumptions, all I've done is given my opinion and stated that you and the officer you spoke to have both made assumptions as to the training of the two officers who stopped you.

My opinion is based on having been a police officer (thus I know what training is generally given and how speeding prosecutions can be done) and a lawyer (thus I know the law).



No, because to the best of my knowledge nobody has made an appeal on those points that has been reported. That's a different thing from saying "nobody has ever been convicted on the basis of that evidence".

I can show you the relevant law that allows a conviction on that evidence. It is s. 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:

A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.

As you can see, two witnesses (two officers) fulfils the criteria. Thus, if the court believes them, you can be convicted.

I'm sorry you don't seem to like what I'm telling you but I'm giving you advice. You've raised the issue of the officer's training. I know from experience that they are likely to be trained police drivers and thus you will look foolish in court when you claim (with no evidence) that they are not. Alternatively, even if they are not trained police drivers the court is still allowed to convict based on the opinion of two witnesses. Two operational police officers are likely to be able to give credible evidence that a vehicle was travelling in excess of the speed limit and in my opinion the court is likely to believe them.

If you can demonstrate that your van was not capable of doing what the officers claim then that introduces reasonable doubt. However, if you van is capable of doing what they claim then where is the reasonable doubt? Simply saying "the officers can't estimate my speed" is not, in my opinion, reasonable doubt.

thank you,i have just contacted a solicitor who specialises in speeding and he indicated the magistrate would not tend to convict if we questioned the speed measuring devices .
It is going to cast me £600-£700 to make a stand ,my wife is non too pleased but i was picked on by a bully that evening who hoped i would take his ticket as i had zero points a point he asked me time and time again .
He and his colleague then wrote the most damning and amazing statements of me passing a van in the most dangerous of places ,driving round a bend at 70mph on the opposite side of the road likely to kill anyone coming the other way
yet they let me carry on till i pulled into my estate .
of course looking for a safe place to stop me yet they had allegedly followed me doing 70mph about 3 miles previously ?
now it gets a little more interesting ,please read my next statement

ok can you get your calculators out again please gents

With the figures that came out i have been baffled with regards acceleration and top speed achieved ,i drive this road every day and would doubt a berlingo could get to 70mph in the time /distance involved .

I re read the officers statements and i took my sat nav home and measured the roads again .

ROUNDABOUT TO ROUNDABOUT IS .4 MILES or 704 yards not as i stated .7
i ran it and reran it tonight .could you get to 70mph for 300 yards in that time ,only one fat bloke in the van the driver 100kg

I went into the roundabout behind 3 cars i came out of came of the roundabout one van going in my direction and was travelling painfully slow i would have said 20-25 mph ,it was an old escort ,so i passed it, the police car behind me has stated they felt i had passed at an unsafe place so they waited till they had passed the hotel entrances on the right this left them .2 miles to get their bearings on me and follow me for 300 yards .2 miles is 352 yards which means we have to go into the roundabout which has a slight bend before at give or take 70mph to make their statement true .

assuming i have passed the van and accelerating at full speed where would i be when the police car passes the slow moving van say it is doing 30mph by now or even 40mph

This post has been edited by jimmythejock: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 - 19:04

Correct information in your first post would have negated this. People are busy. Please try to be accurate in your statement of facts.


Yes you could. Needing only about 80% of the vans capability.

The calculations and the police evidence are stacked against you. A little bit of research on Parker's Guide shows that a 1.9D Berlingo is capable of 0-60 in 16.6 s. That would make 25-70 possible in about 15.5 s. Furthermore, you would be able to maintain 70 mph for more than the 300 yds mentioned in the officer statements before having to brake for the roundabout.


Irrelevant. Even if the officers were mistaken in their statements as to the exact point at which they overtook the slow moving vehicle to follow you, the fact that TWO OFFICERS FORMED THE OPINION THAT YOU WERE SPEEDING, and CHECKED THIS AGAINST THE SPEEDMETER means you are fighting a losing battle. The court will prefer their evidence.

two policemen who wrote an untrue statement ,who were not trained to pursue alleged speeding cars , backed up with a speedometer that may or may not have been accurate ,(why do they have calibrated speedo,s ), that let me carry on for around three miles driving on the wrong side of the road at speeds of 70mph endangering other road users ,who came right up behind me then dropped off on more than one occasion .

yes i must be guilty ,i can see where your coming from now .

why do they waste so much money on fancy speed reading equipment and training specialist traffic officers when all that is required is two beat bobbies to watch the traffic and say "i think he is speeding , yep so do i " job done .

where does your expertise come from on this matter?

Jimmy,

With the greatest of respect, you have been given the answers to your questions. We've told you that the opinion of two officers (with or without a speedo) is sufficient evidence. I've told you that their possible lack of training (which is but an assumption right now) is not an issue. People have crunched the numbers for you.

All the "fancy equipment" is around so that one person can do the job of two people.

Really, what do you want? If you'd like us to agree with you and say "yep, mate, no way you're guilty" then that's fine but it might not help you so much when you walk out of court with a large fine and points plus costs. I'm sorry if you don't like the advice but it's honestly given.

While their statements may well be untrue, convincing the magistrates of this will be a very difficult task for you.


You asked in your OP whether or not the speed/time/distance calculations would back up your assertions that you could not have reached 70 mph. I don't think that is the case. We have answered your question(s). It is not the members of this forum you need to convince of your innocence, it is the magistrates.


Unfortunately, for us, the law allows for this. The 'fancy' equipment is used so that a single officer may corroborate his opinion without another officer being present.


I am not an expert in road traffic law. The calculations are A level physics.

By all means enlist an expert witness and a solicitor, and try the matter at court. If you don't win, remember there will be the prosecution costs to add to your own. Unfortunately, in criminal proceedings, as with civil, it is the man with the biggest cheque-book that often wins.

Your advice has been taken on board ,i had my facts wrong in the beginning which i have been chastised for by one of your colleagues , I am seeing a solicitor on thursday and he will have the final say on the matter.
I am VERY THANKFUL for the advice i have been given from everyone
The way it is served at times is very condescending that is not quite so palatable .



Thanks
would you have a link to that case please ?

I doubt it as it somewhat predates any computer recordings of cases which have since been migrated to the net...

Simon