PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Big boys trouble, 74.88 in a 40
RossM3
post Sun, 10 Jun 2007 - 16:33
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



Hi all, been reading your excellent forum for quite a while now but now unfortunately find myself in the position of needing to post.
I was pulled over by an accompanied police officer on the 5th February. (He pulled out of a side road behind me & recorded my speed over .239 of a mile). The officer 'checked' the speed of my vehicle with a Police Provida 2000 which was mounted in his unmarked vehicle. I was given a verbal NIP at the roadside & viewed the video in the police car. I never received a NIP, & have now received a summons for doing 74 in a 40. I am due in court in 2 weeks.
What I would like to know is: Would it be worth trying to get the video evidence before my court date & take it to a solicitor in the hope of finding some discrepancy? Or should i just go to court, plead guilty & hope the mags appreciate my mitigation? (Which I haven't decided yet). Thanks in advance , I hope this post isnt too rambling to follow...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 10 Jun 2007 - 16:33
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 10 Jun 2007 - 17:11
Post #2


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Were you doing that speed?
Were you warned that you would be reported for consideration of prosecution for the offence of exceeding the speed limit (or words to that effect)?


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RossM3
post Sun, 10 Jun 2007 - 19:08
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



Hi Andy, I am not sure what speed I was travelling at, although I would say it was well over 40. I saw the lights of the unmarked car approaching rapidly in the mirror, he tailgated me so I accelerated slightly, then moved into the left hand lane. (I was in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway with a central reservation when he took the speed reading).
This is the officer's witness statement.
"At 2226hrs on Monday the 5th of February 2007, I was on duty on mobile traffic patrol in Lewes Road, Brighton. I was in an unmarked Traffic Patrol vehicle HT***. This vehicle is fitted with a Police Provida 2000 Speed Detection Device. This device incorporates a video recording system.
At this location I saw a BMW M3, registration number ***, travelling east, at a speed which I estimated to be in excess of the 40mph speed limit that exists on that road.
I checked the speed of the vehicle using the device by activating the timing function as the headlights of the BMW came level with a street lamp at the side of the road. I activated the distance measuring function as my vehicle headlights came level with the same street lamp. I stopped the timing function as the BMW came level with another street light and stopped the distance measuring function as my vehicle came level with the same light. The distance between these two points was .239 of a mile and the time that the BMW took to cover this distance was 11.49 seconds. This equated to an average speed of 74.88mph. These readings were automatically locked onto the instrument display.

The vehicle was stopped on the A27 east bound carriageway at the Newmarket petrol station and I spoke to the driver, a person now known to me as Ross <surname>, born <DOB> of <address>, Sussex, <postcode>.

I said to him "The speed on Lewes road is restricted to 40 mph. Your speed has been checked and recorded at 74 mph".

I then said, " This is an offence for which you will be reported for the consideration of the question of prosecuting you for excessive speed". I cautioned him to which i cautioned him (sic) and he replied "Ok."
The driver was given the opportunity to view the video recording of his driving and the speed recorded and he accepted. I therefore showed Mr.<surname> this recording which I can produce as an exhibit marked ***/1. I said, "Do you have any of your driving documents with you?" He then told me that he did not. I said to him" I require you to produce your driving licence, MOT and insurance certificate at a Police Station of your choice, within seven days from midnight tonight. Failure to do so is an offence for which you will be reported. Which Police Station would like to produce them at?"
He replied "<town>
I the issued him with form HORT/1.
At the time there were no 'L' plates displayed on the vehicle and he was accompanied.
The vehicle was first registered in June 2001.
Mr <surname> produced a number of form of identification to confirm his identity to me.
At the time the weather conditions were dry, visibility was good and traffic volume was moderate.
The Police Provida 2000 is a device approved by the secretary of state and I am a trained operator."
END
Most of this is accurate apart from the fact that there was almost no other traffic. The speed limit changes to a 60 a couple of hundred yards from where he started to follow me. So what do you reckon? Waste of time & money chasing the evidence & going to a solicitor? Also can doubt be thrown on the reliability of the Provida? I must admit I'm cacking it a bit.
Cheers, Ross.

This post has been edited by RossM3: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 - 19:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RossM3
post Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 16:14
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



So, just been back to check out the road where i was stopped. The bib pulled out from being parked up in a side road about 100 yards before the 40mph zone turned into a 60mph zone. I don't think that he couldve caught me in time to record my speed in the 40 zone, & hopefully 74 in a 60 is less harshly punished than 74 in a 40?
Anyone got any idea whether i can obtain the video evidence without pleading NG first?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemo
post Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 16:34
Post #5


Member


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



QUOTE (RossM3 @ Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 17:14) *
So, just been back to check out the road where i was stopped. The bib pulled out from being parked up in a side road about 100 yards before the 40mph zone turned into a 60mph zone. I don't think that he couldve caught me in time to record my speed in the 40 zone, & hopefully 74 in a 60 is less harshly punished than 74 in a 40?

IMO, discrediting the officer's testimony such that the case is dismissed altogether is a very big ask - roadside pulls are notoriously difficult to defend (unless you can afford Nick Freeman, of course)..

Accepting the above, have you considered requesting a Newton Hearing ? This occurs when a defendant pleads guilty to the offence, but on the basis of a different version of the facts from that of the prosecution ie. you do not dispute that you were speeding, but you do dispute the speed alleged, or more to the point, the amount you were exceeding the posted limit by. As you say, the penalty upon conviction for 74 in a 60 is going to be way less than that for 74 in a 40..

This post has been edited by nemo: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 16:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RossM3
post Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 16:43
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



QUOTE (nemo @ Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 17:34) *
QUOTE (RossM3 @ Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 17:14) *
So, just been back to check out the road where i was stopped. The bib pulled out from being parked up in a side road about 100 yards before the 40mph zone turned into a 60mph zone. I don't think that he couldve caught me in time to record my speed in the 40 zone, & hopefully 74 in a 60 is less harshly punished than 74 in a 40?

IMO, discrediting the officer's testimony such that the case is dismissed altogether is a very big ask - roadside pulls are notoriously difficult to defend (unless you can afford Nick Freeman, of course)..

Accepting the above, have you considered requesting a Newton Hearing ? This occurs when a defendant pleads guilty to the offence, but on the basis of a different version of the facts from that of the prosecution ie. you do not dispute that you were speeding, but you do dispute the speed alleged, or more to the point, the amount you were exceeding the posted limit by. As you say, the penalty upon conviction for 74 in a 60 is going to be way less than that for 74 in a 40..


I do accept that i was speeding. A Newton Hearing sounds like a preferable option, the only problem being that I'm not sure whether they have evidence that i was speeding in the 40 zone or whether i was into the 60 zone before they caught up with me. Is it possible for me to get a copy of the video to ascertain for myself whereabouts they began recording my speed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemo
post Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 18:50
Post #7


Member


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



QUOTE (RossM3 @ Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 17:43) *
I do accept that i was speeding. A Newton Hearing sounds like a preferable option, the only problem being that I'm not sure whether they have evidence that i was speeding in the 40 zone or whether i was into the 60 zone before they caught up with me.

The officer's statement says that, to determine your average speed, they did a follow check rather than a pre-fed distance check. The start point of the follow check would probably have been somewhere near the side road. If the side road to the 60mph limit was only 100 yards, then the stop point (420 yards later) must have been well into the 60mph limit.

Whilst no expert, I doubt that in the 2 or 3 seconds they would have had to pull out of the side road before you entered the 60mph limit (assuming it is only 100 yards), that they would have been able to obtain sufficient evidence to prove that you were travelling in excess of 70mph in the 40mph limit. Its likely that a decent solicitor would have a field day on that score.

That said, whilst I remain doubtful that they could prove such a high excess speed in the 40 zone, the evidence that you exceeded the limit in the 60mph zone would be more conclusive IMO - hence the suggestion to request a Newton Hearing..

QUOTE (RossM3 @ Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 17:43) *
Is it possible for me to get a copy of the video to ascertain for myself whereabouts they began recording my speed?

Probably not without entering a plea of not guilty..

But, as above, the patrol car must pass between the same two points as the target vehicle. As such, the start point must have been less than 100 yards from the change in limit.

This post has been edited by nemo: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 19:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RossM3
post Mon, 18 Jun 2007 - 21:45
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



Thanks nemo, that's a great help. Gonna get me a good solicitor & try to go for a Newton Hearing as you suggested. Will let you know how I get on! Cheers, Ross.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chadders
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 07:56
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,654
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
From: Leeds / Manchester
Member No.: 1,888



QUOTE
The bib pulled out from being parked up in a side road about 100 yards before the 40mph zone turned into a 60mph zone.


QUOTE ("Statement")
The distance between these two points was .239 of a mile and the time that the BMW took to cover this distance was 11.49 seconds. This equated to an average speed of 74.88mph. These readings were automatically locked onto the instrument display.


QUOTE ("google")
0.239 mile = 420.64 yards


A nice map may help to show your possible scenarios, showing that you were speeding up to enter the 60mph stretch (allbeit a bit to quickly!).

edit: just as an incentive review Magistrate's Guidelines, 75mph in a 40mph is just on the cusp of 4-5 points versus 3points for 75mph in a 60mph.

further edit: I got the word "cusp" in... brilliant.

p.s. and being an M3 quite capable of a quick acceleration, rather than having to winding it up on the run up to the 60mph stretch!

This post has been edited by chadders: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 08:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sal_park
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 12:16
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
From: Hertfordshire
Member No.: 3,239



QUOTE (RossM3)
I was in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway


Erm, was the dual carriageway* a 60 limit or national speed limit (black and whites) ?

If it was NSL then the limit would be 70 not 60.

sal_park


* btw a dual carriageway is a road where the directions of travel are seperated by a verge and has nothing to do with the number of lanes.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RossM3
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 14:18
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



QUOTE (sal_park @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 13:16) *
QUOTE (RossM3)
I was in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway


Erm, was the dual carriageway* a 60 limit or national speed limit (black and whites) ?

If it was NSL then the limit would be 70 not 60.

sal_park


* btw a dual carriageway is a road where the directions of travel are seperated by a verge and has nothing to do with the number of lanes.


It was 40mph, two lanes with a central res., going into 3 lanes with NSL signs. I always thought the NSL was 60 except on a Motorway?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RossM3
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 14:26
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



QUOTE (chadders @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 08:56) *
QUOTE
The bib pulled out from being parked up in a side road about 100 yards before the 40mph zone turned into a 60mph zone.


QUOTE ("Statement")
The distance between these two points was .239 of a mile and the time that the BMW took to cover this distance was 11.49 seconds. This equated to an average speed of 74.88mph. These readings were automatically locked onto the instrument display.


QUOTE ("google")
0.239 mile = 420.64 yards


A nice map may help to show your possible scenarios, showing that you were speeding up to enter the 60mph stretch (allbeit a bit to quickly!).

edit: just as an incentive review Magistrate's Guidelines, 75mph in a 40mph is just on the cusp of 4-5 points versus 3points for 75mph in a 60mph.

further edit: I got the word "cusp" in... brilliant.

p.s. and being an M3 quite capable of a quick acceleration, rather than having to winding it up on the run up to the 60mph stretch!

Cusp, good word! When you mention a nice map, do you mean to take to court to show the magistrate? I went back to properly check the distance (using car's trip odometer) from the side road where i was ambushed to the NSL zone. Its just over 0.4 of a mile! Whoops quite a bit further than 100 yards!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemo
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 14:27
Post #13


Member


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



QUOTE (RossM3 @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:18) *
I always thought the NSL was 60 except on a Motorway?

Not so..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chadders
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 14:32
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,654
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
From: Leeds / Manchester
Member No.: 1,888



So it sounds likely they have you in the 40 mph stretch... ultimately there is video evidence that will settle this matter. If there's any doubt, request a copy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RossM3
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 14:38
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



QUOTE (chadders @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:32) *
So it sounds likely they have you in the 40 mph stretch... ultimately there is video evidence that will settle this matter. If there's any doubt, request a copy.

Am i entitled to request a copy without entering a plea? (If I am bang to rights on the video I assume it would help my cause to get a timely Guilty plea in?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RossM3
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 14:42
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



QUOTE (chadders @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:32) *
So it sounds likely they have you in the 40 mph stretch... ultimately there is video evidence that will settle this matter. If there's any doubt, request a copy.

The thing that put it into my head that they didnt get close enough to record until the NSL zone was the fact that there were several safe places they could've pulled me over after the 40 zone. They waited until much further down the road, well into the NSL zone. Unless they were just giving me a chance to do something even more stupid before I noticed they were bib?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
patdavies
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 14:52
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,353
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Newbury
Member No.: 1,625



QUOTE (RossM3 @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:42) *
QUOTE (chadders @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:32) *
So it sounds likely they have you in the 40 mph stretch... ultimately there is video evidence that will settle this matter. If there's any doubt, request a copy.

The thing that put it into my head that they didnt get close enough to record until the NSL zone was the fact that there were several safe places they could've pulled me over after the 40 zone. They waited until much further down the road, well into the NSL zone. Unless they were just giving me a chance to do something even more stupid before I noticed they were bib?


If the 40 mph limit was only 100 yds from the turning, they are not going to be able to stop you within it from a standing start from a side turning.

They do not need to do a 'straight' follow check. They used VASCAR/PROVIDA

What everybody seems to be missing is that there were two officers (i assume that there was a statement form the other one) - their opinion alone is enough to convict.

This post has been edited by patdavies: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 14:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
patdavies
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 14:54
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,353
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Newbury
Member No.: 1,625



QUOTE
I was in an unmarked Traffic Patrol vehicle HT***.


Feel free to quote the VRM in full for the unmarked police car. Make/model would be helpful also
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RossM3
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:03
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,375



QUOTE (patdavies @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:52) *
QUOTE (RossM3 @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:42) *
QUOTE (chadders @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:32) *
So it sounds likely they have you in the 40 mph stretch... ultimately there is video evidence that will settle this matter. If there's any doubt, request a copy.

The thing that put it into my head that they didnt get close enough to record until the NSL zone was the fact that there were several safe places they could've pulled me over after the 40 zone. They waited until much further down the road, well into the NSL zone. Unless they were just giving me a chance to do something even more stupid before I noticed they were bib?


If the 40 mph limit was only 100 yds from the turning, they are not going to be able to stop you within it from a standing start from a side turning.

They do not need to do a 'straight' follow check. They used VASCAR/PROVIDA
.
What everybody seems to be missing is that there were two officers (i assume that there was a statement form the other one) - their opinion alone is enough to convict.

100 yards was my v. poor estimate the other day. As in above I checked it today and its more like 0.4 of a mile. They followed me for at least another mile.(estimate)
Sorry I cant work out how to cut out a section of your post to reply to.. but there were 2 officers in the car. Only one seems to have made a statement though, does this mean the other officer is irrelevant?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemo
post Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:07
Post #20


Member


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



QUOTE (patdavies @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:52) *
They do not need to do a 'straight' follow check. They used VASCAR/PROVIDA..

True, they don't. But in this instance, they did..

QUOTE (Officer's statement)
I checked the speed of the vehicle using the device by activating the timing function as the headlights of the BMW came level with a street lamp at the side of the road. I activated the distance measuring function as my vehicle headlights came level with the same street lamp. I stopped the timing function as the BMW came level with another street light and stopped the distance measuring function as my vehicle came level with the same light.


QUOTE (patdavies @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 - 15:52) *
What everybody seems to be missing is that there were two officers (i assume that there was a statement form the other one) - their opinion alone is enough to convict.

Yes.. But would that not require to be stated within the the officer's statement ? The single statement provided thus far by RossM3 refers solely to the Provida system providing the corroboration. No mention is made of any corroboration being made his colleague..
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:23
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