PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Alleged speeding offence
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



.

This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:47
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,544
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:37) *
Thanks for the advice. My head is spinning on this TBH. It's not fair how they operate with impunity, I wanted to stand against the way I was treated and how the Police and CPS conduct themselves in situations like this. I did not knowingly exceed the limit, I had my boy in the car. Motorbikes went past the van at silly speeds and I didn't even see the van until it was too late as other cars and the garage signage was obscuring the view - literally it was heavy traffic flow. People drive at this speed all of the time, just the other day cars were passing a Police car at 80mph.

So unless I manage ending up with a Magistrate that dislikes Police and favours all my points about the principle of the matter, I am certainly toast.

Unfortunately nobody is given a sporting chance of doing 79 without getting caught, so you cannot complaint about being "caught" unfairly. There are some requirements the authorities must abide by (and I stress there is no indication they have failed to comply with their legal duties in this case), however the way the court would look at it, speeding is a strict liability offence and it is up to you to make every effort to ensure that you do not exceed 70.

The fact that you didn't see the van is something you really shouldn't mention, even if you plead guilty and simply make submissions in mitigation. The magistrates might take that as an admission that, had there been no van, you would have had no qualms about driving over 70.



--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:48
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,264
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Principles can be expensive. If you are to defend you need to focus on something particular - my 'fishing trip' reference earlier was basically that. You seem to be scouring any possible loophole which is unlikely to be there.

Post #6 covered what matters but it doesn't not appear you have something that will convince the bench. A procedural error may still be there but it's not a sound strategy.

You mention mitigation - that’s trying to limit the impact. (I.e. the allegation is accepted)


--------------------
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

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
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:53
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,544
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:38) *
QUOTE
We still don't have a clear picture of what happened when

What do you need to know or see?

To form a complete picture, to be honest we'd need to post all the paperwork you've sent and received since the start, really it would have been much better if you'd posted on here when you first got the first NIP. If your hearing is tomorrow I'm not sure there's much point now.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:05
Post #24


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



.

This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:06
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:05) *
I may adjorn the case anyway as the cps were late in confirming disclosure, which wasn't my fault.

You keep saying this. For the avoidance of doubt, it's not up to you whether an adjournment is granted. You can only make an application, which the court can decline or accept.


--------------------


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
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:24
Post #26


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



How should I send the documents? I have about 40-odd of them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fh3hd7dh3d1qz
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:27
Post #27


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,872



If its a LTI laser speed measuring device, pull the patent from the US. In the patent they openly admit the device can get speed readings off stationary objects.
You may wonder why?

Well basically this is a device which uses light as a constant velocity, although some scientists would like to point out, light is not a constant velocity anyway as heat hazes on the road, fog, wet weather and other types of weather demonstrate.
It fires 3 beams of laser light which spread out over distance, measured in radians and then reflects off objects back to the sensor in the device which detects the reflection.
Now whilst there is some beam spread, the device also has a very high tech device a tube over the sensor so it limits the reflections from the periphery. If you have ever held up a toilet roll to your eye or used binoculars you will see how these block out everything from the periphery.

The 3 beams of light are emitted over a 0.3second window. An algorithm on the device measures the intensity of the reflections for each laser projection and then takes the 3 from each which have matching light intensity.

Problem with this algorithm is that, you are not guaranteed to have got a reflection from the same part of the vehicle. This is what is called SLIP as the device is panned to track the vehicle when obtaining the speed measurement.
If your vehicle is 2.1 metres long, then this process has the accuracy of being + or - 30mph unless you are directly in front or behind the vehicle.

In UK courts, as its magistrates you wont change the law, you need to go to high court or crown court to set a legal presidence, and in the interests of fairness you need to state what evidence you plan to rely on in court in order for the CPS to build a defence against it, if they need to.

There is so much misdirection put out by thse laser handhelds, all you need to do is stick to the laws of Physics, it is after all a very basic version of what is being used in driverless vehicles so the legal system can not pick and choose what laws of physics they want to apply and what they want to ignore.

So anyway as there is no way to get light to identify where its come from in a reflection other than changing its wavelength ie colour, all you need to ask the CPS to do is provide the evidence which states what parts of the vehicle the reflections come from.

They wont be able to do this, its impossible in this device to do this unlike the LIDAR systems in the driverless cars, so they can either choose to mess you around because they know your mobile phone was logging onto cell masts near the roads you were travelling on at the time more quickly than would be expected for someone sticking to the speed limit or they can drop it.

Either way, if you cant get this info and need to blag it in court, then perhaps you might be able to get away with pointing out that standard common knowledge scientific information should not have to be submitted as evidence, in order to challenge the CPS lawyers just like you wouldnt expect to have confirm you would be speaking English in court, or using the Hexadecimal number method instead of decimal as its common practice in the UK.


-------
If teachers explained how physics can be used to get off speeding tickets, they might find male pupils do better at physics.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:38
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,264
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Yes, things are possible but matters are presumed correct unless the contrary is shown.


--------------------
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

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
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:58
Post #29


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:27) *
If its a LTI laser speed measuring device, pull the patent from the US. In the patent they openly admit the device can get speed readings off stationary objects.
You may wonder why?

Well basically this is a device which uses light as a constant velocity, although some scientists would like to point out, light is not a constant velocity anyway as heat hazes on the road, fog, wet weather and other types of weather demonstrate.
It fires 3 beams of laser light which spread out over distance, measured in radians and then reflects off objects back to the sensor in the device which detects the reflection.
Now whilst there is some beam spread, the device also has a very high tech device a tube over the sensor so it limits the reflections from the periphery. If you have ever held up a toilet roll to your eye or used binoculars you will see how these block out everything from the periphery.

The 3 beams of light are emitted over a 0.3second window. An algorithm on the device measures the intensity of the reflections for each laser projection and then takes the 3 from each which have matching light intensity.

Problem with this algorithm is that, you are not guaranteed to have got a reflection from the same part of the vehicle. This is what is called SLIP as the device is panned to track the vehicle when obtaining the speed measurement.
If your vehicle is 2.1 metres long, then this process has the accuracy of being + or - 30mph unless you are directly in front or behind the vehicle.

In UK courts, as its magistrates you wont change the law, you need to go to high court or crown court to set a legal presidence, and in the interests of fairness you need to state what evidence you plan to rely on in court in order for the CPS to build a defence against it, if they need to.

There is so much misdirection put out by thse laser handhelds, all you need to do is stick to the laws of Physics, it is after all a very basic version of what is being used in driverless vehicles so the legal system can not pick and choose what laws of physics they want to apply and what they want to ignore.

So anyway as there is no way to get light to identify where its come from in a reflection other than changing its wavelength ie colour, all you need to ask the CPS to do is provide the evidence which states what parts of the vehicle the reflections come from.

They wont be able to do this, its impossible in this device to do this unlike the LIDAR systems in the driverless cars, so they can either choose to mess you around because they know your mobile phone was logging onto cell masts near the roads you were travelling on at the time more quickly than would be expected for someone sticking to the speed limit or they can drop it.

Either way, if you cant get this info and need to blag it in court, then perhaps you might be able to get away with pointing out that standard common knowledge scientific information should not have to be submitted as evidence, in order to challenge the CPS lawyers just like you wouldnt expect to have confirm you would be speaking English in court, or using the Hexadecimal number method instead of decimal as its common practice in the UK.


-------
If teachers explained how physics can be used to get off speeding tickets, they might find male pupils do better at physics.


It is a:

reflex laser cam sl

Interesting... :-) What about this camera then?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:01
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,589
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



If you attempt a defence based on the information in post #27, you may find the court does order an adjournment at the request of the prosecution as this was something you did not raise at the case management hearing. The CPS will then bring an expert witness to the adjourned trial in order to refute these points. Unless you have your own expert witness to support you, your defence is certain to be shot down. Even with your own expert witness that is very likely, as was the case with Dr Science, which you can find by searching on here. If you lose you will be ordered to pay the costs of the CPS expert witness which might be of the order of £2000.

I can only agree with the points previously made, guidelines are just that and failure to follow them is not in itself a defence, you would have to show that the reading was actually affected. Many of these guidelines are quite irrelevant to the actual measurement anyway. There is no defence in failing to display warning signs, failure to act against other vehicles or speculation about what MIGHT have affected the reading. The cosine effect can only act to give a lower reading of speed.

On the basis of what you have written here, your best bet is to change your plea to guilty and save some of what this will otherwise cost you.


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:09
Post #31


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868





Please let me know when you have downloaded the fille

This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fh3hd7dh3d1qz
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:15
Post #32


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,872



I'll add one other thing, anyone with an interest in something can declare themselves as an expert witness in court under English law, so if you plan to represent yourself and rely on the above info, also state your interest and thus your assertion you will be standing as an expert witness despite the obvious conflict of interest.

Bottom line is, they can only use wavelength and light intensity in the algo to work out _a_ speed, the device is totally and utterly incapable of determining where the reflections came from on the vehicle and for the reason the speed reading can only be taken as an estimate due to the margin of error the length of the vehicle introduces to the equation.

I'd even be happy to download the firmware on any of these devices, reverse engineer the code to prove this, if anyone has a device. All I need to do, is open up the device, attach a clip of sorts like a SOIC clip and then download the firmware using flashrom and a raspberrypi!

If anyone knows the part number of the light sensor, you can look up the part number online and then see whats its exact properties are, quite likely only recording light intensity, which makes it even easier to destroy in court.


Unfortunately I've never been able to escalate this to Crown Court to set a legal precedence.

I'll leave it up to your conscience if you want to use this info, because I can tell you now, theres more ways than this to tell if someone is speeding with the technology most of us use.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:20
Post #33


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



.

This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:20
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,264
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



This isn't helping the OP and is getting surreal.

The length of the vehicle is likely to be totally irrelevant here unless the OP can show the laser was 'slipped'. I wish I could see the video.

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:15) *
If anyone knows the part number of the light sensor, you can look up the part number online and then see whats its exact properties are, quite likely only recording light intensity, which makes it even easier to destroy in court.

...and Logician's summary of a £2k bill is more likely for this flight of fantasy.


--------------------
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

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
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:22
Post #35


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:20) *
This isn't helping the OP and is getting surreal.

The length of the vehicle is likely to be totally irrelevant here unless the OP can show the laser was 'slipped'. I wish I could see the video.

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:15) *
If anyone knows the part number of the light sensor, you can look up the part number online and then see whats its exact properties are, quite likely only recording light intensity, which makes it even easier to destroy in court.

...and Logician's summary of a £2k bill is more likely for this flight of fantasy.


I wish I could see the video, but apparently there isn't one with these Lasercam Flex SL things, they store pictures.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:35
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,544
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:20) *
"Unfortunately I've never been able to escalate this to Crown Court to set a legal precedence."

Why not? I'm just wondering how this would go down even tomorrow.

BTW to the others - I don't want this alternative idea to sidetrack any conventional ideas.

Have you changed address between the date of the offence and today, and if so when?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:39
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:15) *
I'll add one other thing, anyone with an interest in something can declare themselves as an expert witness in court under English law


Not really. The court has to accept that they are, in fact, an expert.

QUOTE
so if you plan to represent yourself and rely on the above info, also state your interest and thus your assertion you will be standing as an expert witness despite the obvious conflict of interest.


Despite the obvious conflict of interest? That instantly disqualifies him from being an expert witness, even if he met the other criteria.

QUOTE
Unfortunately I've never been able to escalate this to Crown Court to set a legal precedence.


Precedent isn’t set in the Crown Court either.

Go and read Rule 3.


--------------------


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
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:40
Post #38


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



.

This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:44
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,264
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



The statement mentions pre and post checks.

I'd estimate the angle of measurement at 8 degrees - so the measured speed is 99% of the actual. (There's a foreshortening effect on the camera) Whilst the accuracy of the device may be given as +/-1mph that works both ways, along with the cosine effect and rounding down.

It's a good enough shot to convict for me.


--------------------
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

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
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:46
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,544
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



So from looking at the paperwork, there is a very different picture from your rambling open post (Sorry not having a dig here, I'm just trying to be objective). It appears for some reason the DVLA did not have your correct address, so the first NIP was returned as undeliverable. It was not lost by the CPS.

The police somehow tracked down your correct address and sent a new NIP, but by the time you returned it, it was too late to go on a course, so they offered you a fixed penalty. Regardless of who was at fault for the first NIP being returned, you should have really accepted the fixed penalty at that point. You refused the fixed penalty, and now you're going to court as a result.

For future reference, you cannot "impose" deadlines on the CPS or anyone else, also do not include wording like "without prejudice" or "claim against me", that sort of terminology is for civil cases and is irrelevant for a criminal case (and using the wrong terminology conveys the impression you don't know what you're doing).

The witness statement is reasonably detailed and I cannot see any obvious evidential flaws. I think you should plead guilty and ask for leniency in light of the fact that the excess was modest.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:40) *
I changed my address literally in between the alleged offence and them finding my details on the insurance database. I made all the changes legally. They didn't pick it up somehow so it was returned to them, hence the material that shows it was returned to them. I didn't know they didn't pick it up so I questioned the 14 days.

It's now academic, but did you arrange for your post to be forwarded, or to go and pick it up?
Regardless, in your position I would have accepted the fixed penalty when it was offered.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Wednesday, 14th November 2018 - 16:33
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.