PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] A20 speeding - ProlaserIII alleged 99mph
Kawasakirider90
post Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 13:45
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Aug 2018
From: Beckenham
Member No.: 99,379



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - April 2018
Date of the NIP: - 0 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 0 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A20 (BOURNEWOOD SAND AND GRAVEL) BR8
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 3
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I was riding my motorcycle home on the day of the alleged offense.
I was in lane 1 on the A20 and catching up a car in lane 1. I judged my speed to be around 70mph. I knew i was going faster than the car in front of me so i decided to move to lane 2 to overtake it. I glanced over my shoulder into lane 2 to check if it was clear to move. I saw a white bmw closing in on me rapidly. By the time that i had judged his speed and looked back in front of me the red car was very close. I decided to switch lanes to lane 2 and open the throttle to extend the distance between me and the closing bmw. The BMW moved into lane 3 and continued to close the gap and begin overtaking me.

I looked to my left to move back to lane 1 as i came off the throttle, and i saw a police car in the exit of the quarry on the A20. The police car was obstructed from view by a mound of earth and tall grass until after you have passed it.

I continued to reduce my speed and joined the back of traffic moving at approximately 50mph. The police car gave chase and caught me up and pulled in behind me. As we were nearing the next exit, "crittals corner", the police car turned on his lights and i left the carriageway and stopped at a safe location.

The officer from the passenger side approached me, i switched off the bike and removed my helmet. They asked me why i had been stopped and i declined to comment and then i was asked what speed i was going and i also declined to answer. I was informed i was doing 99mph. They performed the license checks and insurance checks and we were joined by the driver.

He stated the same allegation, told me he was trained in the use of the speed detection device and it was home office approved. Cautioned me. I declined to comment. I was told i would be reported for the consideration of intention to prosecute me for the offense. I declined to comment. The traffic stop ended and i continued on my way.

My thoughts are so far:

1) The land that the speed check was being conducted from is private land and the Met police do not have specific permission from the land owner to be there. Regardless of public access, have they conducted a health and safety assessment of the site that they are using and has a report being complied to ascertain the suitability of the site to conduct traffic enforcement operations? thoughts?

2) Standard checks to be investigated like training, calibration, trainer of police suitably qualified to train, errors in procedure etc. Points worth looking out for please

3) Two officers present, neither were outside the vehicle, speed reading taken from inside the car with a Prolaser III device. I assume but am not certain that the reading was taken from an open aperture because of the way the police car was parked. If so the only reasonable assumption would be from the passenger window. So wouldn't the passenger operate the device? he wasnt the officer than wrote the witness statement. both officers were wearing body cameras. could i request the footage from both camera from the time of parking up to the time if the alleged offense to cross examine their conduct?

4) A speed reding of 99mph at 367 feet. Bearing in mind there was no line of sight until AFTER i had passed the police vehicle and going away from him, and i was in lane 2 so a minimum of 5 metres from the police vehicle, the officer would have had 2.5 seconds to obtain visual contact of my motorbike, raise his speed detection device and as he says "lock on" to take a reading. I see this as a highly farfetched idea that he would be able to react so quickly. Therefore it brings doubt into my mind that he was indiscriminately targeting vehicles until he got a reading he was satisfied to pursue.

finally

5) There was mention of traffic conditions being light however one of my comments when i was stopped was the other car overtaking me and i questioned if the officer had missed me and hit the faster car. He said he would review the video, that was the last i heard of that. If there isn't video, or the video is inconclusive, what would my course of action be?

Small discrepancies such as the charge sheet stating one location and the officers statement stating a different location, and the charge sheet stating exceeding 70mph and the officer stating 50mph suggest that the officer doesn't know what speed he should be enforcing


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:45:40 +0000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 35)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 13:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 08:11
Post #21


Member


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



QUOTE (Colin_S @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 08:38) *
Probably totally coincidentaly (and IIRC), this is exactly the same location as the car that was stopped for speeding when his dash cam clearly showed he wasn't was 'pinged' from earlier this year.

I believe you're correct, although I think it was a little farther to the west (i.e. towards London).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kawasakirider90
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 10:14
Post #22


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Aug 2018
From: Beckenham
Member No.: 99,379



Thank you. I can estimate that the costs of fighting this will far outweigh a guilty plea.

Does anyone know where i can download a copy of the prolaser 3 operators manual. I'm having a little trouble locating it online.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 10:39
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Reference manual here, Operator's here.

Where you going with this?

This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 10:44


--------------------
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 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 12:39
Post #24


Member


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



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 11:14) *
Thank you. I can estimate that the costs of fighting this will far outweigh a guilty plea.

Does anyone know where i can download a copy of the prolaser 3 operators manual. I'm having a little trouble locating it online.

If you plead guilty you won't need the manual. If you plead Not Guilty it is unlikely to help you as you cannot say how the device was operated and even if you could you cannot say (without expert testimony) whether or not its possible mis-operation could or did lead to inaccuracies. If you raise such a technical defence (which you must warn the prosecution of beforehand) the prosecution is entitled to bring its own expert. The costs of doing so will be passed on to you in the event of conviction and the £620 normal maximum will increase - probably considerably.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flexeh
post Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 16:47
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,786



I notice the bit where you state about the checks prior to use over the calibration - Ie when they arrived on site and not at the station.

Just to advise - in my job we undertake speed checks using a device, and with that device we have the calbiration which is done by being sent away, however prior to use we also conduct our own calibration using a tool included with the device. Im not sure if the equipment you state above has its own tool, however i wanted to bring this to your attention incase infact it does come with its own.

The tool we use is a tuning fork which mimics 35mph. If the device does not show as 35mph we cannot and will not use it, I so suspect that the police should have something similar in place in regards to proceedures if "their" tool does not give the appropiate reading during their roadside test.

This post has been edited by flexeh: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 16:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 17:11
Post #26


Member


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



QUOTE (flexeh @ Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 17:47) *
I notice the bit where you state about the checks prior to use over the calibration - Ie when they arrived on site and not at the station.

Just to advise - in my job we undertake speed checks using a device, and with that device we have the calbiration which is done by being sent away, however prior to use we also conduct our own calibration using a tool included with the device. Im not sure if the equipment you state above has its own tool, however i wanted to bring this to your attention incase infact it does come with its own.

The tool we use is a tuning fork which mimics 35mph. If the device does not show as 35mph we cannot and will not use it, I so suspect that the police should have something similar in place in regards to proceedures if "their" tool does not give the appropiate reading during their roadside test.

That would be for a radar device, would it not? I suspect the police here used a laser device.


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 20:50
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (flexeh @ Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 17:47) *
I notice the bit where you state about the checks prior to use over the calibration - Ie when they arrived on site and not at the station.

Just to advise - in my job we undertake speed checks using a device, and with that device we have the calbiration which is done by being sent away, however prior to use we also conduct our own calibration using a tool included with the device. Im not sure if the equipment you state above has its own tool, however i wanted to bring this to your attention incase infact it does come with its own.

The tool we use is a tuning fork which mimics 35mph. If the device does not show as 35mph we cannot and will not use it, I so suspect that the police should have something similar in place in regards to proceedures if "their" tool does not give the appropiate reading during their roadside test.

What happens in other sectors is near enough irrelevant, especially as SP says you use radar which is a different kettle of fish.

I work for the NHS in a department where we use lasers to destroy kidney stones. Those lasers are calibrated to a fanatical degree, but it doesn't mean because it is possible to calibrate something more, it won't give a good enough reading for the purpose it is put to.

There is of course a tacit recognition that you can get false readings, albeit almost always from operator error. Ultimately a laser speed measurement is just a simple speed = distance/time calculation and is difficult to produce an erroneous number. That is why the reading should be paired with an assessment from the officer. That may sound flaky but ultimately I have a pretty good idea of what a bike doing a ton vs a bike doing 70 looks like. I would imagine if you do it as you day job you get fairly accurate.

Ultimately courts do not require evidence to be perfect to find it reliable and admissible. If tested the police officer will say they are trained to do this, etc. Calibration could cast reasonable doubt on that but not normally without some form of further corroboration or explanation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 23:01
Post #28


Member
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:59) *
That (the evidence being thrown out) might happen but legally I see no reason why it should. Factual evidence, such as the reading produced by a prescribed device, needs no corroboration and as such no prior opinion is necessary.


ISTR that actively operated devices were supposedly only approved to corroborate the opinion of the operator, and that supposedly was the basis on which they were tested (and that most if not all devices are only approved "as tested"). ISTR (again) that the type approval process included any housing to be used, and that use of a stand-alone device through glass constituted an unapproved housing.

IIRC these assertions came from ACPO RPETC and/or RSS documents/statements.

However, the courts seem to be interpreting anything which appears to assist the accused in relation to a type approval issue in accordance with the rules of "Simon says".


--------------------
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
Kawasakirider90
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:02
Post #29


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Aug 2018
From: Beckenham
Member No.: 99,379



I didn't understand a word or what you said. Sorry
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 18:06
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:02) *
I didn't understand a word or what you said. Sorry

Basically, any speed camera or measuring device in the UK has type approval from the Home Office with not always amazingly rigorous testing. It offers a big advantage to the prosecution because it means the evidence can be bought through a piece of legislation that means they are assumed to be correct unless the defence proves otherwise, rather than the normal case of the prosecution needing to prove the evidence is reliable.

Andy's point is that if they weren't using it with all the equipment specified in the type approval then arguably they wouldn't be able to use that provision.

The issue would be that this isn't a common defence, and so the chances of success are unknown. It would rely on both

1. The court accepting that using the device without the accessories used in the type approval meant the type approval was not valid, and

2. Even if that was the case the court not accepting the readings as real evidence, and then finding that they were reliable.

The only case I know of was one on here where the magistrates basically said the prosecution couldn't chop and change how they wanted to introduce the same piece of evidence. But that was in a case where the speed camera had already been shown to be unreliable - and it was for that reason that it didn't meet type approval. Obviously an error in operating the device is significantly less strong, or is at least a more technical argument which would increase the risk of expensive "expert" ex cops being bought in for their opinion by the CPS.

I think it would be a difficult avenue to pursue, but I think it is an avenue Andy knows a lot about and so could give a more nuanced opinion.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 18:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 20:40
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 19:06) *
QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:02) *
I didn't understand a word or what you said. Sorry

Basically, any speed camera or measuring device in the UK has type approval from the Home Office with not always amazingly rigorous testing. It offers a big advantage to the prosecution because it means the evidence can be bought through a piece of legislation that means they are assumed to be correct unless the defence proves otherwise, rather than the normal case of the prosecution needing to prove the evidence is reliable.

I stand to be corrected but as far as I know, at common law a machine is presumed to be working correctly unless the contrary is shown. I don't believe this is affected by how the evidence is introduced.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 21:37
Post #32


Member


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



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 19:06) *
QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:02) *
I didn't understand a word or what you said. Sorry

Basically, any speed camera or measuring device in the UK has type approval from the Home Office with not always amazingly rigorous testing. It offers a big advantage to the prosecution because it means the evidence can be bought through a piece of legislation that means they are assumed to be correct unless the defence proves otherwise, rather than the normal case of the prosecution needing to prove the evidence is reliable.

I would suggest “half right”. A device must be type approved in order for a record produced by it to be admissible under s 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Section 20 is a “short cut” to introduce evidence without it having to be led by a live witness (potentially).

That is separate to the question of whether the device is presumed to be working correctly (lots of non-approved devices are presumed to be working correctly, the rule long pre-dates the concept of an approved device).


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 22:05
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Perhaps I have phrased it poorly but that was what I was getting at... if you want to produce a bloody dagger as evidence then you have to provide something extra to make it reliable, be that statements, chain of custody, etc.

S20 skips that somewhat. It isn't a defence, but if proved the device wasn't operated in line with type approval conditions it lowers the bar in terms of defence evidence that the device was unreliable.

Potentially if the OP is saying he believes there was an issue with the aiming of the laser, and the device was operated without accessories designed to assist that aim, then it could be the beginnings of a defence case.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 22:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 23:07
Post #34


Member


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



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 23:05) *
Perhaps I have phrased it poorly but that was what I was getting at... if you want to produce a bloody dagger as evidence then you have to provide something extra to make it reliable, be that statements, chain of custody, etc.


I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Provenance?

QUOTE
Potentially if the OP is saying he believes there was an issue with the aiming of the laser, and the device was operated without accessories designed to assist that aim, then it could be the beginnings of a defence case.

For which he would need expert evidence.


--------------------
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
go2ready
post Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 10:48
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 6 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,825



Police have stopped me at the same location, sitting at the same quarry, alleygating me doing 110mph while I was doing like 68-70 under the speed limit is 70mph last year.

Here is my case of your interest

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117897

However since I am sure I was not speeding, I complaint to their manager and got an apologetic letters regarding the investigation of this incident.

In short, according to the officer' manager,

"He was sure that someone was speeding at 110mph, and was sure that was me. But after he went back to the office, he became less sure so the incident is not even reported."

"Wrong doing one, He could have let you know to save you worrying but he didn't."

"Wrong doing two, when challenging at the road side, he could have view/show me the 'Clear Tone' camera recording in his car, but he didn't."

I don't know if you will find it useful, but the manager did suggest that they keep this 'Clear Tone' video recording as evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StationCat
post Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 15:20
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 324
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



Generally, for a hand-held laser device it will be sent to the supplier annually to be checked and come back with a certificate to say its is working correctly (known as calibration). Each shift that the device is used it will be checked against a measured distance, i.e. at the station there will be a target at a known distance and this distance is measured with the device. If it matches the known distance then it is deemed to operating correctly- since speed is the rate of change of distance over time, a reading of zero mph at the correct distance shows the device can calculate the speed properly (laser speed guns measure time and calculate speed). A further check is the alignment of the invisible laser beam with the red dot in the scope. This is done by setting the device into a tone mode and sweeping the beam across a narrow object like a post, checking that the return signal tone matches the red dot moving across the post. These check are normally done before and after any enforcement. These processes are usually outlined in the operating manual and form part of the user's training.


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
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 - 16:54
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