Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Speeding help
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Vinboy
My first forum, so hope it works.
Yesterday I was on my motorbike traveling through a quiet village. Up pops a yellow vest 30 yards in front of me and points a device at me. On passing the chap, I noticed he was a Community Support Officer, with what looked like a radar gun, now under his arm. He got out his notebook and I assume wrote down my reg after I had passed. Can I be prosecuted if he caught me, even though I was not stopped, and there is no camera evidence ? .
southpaw82
Yes. They'd have to serve a notice of intended prosecution on the registered keeper within 14 days.
jobo
edit
ict_guy
I take it you have a legal number plate (correct size with the correct font etc etc)? Many of us bikers have a slightly smaller plate/font and risk the £30 non endorsable fixed penalty, but it does make it slightly harder to read at a quick glance rolleyes.gif

How fast do you think you may have been going?
Vinboy
Thanks, standard number plate and probably about 40 mph !!
ict_guy
QUOTE (Vinboy @ Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 16:18) *
Thanks, standard number plate and probably about 40 mph !!


Like Southpaw has said, the NIP must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days of the offence. That speed would certainly be an offer of a fixed penalty - 3 points and £60 fine. Or, you may be eligable for a speed awareness course, you'll have to wait and see.
Vinboy
Thanks. My queery is therefore the officers word againt mine, with no photo evidence, and not being stopped at the time. I thought they had to show the evidence ? Also, can I claim that the device may have caught the following traffic as I am such a narrow target ?
southpaw82
The word of one witness corroborated by an approved device is sufficient evidence to convict you. There is no requirement for photos or video. You can claim what you like but the CSO will no doubt claim they targeted you and unless you can show otherwise it'll be difficult to disprove that.
Vinboy
THanks for that. THe ACPO guidelines suggest that "The accuracy of mobile devices must be checked by driving a vehicle with a calibrated speedometer through the beam at a predetermined speed, at the commencement and completion of operations at each location (the speed being compatible with the site being checked). Is there any mileage in challenging this as there was only 1 cso at the schene ?

Also if I can provide evidence that he was not "clearly visible to the public and the target vehicle throughout the check" ie he was obstructed by a telegraph pole, would that stand up ?

southpaw82
There is no requirement for the operator to be visible. If you can cast doubt on the accuracy of the device then do so. However, just because there is one operator doesn't necessarily mean that the checks have not been done.

All this is academic unless and until you receive an NIP.
Vinboy
OK, finally then, if I was speeding, will it always end in a NIP? or can the officer issue just a warning (I refer to your suggestion of "unless")
southpaw82
A warning can be issued (as with community speedwatch schemes) but this would be unusual. I'm afraid it's a case of wait and see.
Vinboy
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 17:53) *
There is no requirement for the operator to be visible.


The adviceon the "Legal" section of this site suggests this is a requirement, even the ACPO guidelines suggest it to be so, so not sure why you state there is no requirement !!
nemo
QUOTE (Vinboy @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 09:56) *
The adviceon the "Legal" section of this site suggests this is a requirement, even the ACPO guidelines suggest it to be so, so not sure why you state there is no requirement !!

Does it state that it is a requirement in law ?
Vinboy
no idea, they are refered to as ACPO guidelines !!
nemo
QUOTE (Vinboy @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 10:02) *
no idea, they are refered to as ACPO guidelines !!

Its may be referred to as 'guidelines, but it is titled a 'Code of Practice'.

But irrespective whether is is considered guidelines or a CoP, with no requirement in statute for speed enforcement to be visible, conspicuous or advertised, then a breach of the guidance laid out in the RPET document does not automatically create a defence or mitigtation of an offence so detected.
Vinboy
QUOTE
But irrespective whether is is considered guidelines or a CoP, with no requirement in statute for speed enforcement to be visible, conspicuous or advertised, then a breach of the guidance laid out in the RPET document does not automatically create a defence or mitigtation of an offence so detected.


therefore, in Law, the guidelines can be flouted, ie Officer hidden in a bush, no calibration proof, the device has not been checked against a police vehicle fitted with a certified calibrated speedometer,several vehicles in field of view, etc..... and the offender can still be found guilty. Shamefull really !!! Waste of time having guidelines if they cannot be used in mitigation.
Transit man
I would imagine that officers operating speed detection need to be fully qualified in that equipments operation. Would this be the case with CSO's?

Seems to me that to have CSO's on every street with a "gun" & therefore the authority to issue summons's is the thin end of the wedge. How much longer before my granny is invited to act as judge, jury & executioner on her road because speeding MUST be stopped
nemo
QUOTE (Vinboy @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 10:21) *
therefore, in Law, the guidelines can be flouted, ie Officer hidden in a bush, no calibration proof, the device has not been checked against a police vehicle fitted with a certified calibrated speedometer,several vehicles in field of view, etc..... and the offender can still be found guilty.

There are requirements of statute; requirements which have been established by case law; requirements of Type Approval and then there is 'guidance'. And one shouldn't necessarily be confused for another.




Vinboy
QUOTE (nemo @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 10:35) *
There are requirements of statute; requirements which have been established by case law; requirements of Type Approval and then there is 'guidance'. And one shouldn't necessarily be confused for another.


Would that be a YES or NO to mortal man ??
jobo
some of the thing you mentioned are legal requirement either by statute law or as a result of case law

so yes they need to pre check it, have it calibrated and be trained etc, but they dont have to be visible

what do you want to do ? lots of people come on shouting about unfairness and they will fight it, then when they have calmed down just pay the fine

if your willing to take it to court and contest it then your got more of a chance discrediting the evidence of a pcso than a real copper, ask for certs query the set and use of the device, let the cps loose all their evidence. but the odds are in their favour,

and going to court is going to cost you two or three hundred quid more if you loose

id take it to court, on the grounds that its worth a gamble, that its good to make them work for their money and i can afford to loose

are you up or fighting it


nemo
QUOTE (Vinboy @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 10:45) *
Would that be a YES or NO to mortal man ??

Depends whether your statement referred to an Act of Parliament, a requirement of Type Approval, established case law, or simply recommended good practice.

And your statement (not a question) comprised a mix of the above.
Vinboy
QUOTE (jobo @ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 - 10:59) *
are you up or fighting it


If I get a PIC then yes, but only if I can split the wheat from the Chaff, ie case law. statute and Guidelines etc... If It transpires that it is useless to quote guidelines against the CSO's "Proof" then I may as well get raped by the state !
southpaw82
If it was a hand-held device there is unlikely to be any pic (which is reinforced by what you say about him noting down your reg number as you pass - no need to do that if there was a pic).

Whether the Code of Practice has to be followed can generally be reduced to two types:

1. Guidance which does not impact on the accuracy of the reading (and thus not following it is not fatal to a prosecution), and

2. Guidance which does impact on the accuracy of the reading (and thus not following it may very well be fatal to a prosecution).
vw driver
You may wish to read the following: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=39266. This thread talks about "hiding" and explains SP82's post above in more detail.
Vinboy
THanks for that VWB, very helpful. I will await the NIP, and may well ask for the proof of calibration test before/after each session with a police vehicle etc.. which I believe would impact on the reading !! - I will await the postman !!!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.