I was travelling on a 125cc scooter in left hand land of a 2 lane (each direction) divided road in Central London - a 30 mph zone. In a cluster of 3 vehicles (2 cars and me). I was in left lane behind small white vehicle, taxi was approaching from behind, at speed faster than mine, in right hand lane. Taxi passed us, I pulled out behind taxi to overtake the van. The taxi had fully obscured my view of officer, and vice versa. When I returned to left lane, I saw the officer ahead of me in bright yellow. I could see he was Traffic policeman (white hat) was motioning me (or someone) to stop.

I was very surprised how quickly he directed me (or one of us) to stop. As taxi continued to be proceed (at speed, probably in excess of limit) and was in right lane, I figured it was me he wanted........... stopped, took off helmet, got off bike ...... was cautioned that I was using excess speed of 47 in a 30 ............I didn't admit or deny anything at roadside .................. answered the usual questions, he radioed in my details (all in order) ....................... asked me about any existing points (none) ................... then he went back to police car to get Penalty book - it was not about 5 mins since I had stopped ............................ I was issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice for £100 and told to produce drivers license at my nominated police station, which I did the next day. The FPN alleges that offence took place at 22:56 (no seconds specified)

HERE is the critical point:

• Exhibit 1
  While he was at the police car, I took a photo of the scene using my smartphone. The EXIF data for the photo has confirms that it was taken at 22:56:38
• Exhibit 2
  He offered to let me take a photo of his laser device, which I did. This is a photo of LCD display screen of the laser shows: speed of +047mph at a distance of 106.05m and a time of 22:56:51. It is not relevant, but this photo was taken at 23:16:08.

I was stopped a good five minutes, having gone through the initial pleasantries and provision of details to officer, when I took my photo of the scene (at 22:56:38). Yet his laser device showed that he clocked me at 22:56:51. This is some at least 13 seconds 5 after I had pulled over and stopped. In fact, it is likely to be 5 minutes and 13 seconds after I had stopped.

The police officer was alone, so it is my understanding that he must support his opinion as to my speeding with evidence, such as the log from the laser device. If he does this [you can see where I am going with this], I would like to contest that the reading he took did not relate to my vehicle.

Weakness in argument:
The clock on my phone was wrong. It is set automatically from GPS. I have a photo taken about a day later which confirms that calibration of the clock is correct (0 seconds deviation).

QUESTION:
His evidence appears faulty. Do I have a leg to stand on? Would a magistrate agree.

No - is the time used to measure the speed?

What stage are you at? Were you issued a fixed penalty?

YES. Time is used to measure speed: Speed = Distance / Time.
But more seriously, his laser device (Unipar SL700) has a log of 4000 entries, each timestamped. The one which he may wish to rely on in evidence could not possibly relate to me!!

STAGE: I have not yet received anything through post, just the roadside "citation". I have produced my drivers license but not yet surrendered it.

CLARIFICATION:
Fixed Penalty Notice will probably state alleged offence at 22:56:51, ie the time in log of laser device.
I can have good contradictory evidence that this time was wrong.

My defence would rely on this train of thought:
At 22:56:51 when I was alleged to have been speeding, I was in fact stopped talking to a police officer.
I had been talking to him for about 5 minutes at that stage.
At 22:56:38 I took a photo of the scene, I did not take this photo while driving my scooter.

If clock is wrong on laser device, what evidence does the officer have - its a busy road, the speed reading could relate to any car which passed that spot in the 5 minutes before I was stopped.

Explanation for police officer's error:

He looked at the time on the laser device to record the offence and not the correct time of day on his wristwatch (if worn).

You're heavily mistaken if you think that the clock being wrong on the SL700 means that the reading can't possibly relate to you.

The evidence will be that he saw you, formed an opinion that you were exceeding the limit, measured you with the SL700 and it flashed up 47 mph. The clock being out by a few minutes won't change that. Are you going to claim that he zapped a different vehicle five minutes previously and then decided to use that to fit you up?

Note that you have seven days from the offence to surrender your licence for an FPN (what you have isn't actually an FPN). Once you have an FPN you have a further 21 days to either pay up or choose to go to court. (If you do neither they automatically enforce the FPN and increase the fine.) If you don't surrender within the seven days then you don't have to do anything, but they'll probably put in for a summons within six months, you'll have lost the option of an FPN and the penalties will be higher.

All irrelevant I'm afraid, you can't deny being there at the time the officer claims you were speeding, you know you were, you are not in any way mislead or disadvantaged, so the time differnec is not a defence in any way shape or form, run with that and you havbe no hope.

Time is used but not the time (of day) of the device when measuring speed.

Ok, the timestamp might be a few minutes out but he will probably testify that he observed you (in his opinion) exceeding the limit, pulled the trigger and shared the reading with you.

The FPN won't be that accurate - nor does it need to be. (Even more so as you were stopped)

He will testify as above. Of course, if you are suggesting he zapped someone else 5 minutes prior and is trying to tag that speed on you?

Anyway, once you get the FP you'll have to decide whether to accept it or not. Should you want to challenge further then you will have to opt for court and plead not guilty. I suggest you take professional legal advice first before doing this as it could be very costly should you lose. (Costs alone are likely to be £600+)

47 could also be 6 points in court.

I am not suggesting that he may have zapped someone else and waited 5 minutes before pulling me over. That would be to bring into question the integrity of the police officer. Although I did notice that he was very quick to motion me to stop, when I became visible to him (emerging from behind taxi). I am, however, suggesting that if he wishes to rely on the log data from the Unipar SL700, then there should be at least a modicum of doubt as to whether the log entry with the probably incorrect timestamp of 22:56:51 definitively relates to me. My photo, taken purely by chance, was taken some 13 seconds before (at 22:56:38) and my phones time is very accurate.

His Unipar SL700 probably had its calibration checked at some point that day by the officer but he failed to calibrate the time of day. This oversight has caused all of the log entries to have their times adrift. I have seen the manual of the SL700 and it records only 2 items (timestamp and a postive or negative number for speed.) Remember that these devices record only those speed measurements which are above a preset (Office determined) threshold (possibly 35 mph). He may not pull over every vehicle exceeding a speed limit - emergency vehicles, taxi drivers, vehicles in clusters.

Remember, I don't actually think I was doing 47. It felt a bit too fast for me - I am a cautious accountant weighing 17 stone riding a scooter along the same road as I have done for the last 15 years and I know every spot where the traffic police set up their traps. I have never been caught speeding previously and have no points.

We're really down to debating whether his log record definitively relates to me or could possibly relate to someone else.

Picture the following:
Defence solicitor asks police officer what time offense took place, he says 22:56.
Defence: "How can you be sure?"
Officer: "I have it my notebook and it is in the log from the SL700".
Defence: "When did you last set the clock on the SL700"
Officer: "Huh?"
Defence: "Your Worship, the defense rests its case"

As has already been said the time of day logged in the speed gun is irrelevant, it is the officers testimony that matters. He will testify that he formed the opinion that the scooter rider was speeding, that he used the gun to confirm that opinion and then pulled the rider over.

As for calibration I think this case, whilst in Scotland, will give a taste of how the calibration checks are managed.

And as a result:



FTFY

Is that how you think it will go?

You have been watching too many courtroom dramas if you believe that your scenario will result in a not guilty.

The court will be far more pragmatic, so following on from your dialogue:

Prosecution: is it possible that the time shown on the unit was incorrect
Officer: yes
Prosecution: would this in any way affect the speed reading
Officer: no
Prosecution: how can you be sure that the reading related to the accuseds vehicle
Ofiicer: whilst observing the traffic I was of the opinion that the accused was exceeding the posted limit, so I operated the device in accordance with my training and it displayed a speed of 47 mph. I then stopped the accused and showed him the reading.

Prosecution rests, defence screwed.

All the magistrates will care about is (a) was it you who was stopped, (b) was the officer of the opinion of exceeding the speed limit and © did the officer's approved device measure you as exceeding the speed limit. They don't care about the exact time of day this all happened, it's irrelevant.

I don't know where you get this 'relying on the log data' from - the officer will have noted the speed displayed when he pulled the trigger and he'll give evidence to that effect. And in fact, you've even got a photo to present to the court proving it was showing that speed.

What you haven't got is a coherent or consistent explanation for how the officer could have used it to measure your speed and then pulled up the speed from a different vehicle on the display instead without realising.

No I don't think it will go like that.

I would expect that office would have to produce some "hard"er evidence to support his opinion - remember he was alone and has no coroborating opinion of a fellow office. I am hoping that he will use the log of the SL700. I am hoping to have the time element of his log discredited and then I am hoping for there to be some doubt in the mind of the magistrate that the conviction may not be 100% safe.

What does not make sense is this:
Why has the traffic officer used the incorrect time on the Fixed Penalty Notice?
Why has he used the time from the screen of the SL700 and not his watch?

I suspect he has used the SL700 time because:
(i) he believes it is the correct time of day
(ii) its the one he showed me
(iii) it will make things easier later if evidence is required to be produced for a court.


Major assumptions on my part and these are risks to this proposed defense strategy:
(1) the officer may have noted the time differential between the SL700 and true time of day in his notes from earlier in the day
This would allow him to exactly corroborate his opinion, leaving only the matter of an error on the FPN, which I would agree is not material
(2) the log of the SL700 will not show many entries from before 22:56 or mine might be the only entry for a long period (doubt it)

Sorry, the time recorded for the offence being a few minutes wrong does not provide any reasonable doubt about the speed measured, as CO explains above. You did not even dispute the speed when you were talking to the officer, you might for instance asked him if he was sure it was your speed and not that of the taxi. It is too late now, you would be foolish to go to court on this, you would almost certainly lose and the fine and points would be higher and the costs crippling.

The fixed penalty is the same for 47 as for 35, so unless you believe you were doing 30 or less you have not been disadvantaged, actually.

Further:
Once the matter goes to court, the FPN is no longer relevant, and any minor errors on the summons may be corrected, so it goes something like this:

CPS: Officer, please tell the court what happened.
Officer: I saw a motorbike behind the taxi, formed an opinion that it was exceeding the speed limit, aligned the cross hairs of the device on a vertical surface and pulled the trigger. The measured speed was 47mph. I caused the motorbike to stop, showed Mr RedE the reading and cautioned him for the offence of speeding. He made no comment.

Defence solicitor asks police officer what time offense took place, he says 22:56.
Defence: "How can you be sure?"
Officer: "I have it my notebook and it is in the log from the SL700".
Defence: "When did you last set the clock on the SL700"
Officer: "Huh?"
Defence: Mr RedE used a smartphone to photograph the reading on the device, this has an internal clock reset automatically, so there is conclusive proof that this alleged offence occurred not at 22.56 as you claim but at least 5 minutes earlier.
Officer: Well, that may be the case.
Magistrate: Where exactly are you going with this, Mr Defence Solicitor?
Defence: Errr.....dunno really.

Although, not mentioned in the post, so far, I did in fact question, and question vigorously, whether the reading was correct.
I never admitted nor denied that I was speeding?

Here is about how the initial interaction with the traffic officer went:
Officer: "Do you know why you were stopped?"
Me: "No idea whatsoever............[Pause] Could it be related to a speed limit?"
Officer: "You were travelling at 47 mph [he shows me device] in a 30 mph zone"
Me: "Is that possible?"

and later:
Me: "Are you sure you were pointing that thing at my vehicle? I was travelling in a cluster of 3 vehicles and my vehicle is only about 80 cm wide. Are you sure it was not the van behind me or the taxi to my right?"

That would be a much better angle than atomic clocks. However, I'm sure the officer will state the device was operated correctly - at 100m the beam is not particularly wide (less than 80cm though).

OK, so you did question the speed measured at the time, and suggested he pointed it at a different vehicle. He presumably stuck to his guns and insisted he measured the speed of your bike. It is unlikely that he would say any different if questioned in court.

Do you believe you were travelling at or below the speed limit?

I was hoping that it would proceed as follows:

Magistrate: Where exactly are you going with this, Mr Defence Solicitor?
Defence Solicitor: If your Worship would please bear me with, I am about to uncover a monumental flaw in the procedures employed by the police.
Magistrate: Proceed Mr Solicitor, but do make it brief?
Defence Solicitor: Officer, do you know what time it is and don't look at the wall clock?
Officer: Its um, eh about 12:45pm.
Defence Solicitor: Yes it is about 12:45. Its also about 12:44, about 12:43 and about 12:41. It is in fact 12:41 and 25 seconds.
Officer: Well you told me not to look at the clock
Defence Solicitor: But I didn't say you should not look at your watch or even your mobile telephone. So what is the time on your wrist watch?
Officer: I don't wear one
Defence Solicitor: I see, so could you tell the court how you determined my client was speeding at 22:56?
Officer: I looked at the time on the SL700
Defence Solicitor: But the clock on the SL700 is evidently wrong. It is fast by some 13 seconds, or should I say at least three hundred and 13 seconds.
Magistrate: Mr Defence Solicitor, would you care to tell us what the relevance of all of this clock watching is?
Defence Solicitor: My client was not in fact travelling at an excess speed of 47 miles per hour when as the officer claims at the location specified. He was in fact some 4000 meters away and I would argue completely out of sight of the officer and certainly out of the range of his device. The Crown cannot rely on the evidence of the officer if it is so patently incorrect. What actually happened that evening is that the Officer saw my client return to the lane in front of the Officer and missed the opportunity to correctly measure his speed.




Yes, he said "I am satisfied that yours was the lead vehicle"
Also, though not at this part of the conversation " I am satisfied that you were not driving dangerously"

^^^^ Wot he said I'm afraid, you have not got a hope with that defence.

The primary evidence is from the officer, the corroboration is from the speed gun whether there is video or not - that doesn't matter.

I think this has now been done to death, absolutely no one on this site has or will advise you to fight this as we all think you have no chance for all the reasons given ad nausium.

If you choose to fight it I personally wish you well, and hope that you update the thread with the result.

Please please please tell me if you decide to go to court, I will travel a considerable distance to watch the above take place.

........ & I'll bring the popcorn...........

Bad news. I have seen several defences where drivers have used similar time stamps (including a positive RSBT) and evey one has failed as the bench on every occasion said that an exact time is not a pre-requisite for conviction.

OP will not het the log unless he asks for it.

Also by neither admitting or denying the offence (your words) following a caution an adverse inference can be drawn if at trial you say something which you didn't. The key words are you didn't deny the offence.

Like matt let me know when and where. I would also point out if you decide to run some form of technical defence based on how the device works your costs will be in 4 figures. Good luck.

EXIF data can be modified trivially so that basically leaves you with your word against his, when the alleged time difference is so small as to clearly not disadvantage you. He probably spent more time than the alleged discrepancy finalising paperwork and setting himself back up again.

It's a total non-starter.

I know EXIF data can be modified, but to do so would be to pervert the course of justice - something I would not willing to do. Besides the photo, the phone (a Google Nexus 4), is based on the Linux operating system and will contain logs which should easily demonstrate the time the photo was actually taken. Furthermore, the phone uploads its pictures to a cloud store, so there are many ways I could support the validity of the time that the photo was taken.

I would imagine that from a legal perspective a "his word against mine" type situation is a very dangerous one to be. The truth, once discovered, will determine which person is lying - a very serious offense.

im interested to know when the officer tageted you. you stated you were behind a van then behind a taxi! where di he get the chance to ping you?

But as the time does not matter, as we have all explained, there is no reason for you to modify any data, the PC to modify any data, or the court to care.

Just because evidence could be tampered with does not mean it is unreliable. Much evidence can be tampered but it may still be admissible.
To tamper with it would be a serious offense.




That's the best comment yet. I detect from your language that you might be legally trained.
If I did go ahead I will supply the popcorn.

He couldn't have seen me behind the van (in left-hand lane) as there is a slight curve in the road which he couldn't see around. I doubt he could get a fix on me as I pulled behind the passing taxi (right hand lane). That taxi was one of the new Mercedes Benz Vito's - they are very tall. So as I travelled behind the taxi, he definitely could not see me , nor could I see him. It could only have been when I pulled back into the left lane.

I know that road better than the back of my hand and have travelled along it for 15 years about 7000 times.
I even know that the locations where the police set up the speed traps. The chance of getting a police officer standing at the spot where he was that evening is pretty high, which I know, so I always watch my speed and watch out for them. If I hadn't behind that large taxi, I am certain I would have seen him - I always do, they're hard to miss.

SO where did he ping me?
When I returned to the left-hand lane having completed by overtaking maneuvre, then I saw him ahead of me at over 100 meters distance.
Now, here's the thing I was never comfortable with: He immediately seemed to start his flagging down motion. He might have paused to put down his weapon, but pretty much as soon as I saw him, he was flagging a vehicle down. It could have been the taxi, it could have been me. But I was closest so I guessed it was me.

From experience, every cop I know who pinged a speeding taxi would move heaven and earth to get the vehicle stopped. It makes no sense to ping a huge target like a taxi then pull a different vehicle. If it wasn't you he pinned he would have waved you on.

I have lost count of the number of drivers who wear blind that I couldn't have caught them when in reality I saw and pinged them well before they even realised I was there in my hi viz jacket. I suspect that is the case here.

You may also want to consider that if he was 100 yards away when he flagged you down it would have taken you over 6 seconds to reach him at a legal speed. Of course at nearly 50 that goes down to 4 second. Given a reaction time of 1 to 2 second that may well make the stop buttock clenching. Just a thought.

Police officers who are trained can enforce anywhere bar in reality the motorway and that's simply because of the safety issues on such fast roads. I'll be blunt because time is a wasting. If you wish to distill this down to what really matters then all that matters is that a police officer who we can only assume is correctly trained used an approved drive to measure your speed and formed an opinion that you were travelling faster than the legal limit. Your defence is "I wasn't". That simply won't succeed. Don't get me wrong I found your rumpole of the bailey routine hilarious but back here in the real world that will not work in any sense.

The court won't give two hoots that the booby didn't have his watch aligned to the atomic clock, it was you be stopped and you that he has indicated he formed and opinion on and used an approved device to measure the speed of.

How Freudian... did make me titter.

Unfortunately when "he" is a police officer, "his word against mine" is normally enough to get a conviction.

Even more so when it is supported by an 'approved device'
How do you think courts have worked for centuries before video was invented?

Can I go for a milkshake please?

Seriously if you try to run this defence you are likely to see costs of £2-3k, a fine of 1.5 times weekly take home and the victim surcharge. Even a not guilty without the technical bits will see £600 of costs. If you can afford that sort of money go ahead, otherwise just accept the £100 fixed penalty and move on - it isn't worth the grief.

Must have been something to do with the other website I was reading at the time

This is an interesting thread, although it does have its knockers

I know this from my court case when the magistrate agreed with me that I couldn't have done the speed alleged, but said that the police officer was a more credible witness and gave me an MS60 6 points and a small fine.

Why did you get a miscellaneous offence code for an excess speed offence?

Even if you couldn't have done the speed alleged, he was presumably convinced you were speeding or he would have to aquit, too many people think that proving they were speeding at a lower speed will get them off, not true, you just get a lesser punishment.

6 points doesn't look that much lesser!