Hi All

Was pulled today coming out of a little village by police (Not Traffic) claiming I was doing 41 in a 30. They were using a radar/laser to determine speed. I asked between what points in the rd did they use to determain my speed and was told that all they need to do was clock me for 3 secs. I assumed that when they where doing these thinks they had to use two point of reference!! Am I wrong here? They issued my with a fixed penalty (£100 and 3 points)

Update just read that lasers are actually harder to challenge. The device used was a Radar (Kustom Falcon IVQK50) I got the model number / serial number and calibration dates when I got stopped

Two points would be used for a time/distance device.

A laser is not such a device

Substantially less than three seconds is needed for a laser to get a reading

About one third of a second.

As I said it was a Radar Gun they used. Traffic passing in both directions with no points of reference Been reading up a bit and it says that when using a radar (Radio Waves) the Officer must ensure that the device is locked onto the same car for the duration of the test.

There is no points of reference. They point it at the car and a reading is given. Do you actually disagree with the alleged speed?

What for?



" I was doing 41 in a 30."


What speed was you doing?
.

I don't think I was doing 41 was probably over 30 but it was mainly the attitude I got from the 2 police officers. I was asking them questions and they couldn't answer them. This makes me think that they didn't know what they were doing and therefore could have made a mess of the reading.

The main thing was that both of them told be it was measured using a laser when in fact it was a radar. These two devices are used in different ways.

Radars are used in much the same way as lasers, the lock time is a little longer that's all.

The reason they could not answer you questions about reference points is that they are not relevant to doppler based speed detection.

If there were other specific questions that the police were unable to answer feel free to ask here and folks can help you understand their relevance and how they impact your speed.

If you are over 30 it really does not matter if you were doing 32 or 41 you are guilty either way and the penalty is likely to be the same.

The main one is that the officer told me he was using a laser to detect my speed when infact he was using a radar. If he doesnt even know what equipment he is using then there is a chance that he was using it incorrectly. I know I wasn't over 40 and he said I was doing 41 so something is not right.

As above though as you admit to being over the posted limit what are you really trying to achieve?

I am trying to make sure I am not charged for doing 41 in a 30 when I know I wasn't. I makes no difference that I admit to being over 30. The charge is 41 in a 30 which I believe is false. How many other people are affected by this sort of thing?? I feel it needs to be challenged!

What we're trying to say is - so they charge you for (say) 35 in a 30...........same 'punishment'.........

You appear not to know exactly what speed you were doing but concede it was above the speed limit. Given the speed has resulted in a COFP and as you were speeding by your own admission you are not going to be acquitted at court you are best accepting the COFP.

If you had some rational proof you were doing a different speed you could consider challenging this but all you have is a guess.



You give the impression that it was the actual interaction which p1ssed you off. We have often seen OP's getting angry that so called technical questions they raised at the time were not answered when in reality the questions were a nonsense.

FWIW in practical terms a laser and radar device are used in exactly the same way.

At court the charge would be exceeding the speed limit (which you admit) and your actual speed simply affects the sentence. You have been offered the lowest level of penalty available in Scotland and it would make no difference if your speed was actually a bit lower than was said.

I think you will struggle to convince a court that a slip of the toungue means he did not know what he was using, especially as he clearly managed to get it to take a reading, nor will it be easy to convince a court that thinking it was a laser would have made him somehow misread the 2 digit number on the speed readout.

If you were not doing over 40 exactly what speed were you doing?

I still don't understand why it matters given you admit you contravened the speed limit, as others have pointed out you will not be charged with doing 41 you will be charged with contravening the statutory limit. You have been offered the minimum possible penalty, I assure you that the court will not be so lenient.

How do you propose to challenge this charge, when you admit it?

EDIT: Sorry, Wrong thread.

Well I think that if he was standing in court and I asked him what instrument he used to calculate my speed and he answered incorrectly them that would prove he didn't have a clear understanding of what he was doing. I don't understand why people are saying you admit to being over the limits so just take the punishment. I have already stated that I wasn't doing the speed they said they clocked me at. This to me means that either it was measured incorrectly or the equipment was wrong.

Well you asked for advice and you got it. As you don't actually know what speed you were doing you are going to struggle. If you go to court on principle and are asked if you were going over 30 mph your answer will be yes. You will be convicted and although you will get 3 points the fine, costs and victim surcharge will be far higher. Also as soon as you admit exceeding the speed limit the bench will accept the speed recorded.

Trying to trip up a Poice witness based on his knowledge of the device is a waste of time. Whatever gaps he had in his knowledge at the time of the stop won't be there when he gets to court.

By all means ignore or advice; but why bother asking.

What would you think if we packed you off to court knowing you were going to fail and it not only cost you a day off work,3 points you wouldnt get at the moment and a much larger fine?
When you come back rightly moaning we incorrectly advised you,that would benefit neither you nor the site.

While you might not like what your told,there is nothing youve said that would lead anyone here to advise you to do anything else but take the course,if offered one.The advice is free, sometimes it would be nice to be appreciated!!

Not going to happen, for the obvious reason.

Scotland = no course.

You live and learn

You admit speeding. The charge is speeding. The speed recorded is irrelevant unless you go to court. And even then to be honest, in Scotland you'd still only get 3 points in court for 41. Although the fine would be more like £250/£300 for speeding. Unless you can say under oath that you were doing under 30mph, and were not speeding at all, then your onto plumbs. Accept the FPN and your license will be endorsed with an SP30. Thats the same endorsement as it would be if you were doing 34mph or 54mph. No mention of the speed you were convicted of will be mentioned, as its not a specific charge of 41 in a 30 your charged with. Its simply speeding (not on a motorway).

Trying to trip up coppers in court isn't advised. It will get the judges back up and not bode well. Bearing in mind a copper would read up before going to court.


Unfortunatly this happened in draconian Scotland... no courses up here!

But Fedup makes a good point- why would the site advise you to accept the ticket if there was a way of fighting it? Its bad for business (even though its a free site, it still doesn't want negative coverage) and bad for you. At the end of the day we're all hidden away behind computers, so it makes not one bit of difference to us whether you go to court and get found guilty or not guilty, or whether you accept the ticket. Its simply a case of explaining the best action for the best outcome.

Update on this. I ignored the fixed penalty and was waiting on being called to court. Today I have received a 2nd Fixed Penalty Conditional offer. Is this normal?

It's not abnormal to receive a reminder. Most people want to avoid court.

Not unusual.

I assume you have decided to ignore the advice you asked for. So what is your defence?

Thanks

Nothing abnormal, they still have plenty of time for court if you ignore the reminder, remember that court will cost you more than the fixed penalty.

Er, why?

If you ignore a COFP it reverts to summons. I assume he was waiting for a summons.

Exactly, but still why? I didn't think a viable defence was established?

(Unless the OP thinks they can rely upon the 'two points of reference' mentioned at the beginning)

I think he is going to go with the Cop not knowing what he was doing because he called it a 'Laser' not a 'Radar' so they should let him off.

That'll do it.

Sure will, whatever the 'it' is, it will do 'it'! (In this case probably make the court think that a very harsh punishment is needed)

In Scotland the Fiscal can also issue fixed penalties so it is perfectly normal to get a second offer for a minor offence.

I still think you would be daft not to take it. Speeding fines are significantly harsher in Scotland so even without costs you risk being landed with a hefty fine.

What will you say when the prosecutor asks you if you were speeding or not? What do you say when he ask you what speed you were doing?

Good luck your pocket may need it!

Could be trying his luck with the courts... busy places up here at present according to court staff. Police Scotland's roads vendetta has not taken into consideration the court systems staffing levels.

OP was pulled over end of jan , second reminder is mid april , presume take another month before
summons / citation issued

can OP avoid answering door / go on holiday until end of july at which point he wont have signed
for receipt of any citation so will have timed out ?

surely that doesnt work , although i have a " friend " who claims hes managed to time out 3 speeding
offences in past ten years doing this ?

The citation has to be served, that happens whether he is at home or not, did you have a point?

i think i might have found a form of wit lower than sarcasm

that being smug sarcasm

OK, to make it clear, the citation has to be raised within 6 months and then served without undue delay, the fact he was not at home would mean a citation posted was still served, if he was asked to collect then the delay would be of the accused own making, so your scenario would not help at all, never had a chance of helping so I failed to see what point you were trying to make.

Ok i can only work on basis of second hand information from a friend who lives alone , so no one opens door on his behalf ... he says as police have never been able to serve a citation on him ... as he never answers door to accept receipt hes had three speeding tickets dissappear.

I shall try and clarify if citations were simply posted through door , i presume if they are he bins them and does not accept ever having received them as theres no proof.

I would have thought the case would simply go ahead without him there and found guilty or a warrent put out for him but i guess ? between pleading diet / intermediate diet somewhere the case is being abandoned ?

Are you sure it wasn't an unsigned S.172 response your friend was talking about?

Sounds like it.

In which case OP, without a signed S.172 prosecution can't take place for the speeding since they don't know who was driving.

In OP's case, you were stopped at the roadside, so they know who to prosecute.

Maybe this happened when many believed the first hearing had to be within 6 months, not merely the citation raised and then subsequently served. Yes if a citation was ignored (no reason it can't just be posted anyway) I would expect the court to progress in their absence and/or a warrant raised for an arrest.

There are a lot of people who make this sort of claim. If they said it happened once I might believe it, but they all seem compelled to claim it has happened many times.

As above, it sounds like an unsigned S172 he is talking about.