The truth about Speeding Convictions
 

Way back in March/April this year you may remember some of the BHCN lads being pulled for speeding.No one on here really came up with any truth into the how and why's of the British Justice System. I even wrote to the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire her replied was a typical political response. Learning nothing for my woes I sent of the correspondence to my local MP who inturn looked up the speeding laws in the House of Commons library.

So it states that a lone police officer cannot issue a speeding ticket with out electronic or photographic proof. So if you are not on the video as was the case with me then I should not have been prosecuted. I now that now and having put pen to paper Mrs Spence the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire nows it and hopefully the over zelous copper will also.Im waiting to here her comments otherwise my MP will deal with it. 4D

restrospective change of verdict then and removal of points/return of fine I would hope

write to MCN, they love a good story! may get others doing the same

• You have probaly pleaded guilty / admitited guilt in some way or other by now Pete. So that will stand by self admission ?

Craig

Errr, not quite Pete.
A lone officer may prosecute for speeding provided that there is some form of corroboration of the officer's opinion that the subject was driving in excess of the stated speed limit,that corroboration can be a laser, vascar, muniquip, truvelo, vehicle speedometer etc. There is no need for electronic or photographic proof although some of the systems in use will provide this.
Sorry if this doesn't help your case..........

;) good on you for taking this on pete.
i did write a long reply but have just deleted it

Rushjob I was not on the video, there is no corroboration, no evidence that I was even there.The other riders are shown but not me or my brother

Section 89 (2) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
A person prosecuted for such an act SHALL NOT be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that,in the opinion of the witness the person prosececuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.

No evidence no conviction, otherewise you can make it up as you go alone

That is from the House of Commons Library on Driving offences

If he measured your speed with his calibrated speedo on his bike then theres the corroboration...........the fact your not on video doing it is neither here or there....

ie. it wasnt just his opinion, it was verified by the speedo....

Exactly!!
I think by signing the NIP and paying the fine,you have already pleaded guilty to speeding.Hindsight being a wonderfull thing,you and you bro pleaded not guilty and taken it to court.
Sadly it would have been no good for me as I was tailend charlie on the day and I'm on the video as clear as a clear thing.My court hearing was on the other day,(I pleaded guilty by post),and I'm still waiting to hear the verdict.I'll keep you posted.

Best of luck Pete!

Just read the post again Andy, it states a lone police officer cannot issue a prosecution with out have the appropriate collaboration. How the hell can he have the collaboration if I dont exist just cause his speedo reads 100 mph who is he convicting a bloody ghostrider.This ain't bloody rocket science to have collobaration you need two things some one following some one in front take away any one think and you end up with FA.
I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN I WAS NOT ON THE VIDEO. again I WAS NOT ON THE VIDEO. MY SPEED DOES NOT COME INTO IT 4D