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

Craig to be honest Im more ****ed of with the attitude of the copper than the points, if this is happening around the country when the police are expecting us to obey the law I expect them to do the same thing and not go around massing up points to make them look good in front of the Chief Constable. I have come across some good coppers but of late I have met some complete tossers who would shop their Grannie if it made them look good. Bikers are being treated worst than some criminals and its a shame. It will get worst ,it has got worst and Im dammed if I will sit back and take it when some one bends the rules to acceive a conviction.I just wished I had this knowledge beforehand,but this may help someone to understand just what is required. 4D

That fills me with confidence. A policeman can look at his own speedo to back up his own assertions.

So basically he can make it up as he goes along then?

RTFI.....

its corroborate not collaborate........there is a massive difference!

One is how your thinking, working with someONE........the other is about subtantiating or supporting........

Yep.............or of course he could be telling the truth:o .......

i havnt seen the video but those on the video were speeding........do we accept that? If so where were you Pete during this incident?........as i understand it, towards the front of the group that you were all riding in?

Is it fair game to make an assumption that if the group on the video were speeding, and they didnt overtake you, then you were exceeding the speed limit too. Given the close proximety you were riding in as a group?

Or we could just all shout about it, write to the MP the Chief Constable, the Queen or whoever will listen.............and of course Dis the lying scumbag..

We can ignore the facts...........but they are still the facts...

Excuse me, we are talking about the Laws relating to a Speeding conviction nothing is fair game and assumptions mean nothing in a court of law.I could of assumed the copper was eating a Mars Bar or Chewing on a toffee but that does'nt help. All I am stating is the fact no evidence is available of me actually being there.All the assumptions don't mean a fig. I could of set off earlier and the other riders caught me up,what if I had caught some other rider up just before I was pulled over who's to say he was'nt speeding,it beggars belief.4D

"Sods Law after 7 years of riding the 660 and thousands of care free miles Mr Plod has the last word. Must say we were all treated well and friendly enough. Having pulled in to the garage in Kimbolton the boys in blue had us lined up good and proper, waited till we venture out on to the 660 before tailing us for 6 miles,as Glyn stated we were not giving it that many berries. I entered the next village an dropped my speed to 35 in a 40 by that time, said officer shot passed the lot of us with some nice little blue lights blazing and done us."


OK then..............

Andy " What part of the law do you not understand here " As a copper you also have laws to abide to,or do your think you have a God given right to play judge and jury just when you assume someone is guilty. Its OK for you to sit behing your badge and have all the fun,never seen you on a ride out . As for the above text, thats not mine, I was up front miles away having left a bit earlier (one could assume) I still stick to my testimony and hope it inspires other not to take it lieing down.

The so called UK Justice system, especially where motoring offences are concerned, has moved away from a principle that has been the bedrock of the UK Justice system for hundreds of years, innocent until proven guilty.

UK police now fulfil the role of police, magistrate/judge and hand down kerbside sentences as, when and how they see fit. Yes, some may fulfil that multiple role using the same standards that applied when they weren't running their own kerbside courts, some don't.

Rule number if you end up a participant in a kerbside court, say nowt to incriminate yourself, say as little as possible.

The facts are that now, in far to many motoring and low level offences an individual has to gather evidence prove themselves innocent, not have the police gather evidence to help prove them guilty. The burden of proof has shifted from the accuser to the accused. Basically you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

It has become too much trouble for police to prove people guilty for many motoring offences now so their political masters have given the police the power to run their kerbside "courts" with the motorist now having go to all the trouble in gathering evidence that the police used to do.

Oh and while I'm at it what is this victim surcharge all about for a simple speeding offence, where is the victim in a simple speeding offence?

The simpering oh but you might have had an accident, run someone over, etc is the work of an over eager imagination, dreaming things up that didn’t in fact happen, but we’ve added a bit more to the fine on the basis that they could have, even though if we did actually think about, didn’t happen so it’s a bit unfair, but hey, while you’ve got your cheque book out a little bit more doesn’t do any harm does it.

Don't get me wrong I'd have 100 trafpol on the roads for every one trick pony, AKA a speed camera, but those trafpol would be producing reliable evidence that would be tested in court, not "blimey that looked a bit quick, here's yer 3 points and a £60 fine". Sure it's more trouble to go to and more importantly expensive, but what price a respected police force with the support of the public and system where your were innocent until proven guilty.
Some time ago we were proud of UK bobby, what the majority of them did to protect us from crime and the justice system they were part of, is that still the case?

Nurse me tablets..............

Ray.

15th Mar 2009 06.48pm........

Sods Law after 7 years of riding the 660 and thousands of care free miles Mr Plod has the last word. Must say we were all treated well and friendly enough. Having pulled in to the garage in Kimbolton the boys in blue had us lined up good and proper, waited till we venture out on to the 660 before tailing us for 6 miles,as Glyn stated we were not giving it that many berries. I entered the next village an dropped my speed to 35 in a 40 by that time, said officer shot passed the lot of us with some nice little blue lights blazing and done us. I was shown the video of our speed but it only showed the last few riders and saw nothing of myself or my brother. They were aparently all out on a special mission organsed by the local council to lay done the law and target bikers, we were held sorting it all out for well over an hour and in between time three police riders were toing and frowing looking for prey. I wonder if there are any vacances must be a great jobing speeding about and getting paid for it. As condemed men we want for our fate - to be continude. 4D

Fordie, theres no need to be getting personal and your going off on some strange irrelevent tangent........If the situation you find yourself in bugs you that much, get someone independant, unemotional and qualified to explain that particular part of that law to you properly.......or test it in court!

Like so many of this type of post on so many of the forums, you dont want to see the wood for the trees........

ive now lost the will to be judge and jury....

its not just speeding tho, look at the plight of hundreds of teachers which has been rehighlited last week. They are acused of inappropriate action, sexual or not, immediately suspended, then put on a register somewhere to show they were investigated, not charged or proven guilty, and when they are proven absolutely innocent (note proven INNOCENT) they return to work (if they still have a job) with a stigma now attached. God forbid they go for another job, as when they apply to the police for the checks, it comes back there was an accusation and no one will touch them

world has gone crazy, if I had more balls I'd jack it all in and feck off somewhere more sensible!!

and no Andy that isnt the Police's fault, it the stupid vote-seeking tits who run the country

Last year I was on my 749 coming out of Stratford upon Avon, on the old road. Five cars in front of me and a sole occupied Police Volvo estate at the front. We arrived at the roundabout where the road turns to dual carriageway and leads down to the M40/A46.

The Volvo takes off and I pass the other cars and keep a safe distance behind Mr Plod, but we were doing 100/110mph.

Get to the lights at the M40 they turn red. Mr P gets out walks up to me ans says, " Just because I travel down the A46 at 100mph doesn't give you the right to do so". He then walked back to the car and went, dodin't check my plate nothing. Just a jobsworth that has a badge and gives him the right to do as he pleases.

Theres good and bad in all walks of life. But the plod members here never ever say that there is a bad one amongst them. All a very cosy little club.

Pete
Sorry for trying to help you, for that I apologise.
You posted something that standing alone, ie your second paragraph in your first post in this thread, which was erroneous as it stood without the information you adduced further on on the thread.
I was not aware of the background and as always I do my best not to get involved in specific incidents.
My post was intended to perhaps stop you making an error of judgement on the strength of what you first posted as regards speeding offences in general - at no point was I aware of what had occurred and why should I be? I simply hoped to try to help someone I knew.
In future I'll keep my opinions to myself.

PS. It mght be a good idea to redact your home address from the letter you have attached...

Rushjob, I have allways found you to be a honest trustworthy person and I thank you for your contibution to my thread and your help as and when you feel able to do so. I appologise to any member that may finds my thread non PC but some things must be addressed and its good to get it of ones chest. 4D

no pun intended ;) :lol:

Maybe one of the issues here which hasn't been mentioned is how the police car was being driven? Unmarked car rushing up from behind then dropping back in an intimidating manner? Overtaking riders then slowing down to be overtaken? What would you do if that happened?

I've had a lengthy chat with one of the guys involved with this incident and would trust what he said.

Interersting. I was under the impression that the police were governed by the same speed restrictions as the public unless on a job? Thankfully coppers with a seriously bad attitude are in a minority, their jobs must be very frustrating when they see serious criminals walking free day after day on "technicalities".

Exactly Paul.

From what I've been told, the police car was being driven in a very aggresive and threatening manner. As you say, it was hurtling up behind people until sitting right on their back wheel, pulling out to overtake but then not overtaking when he could have simply gone past. Then blasting past doing overtakes in breathtakingly stupid places, choosing to do so on the narrowest and twistiest parts of the road, putting the squeeze on people as he went past. Then having gone past, slowing right up again, for all the world just like some member of Joe Public DLAC in a blacked out Volvo S60R and looking to hassle a bunch of bikes. All in the name of safety eh?

Furthermore, the bikes weren't travelling in a single group, they'd got strung out and were riding in two and threes, so while matey was acting the arse with the people at the back, the others weren't even in sight. So at what point exactly did he glance down at his speedo and decide they were all guilty? When he was doing his charge up to the back of the group? When he was blasting past them? What about the people at the front? He only came past them when they had slowed down for a built up area, to less than the speed limit, to let the others catch up, so how can he assert that they are all guilty as well? By association?

Alright, hands up, although I wasn't on this particular ride out, these people are all friends of mine, so it's clear where my sympathies lie.

To retain a bit of balance, most of them have admitted that they're not angels and 'make progress', I don't think that any one of them has a problem with getting a speeding ticket if it's a fair cop, just that the way this was done smacks of being goaded into commiting an offence in the first place, then being given a ticket without any other evidence apart from the fact that you were there.

Not wanting to get totally embroiled in a subject that really, really riles me, and not ignoring the "no real proof" elemnt of Pete's saga, but there is also the issue of:

Catching up.......

I remember seeing the paragraph in the ACPO guidelines on the operation of "Time & Distance Recording" equipment that elluded to "doing 100mph to catch up with said target vehicle does not in itself constitute that said target vehicle is doing 100mph so you have to track it at a constant distance for a predetermined distance to confirm it's speed on your calibrated TDR equipment"

There's a very helpful site called Pepipoo that we should all read and memorise the content of. It may not stop you getting nicked when you do 100mph but it may stop you getting nicked if Mr Traffic Officer hasn't done his/her job properly/within the law/guidelines as you'll be better versed to question (politely) every thing he/she states about how he/she came to their assertion about your speed.

I am of the opinion that if more people were educated better about their rights and the rules the officers should abide too, it would get rid of a whole raft of the "bent-brigade" who flout the rules and sadly do exist amongst the other finer examples out there.

I hold my hands up if I'm done fair and square, but if I'm not 100% certain I want to be damn sure they're 100% certain..............

Pretty much what I heard but you've the edge on me at the dramatic presentation Jools :frog: :lol:

Bottom line in the circumstances the guys shouldn't have put their hands up IMHO, always easy in hindsight but a lesson to be learned for all of us.

Bit of balance is required over the whole speedaphobic world we live in and the emphasis shifted to truly dangerous driving such as mobile phone juggling.