Stopped by unmarked police car and received FPN

[chez262]

if she viewed the in-car video footage on the screen in the police car and on that screen it said 90.7mph in the bottom right of it, with a couple of distance bits and timing bits there as well, i would not argue!

wouldn't matter if it was mickey mouse driving the police car with his hat on back-to-front, that is calibrated evidence and nothing to do with the police lying or trying to stitch her up.

 

she will never win if contested.

 

what worries me more is she had no idea she was doing that kind of speed and genuinely believes she was not.

 

dx

 

She got into the car with them and they showed her a cctv screen with her car parked in front of the police car, not footage of her car speeding. It had 90.7mph on it and she doesn't know what else was on it.

This is why she wants to know what method they used to determine this speed, to know whether it was calibrated tools used to gather this evidence or not! I don't think she is being unreasonable here, you again assume the police are right and she is wrong. Are you a police office dx?

[dx100uk]

that doesn't sound right either.......

 

strange, if she saw the speed on the in-car cctv then it [the relevent video] will be recorded as when you hit the mark and time buttons thats what happens.

 

ok well lets see.

 

dxz

[papasmurf1cx]

Hi,

 

so they told her to look at the CCTV screen in the car

 

 

Chez...... Did the officers actually wind back the video and reply the footage which is what you seemed to have said originally? Think of this logically if it was recorded and there is video evidence then that is the proof. Is it not possible that the 110 was the figure the police clocked in their pursuit of your friend. Maybe not what she did, however once she was caught up they must have followed her for some time to record the footage. Obviously it is a matter for her but as I said elsewhere we all make mistakes and actions we regret and are more careful the next time. !!!!

 

 

 

Just seen your above posts. Even if the incident is not recorded the officers have issued the ticket and no doubt will substaniate the allegation in court. You could hope that the second officer didn't make a corroborating notew which could put doubt on the matter. I suppose she needs to plead not guilty and have it played out in court.

Edited August 18, 2010 by papasmurf1cx

[dx100uk]

She got into the car with them and they showed her a cctv screen with her car parked in front of the police car, not footage of her car speeding. It had 90.7mph on it and she doesn't know what else was on it.

This is why she wants to know what method they used to determine this speed, to know whether it was calibrated tools used to gather this evidence or not! I don't think she is being unreasonable here, you again assume the police are right and she is wrong. Are you a police office dx?

 

urm thats for you to know and me to find out.........i think.....

 

it can be quite obviously seen that i don't pull punches on here [cag], but as cag is for helping people, that matters not and does not influence my giving said help, .......

 

now... the timeline of events on what the officers did, in terms of the time to catch up, distance and safe and appropriate place to stop her, all follow what i would expect them to do in such circumstances given the speeds involved. so, honestly as i have already said, as that all falls into place, i would not expect 'the second part' not to fall into place interms of std procedure.

 

which is why some of the answers/story you have given i have questioned, esp about what happened in the car, i know how the in-car stuff works [but am purposely being a bit vague for my own reasons] .

 

they don't 'have' to show you the footage taken whilst the [over timed distance] speed check was done, which appears as overlayed figures on the screen, but typically they would do, but, don't read into this that that then leads to an error, the speed check and the footage are two systems to the same screen, the speeding evidence [over the timed distance] cannot latterly be determined from the footage again, though the speed indication of the police car 'on' the footage is admissable, hence where the 110 prob came from i suspect, but that could be catch up speed too as advised.

however, there will be 'markers' on the video of when the start/stop of the timed distance system was pressed.

 

so, in effect, the video 'could' be used to verify the correct speed for the correct distance was recorded because it could later be measured.

so they could not 'stitch you up' that way i'e make the speed higher than what you were traveling at by pressing the buttons sooner.

 

as for the calibration, as above the video can be used later with a measuring device on the actual road to check that the wheel sensors were correctly checked/calibrated that day.

the checking of the sensors is typically done during the daily task of tyre pressure adjustment/check

 

hth

 

dx

[letshelp]

subbing

[wheelergeezer]

Bottom line question here. Was the OP there? If not then how do you know what happened at all?

[sameagle]

Love the bit about "daily task of tyre pressure adjustment/check" !

 

What on earth is wrong with a cursory kick to the nearest tyre, once per year - usually just as the keys are being taken into the MOT station?

 

Don't worry - only joking!

[chez262]

urm thats for you to know and me to find out.........i think.....

 

it can be quite obviously seen that i don't pull punches on here [cag], but as cag is for helping people, that matters not and does not influence my giving said help, .......

 

now... the timeline of events on what the officers did, in terms of the time to catch up, distance and safe and appropriate place to stop her, all follow what i would expect them to do in such circumstances given the speeds involved. so, honestly as i have already said, as that all falls into place, i would not expect 'the second part' not to fall into place interms of std procedure.

 

which is why some of the answers/story you have given i have questioned, esp about what happened in the car, i know how the in-car stuff works [but am purposely being a bit vague for my own reasons] .

 

they don't 'have' to show you the footage taken whilst the [over timed distance] speed check was done, which appears as overlayed figures on the screen, but typically they would do, but, don't read into this that that then leads to an error, the speed check and the footage are two systems to the same screen, the speeding evidence [over the timed distance] cannot latterly be determined from the footage again, though the speed indication of the police car 'on' the footage is admissable, hence where the 110 prob came from i suspect, but that could be catch up speed too as advised.

however, there will be 'markers' on the video of when the start/stop of the timed distance system was pressed.

 

so, in effect, the video 'could' be used to verify the correct speed for the correct distance was recorded because it could later be measured.

so they could not 'stitch you up' that way i'e make the speed higher than what you were traveling at by pressing the buttons sooner.

 

as for the calibration, as above the video can be used later with a measuring device on the actual road to check that the wheel sensors were correctly checked/calibrated that day.

the checking of the sensors is typically done during the daily task of tyre pressure adjustment/check

 

hth

 

dx

 

Finally... I get the answers I've been looking for!! Thank you.

 

They didn't show her any footage, only a speed figure (90.7mph) on the CCTV screen were she could see her car parked in front of the police car.

What you say here does makes sense and clarifies a lot of things, things I was trying to seek.

 

I must say though, speed checks over timed distance in the rain at 23:23 with no road lights could be judged an inadequate way to decipher the speed of a car presumably travelling 90 mph.

Especially when the charging officer then notes on the FPN that the incident took place at 11:23. Just something to take into consideration when you CAG. As you say, it's a forum seeking help not accusations.

Thank you anyway officer for clarifying the means of speed checking when stopped by an unmarked police car and issued a FPN at night... or was it morning?? hmm if what you say is anything to go by then who cares... once your stopped by a police car your guilty.

[chez262]

urm thats for you to know and me to find out.........i think.....

 

it can be quite obviously seen that i don't pull punches on here [cag], but as cag is for helping people, that matters not and does not influence my giving said help, .......

 

now... the timeline of events on what the officers did, in terms of the time to catch up, distance and safe and appropriate place to stop her, all follow what i would expect them to do in such circumstances given the speeds involved. so, honestly as i have already said, as that all falls into place, i would not expect 'the second part' not to fall into place interms of std procedure.

 

which is why some of the answers/story you have given i have questioned, esp about what happened in the car, i know how the in-car stuff works [but am purposely being a bit vague for my own reasons] .

 

they don't 'have' to show you the footage taken whilst the [over timed distance] speed check was done, which appears as overlayed figures on the screen, but typically they would do, but, don't read into this that that then leads to an error, the speed check and the footage are two systems to the same screen, the speeding evidence [over the timed distance] cannot latterly be determined from the footage again, though the speed indication of the police car 'on' the footage is admissable, hence where the 110 prob came from i suspect, but that could be catch up speed too as advised.

however, there will be 'markers' on the video of when the start/stop of the timed distance system was pressed.

 

so, in effect, the video 'could' be used to verify the correct speed for the correct distance was recorded because it could later be measured.

so they could not 'stitch you up' that way i'e make the speed higher than what you were traveling at by pressing the buttons sooner.

 

as for the calibration, as above the video can be used later with a measuring device on the actual road to check that the wheel sensors were correctly checked/calibrated that day.

the checking of the sensors is typically done during the daily task of tyre pressure adjustment/check

 

hth

 

dx

 

Oh and I believe there is case law against the police force regularly calibrating speed checking tools is there not? Never mind, we can trust the police to get it right can't we dx

[dx100uk]

dont think it was for that system chez, think you'll find that was for the earlier laser guns.....

 

that system is quite foolproof, and yes it is the most 'trustworthy' , unlike motorists who cannot be trusted to not speed or use mobile phones .

 

as i said in my other post, what worries me more is she had no idea she was doing that kind of speed and genuinely believes she was not.

she has got off very lucky.

 

 

dx ... good morning

[chez262]

dont think it was for that system chez, think you'll find that was for the earlier laser guns.....

 

that system is quite foolproof, and yes it is the most 'trustworthy' , unlike motorists who cannot be trusted to not speed or use mobile phones .

 

as i said in my other post, what worries me more is she had no idea she was doing that kind of speed and genuinely believes she was not.

she has got off very lucky.

 

 

dx ... good morning

 

Morning dx..... before the earlier laser guns were proven to be flawed I'm sure it was said they were also foolproof and trustworthy! As I said in my other post, when it comes down to a person (the same person who got the accuracy of the fine wrong) trying to determine the speed of a car using timed distance at supposedly 90mph along an unlit road in the rain then I don't think it can guarantee accuracy, however this is just my opinion. I take on board you opinion also that police are never wrong.

If I understand correctly from what you say, the 90.7mph speed in the corner of the CCTV is the speed determined from point to point when the officer presses start and stop? To prove this is correct, the recorder would have to be running to show when the start and stop were pressed against a certain point in the road? The officer who pressed the start and stop would have to clearly see a point in the road hence me noting it was night time, raining and an unlit road. This is all dependant information and not guaranteed precision therefore my opinion on your statement above is that it seems naive.

 

Hey ho... I guess unless she wants to pay court fees to challenge this then she has no chance and is guilty until proven innocent as the police are all 'trustworthy'. I would suggest it's not the speed check that is foolproof but the process of law by which it stands. I'm sorry but I fail to see how this form of speed check is more guaranteed than the technology it replaces, the technology that has already been proven to be flawed.

[chez262]

Morning dx..... before the earlier laser guns were proven to be flawed I'm sure it was said they were also foolproof and trustworthy! As I said in my other post, when it comes down to a person (the same person who got the accuracy of the fine wrong) trying to determine the speed of a car using timed distance at supposedly 90mph along an unlit road in the rain then I don't think it can guarantee accuracy, however this is just my opinion. I take on board you opinion also that police are never wrong.

If I understand correctly from what you say, the 90.7mph speed in the corner of the CCTV is the speed determined from point to point when the officer presses start and stop? To prove this is correct, the recorder would have to be running to show when the start and stop were pressed against a certain point in the road? The officer who pressed the start and stop would have to clearly see a point in the road hence me noting it was night time, raining and an unlit road. This is all dependant information and not guaranteed precision therefore my opinion on your statement above is that it seems naive.

 

Hey ho... I guess unless she wants to pay court fees to challenge this then she has no chance and is guilty until proven innocent as the police are all 'trustworthy'. I would suggest it's not the speed check that is foolproof but the process of law by which it stands. I'm sorry but I fail to see how this form of speed check is more guaranteed than the technology it replaces, the technology that has already been proven to be flawed.

 

If however the start and stop is automated then admittedly it is more accurate than a manual device. It does still stand though that if the device needs calibrating then again it puts it's accuracy into dispute and we all know what happens when it is not carried out regularly or correctly.

[dragonkeeper]

Bottom line question here. Was the OP there? If not then how do you know what happened at all?

 

 

Good point

 

 

Finally... I get the answers I've been looking for!! Thank you.

 

They didn't show her any footage, only a speed figure (90.7mph) on the CCTV screen were she could see her car parked in front of the police car.

What you say here does makes sense and clarifies a lot of things, things I was trying to seek.

 

I must say though, speed checks over timed distance in the rain at 23:23 with no road lights could be judged an inadequate way to decipher the speed of a car presumably travelling 90 mph.

Especially when the charging officer then notes on the FPN that the incident took place at 11:23. Just something to take into consideration when you CAG. As you say, it's a forum seeking help not accusations.

Thank you anyway officer for clarifying the means of speed checking when stopped by an unmarked police car and issued a FPN at night... or was it morning?? hmm if what you say is anything to go by then who cares... once your stopped by a police car your guilty.

 

 

 

I must admit I like OP's post #33 'quoted' (not ) first part of post "praising info" seconded part "deriding info" :? :-?

 

 

 

 

 

dk

 

(Still cannot change text or colours for highlighting or timed posts)

[dx100uk]

no issue

i can understand where you are coming from

the calilbration is extremely simple and if i were to be homest it could be done automatically, but, for the process of prosecution, it has to be done by an 'authorised' person in terms of the law i'e 'a' police officer suitably trained.

 

anyhow, on to your point of the actual speed check process.

 

the 'distance measured' [if you like the buttom presses] is actually done over a greater than has to be to provide an accurate speed, so thus it removes the element of human error.

and the 'recorder' will automatically start [it is one of those systems that spools the last 60secs all the time anyhow and adds that to the front of the footage at the first press] and automatically stops [unless told not too] after. it can also not be cancelled by an 'early' second press. once the process has started, it runs its course and cannot be stopped until after a set time, the indication of the speed will appear on the screen and the officer can then hit the button to end the speed measurement or let it run to gain a speed over a greater distance, typically though, they do not. and once it displays the speed, they will end the process

 

sadly it is rather foolproof which is why it is the most popular one.

it could all be automatic, but for thesake of prosecution/law, an officer must be involved.

 

good night i'm off at 4, i'll catch you in the morning

 

dx

 

 

 

i don't think, [i'd have to see the archieves] it has ever been successfully challenged

[chez262]

Good point

 

 

 

 

 

 

I must admit I like OP's post #33 'quoted' (not ) first part of post "praising info" seconded part "deriding info" :? :-?

 

 

 

 

 

dk

 

(Still cannot change text or colours for highlighting or timed posts)

 

Ok I assume I'm the OP... apologies for my ignorance here I'm just not a regular.

 

I only come on here to ask a question for a friend on whether she could request the footage or evidence of her speeding before paying the fine to confirm and write out any doubts that she may of had as she felt quite threatened by the office in question therefore I hope that answers your question as to whether I was there or not.

 

As for my #33 post, I quite rightly thanked dx for kindly providing me with the information regarding the type of device used to capture the supposed speed. I then went on to challenge the accuracy of the device used.

Whether I believe there is a chance that the device could not be as accuate as suggested is only my opinion, it does not by any means deride or disagree with the information dx provided to me in regard to the method used. It is the quality of the method used that I challenged.

You may be referring to the slight sarcasm used at the end which was included to counter the attitute dx used, nothing more, my perogative I feel.

 

Oh and dragonkeeper, I notice you sign off like dx (dk) nice touch

[chez262]

no issue

i can understand where you are coming from

the calilbration is extremely simple and if i were to be homest it could be done automatically, but, for the process of prosecution, it has to be done by an 'authorised' person in terms of the law i'e 'a' police officer suitably trained.

 

anyhow, on to your point of the actual speed check process.

 

the 'distance measured' [if you like the buttom presses] is actually done over a greater than has to be to provide an accurate speed, so thus it removes the element of human error.

and the 'recorder' will automatically start [it is one of those systems that spools the last 60secs all the time anyhow and adds that to the front of the footage at the first press] and automatically stops [unless told not too] after. it can also not be cancelled by an 'early' second press. once the process has started, it runs its course and cannot be stopped until after a set time, the indication of the speed will appear on the screen and the officer can then hit the button to end the speed measurement or let it run to gain a speed over a greater distance, typically though, they do not. and once it displays the speed, they will end the process

 

sadly it is rather foolproof which is why it is the most popular one.

it could all be automatic, but for thesake of prosecution/law, an officer must be involved.

 

good night i'm off at 4, i'll catch you in the morning

 

dx

 

 

 

i don't think, [i'd have to see the archieves] it has ever been successfully challenged

 

Thanks for the further clarification, much appreciated and very interesting stuff.

 

Goodnight

 

chez

[Wriggler7]

All clever technical stuff! However, there is a point being missed here. The offence is speeding, that is to say, doing more than the speed limit. I assume it was a 70 limit, and all the prosecutor needs to do is to establish by acceptable methods that the driver was doing 'more than 70'. Whether it was 90.7 or 89.8 is only materiel when considering 'punishment'.

 

There undoubtedly would have been a conversation, in which it may be that the officers said 'when you went past us, it looked like you were doing 110, so we followed you between 'x' and 'y', here is the screen recording, it shows an average of 90.7' or whatever.

 

Whether dx is 'elderly William' or not doesn't make the slightest difference to whether the OP was speeding, although good to read how things have changed since VASCAR. (DX will have to find an ancient wizened PC at the back of the property store to remember that system)

[chez262]

All clever technical stuff! However, there is a point being missed here. The offence is speeding, that is to say, doing more than the speed limit. I assume it was a 70 limit, and all the prosecutor needs to do is to establish by acceptable methods that the driver was doing 'more than 70'. Whether it was 90.7 or 89.8 is only materiel when considering 'punishment'.

 

There undoubtedly would have been a conversation, in which it may be that the officers said 'when you went past us, it looked like you were doing 110, so we followed you between 'x' and 'y', here is the screen recording, it shows an average of 90.7' or whatever.

 

Whether dx is 'elderly William' or not doesn't make the slightest difference to whether the OP was speeding, although good to read how things have changed since VASCAR. (DX will have to find an ancient wizened PC at the back of the property store to remember that system)

 

Again I have to stress I was not the offender nor was I present... I was just asking a question on a forum I presumed was here to help people like me and my friend who have limited knowledge of this stuff, only to be 'wrist slapped' by everyone on here accusing my friend of not knowing what she was doing... Totally uncalled for!

 

Anyhow, my friend does not recall speeding at 90mph never mind 110mph which is one of the reasons she come away from the incident slightly jaded. Another reason being she was shown a screen that had 90.7mph and didn't quite understand what any of it was so we thought maybe someone on here could tell us whether she could get to see the footage and be informed of the method used to determine this speed. And a further reason is because the officer told her not to bother appealing because they will just make it worse for her whereby she can be charged with other acts.

 

It is great that technology has improved but I do not warrant abuse or ridicule because I voiced my opinion and questioned the validity of the technology especially as I was being led to believe it is not actually technology but technology with manual intervention from officers to determine the speed.

[JonCris]

A police officer can charge a motorist with speeding WITHOUT the need of a device & yes she can dispute if she truly believes she wasn't speeding BUT its going to be a costly & long uphill struggle even if she is innocent & if found guilty again in court she may even be banned as well having to pay a greatly increased fine

 

I would suggest she consults an experienced motoring solicitor before embarking on what could turn out to be a costly time wasting exercise

[JonCris]

PS Google the site 'pepipoo' they are experts in all things motoring

[dx100uk]

hehe vascar

 

i fitted the first ones on the met police then we did essex

 

the infamous police, camera. action...red stripped transit van in essex where it smacks into the island sign after a chase across 3 counties was the 2nd outing of that car.

it had only been done 3 days earlier

 

dx

 

 

 

the full video was some 74mins

[papasmurf1cx]

I presumed was here to help people like me and my friend who have limited knowledge of this stuff, only to be 'wrist slapped' by everyone on here accusing my friend of not knowing what she was doing... Totally uncalled for!

 

 

Chez I don't think anyone on here have said anything that was not reasonably held view in light of the information that you originally posted and again how the thread developed. Enforcement of traffic offences can be very emotive and I have no doubt that you and your friend have felt frustrated. But I also think, as many on this thread have also said, that your friend has an uphill and expensive struggle to prove that she was not speeding. The thread has developed into many usefal spin offs as to the legality and procedures that you should find useful in making a decision on where to go next. I don't think anyone deserved the rebuke that caggers comments were uncalled for.

[scousegeezer]

Chez,

I dont know if you are aware, but the end of the M57 towards switch island has road lights. You have stated a couple of times that it was an unlit road/motorway. How busy was the road. Is it possible that the officers confused your friends car with the actual offending vcehicle, in light of the speead and spray that would have been thrown up. If the officers had taken the trouble to take your friend back to their car, they would have shown her the actual video footage of her car speeding ; not just the speed displayed and her car stationary. You may find that Merseyside Police may still summon your friend to court, given the speed and the road conditions. As regards the time - there is something called the slip rule which would allow the officers to change the time - easy mistake to make - just forgot to put pm instead of leaving it as 11.23. AS has been previously stated - you cannot request any evidence. Your friend will have to attend the pre-trial meeting , enter a plea of not guilty and then request disclosure , including the video evidence. If there isnt any video evidence............. well make your own mind up.

 

Cheers - Scousegeezer

[chez262]

Quotes;

 

'tell her not to speed'

'what worries me more is she had no idea she was doing that kind of speed and genuinely believes she was not'

'Bottom line question here. Was the OP there? If not then how do you know what happened at all?'

'I must admit I like OP's post #33 'quoted' (not ) first part of post "praising info" seconded part "deriding info" :idea: :confused:'

 

All very constructive comments and provided the help I required in a forum I thought would help.

 

I did however get the information I required which in turn received my thanks. Like I say, I have limited knowledge of speeding fines received by police and wondered if it was possible my friend could request any information to prove it to her and whether the device used in this instance was guaranteed.

If I received any reasonable reponse to suggest she was definately speeding and that there was no way the device could possibly be wrong or open to human error then I'd suggest to her she was clearly speeding with no cause to defend the accusation. As I say, the quote above do not warrant any for of necessary response.

 

dx clearly has a reason to defend speed cameras and refuse any criticism of them with his involvement in them coming to light eventually which is fair enough. The opperative word being defend in this case as his response edged on just being rude and judgemental.

[buzby]

No right to the video evidence prior to a declaration of innicence or guilt, however up here since the beginning of Augisst the Police have been making this video evidence available PRIOR to any declaration, as they say this is useful in getting a guilty plea early, rather than wait for due process.