Speeding ticket in the post?

[B1scu1T]

On what basis? What is a court going to believe? The professional opinion of a police officer or "I wasn't doing that speed guvnor!"

Well for one, if the officer has zero evidence, then whats to stop them genuinely making a mistake and writing your plate down wrong? There has to be some protection for human error, so although I wouldn't lie, I also wouldn't presume that the officers opinion is also gospel.

As far as the Radar (usually also actually a laser) gun is concerned, they're are notoriously susceptible to environmental conditions and need to have regular calibration checks. They can often pick up the wrong car or be thrown off due to reflections (etc). Plenty of people have tested these things and found them to read static objects breaking the speed limit... they're just bad evidence.

Chances are, like I said before, they're probably using something more sophisticated than those devices anyway and if they're not, they will probably pull you over immediately or do nothing at all.

 

[200sols]

Set cruise control lower and never worry? These people saying no officer will do you for 80 are not telling the truth, plenty of documented cases all over the internet of just that and even less. I'm not trying to preach, just saying it how it is.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Personally now when going any sort of decent distance, cruise to 77 indicated so assume 75 probable
Most of the time there is so much traffic its hard to go much faster and you just end up speeding up and slowing down more.

I don't see the point in doing something like 85, its quite likely to get you pulled if spotted, or a ticked from a fixed, and its going to save a few minutes on a decent journey, seems a bit of an idiotic speed to do.

 

[Akagi]

Set cruise control lower and never worry? These people saying no officer will do you for 80 are not telling the truth, plenty of documented cases all over the internet of just that and even less. I'm not trying to preach, just saying it how it is.

Are they cases where they were caught by a camera or a gun and then received a letter in the mail though? Or are they cases where they were pulled over by a traffic car after being caught with a gun or followed over a short distance by a car with a calibrated speedo?

 

[Burnsy2023]

Well for one, if the officer has zero evidence, then whats to stop them genuinely making a mistake and writing your plate down wrong? There has to be some protection for human error, so although I wouldn't lie, I also wouldn't presume that the officers opinion is also gospel.

The police officer has loads of evidence. They will have a speed reading and a statement detailing their observations. You would need to have a defence that you weren't there and explain where you were and introduce enough doubt that it wasn't you (which isn't easy). Simply saying the officer might have made a mistake isn't enough.

As far as the Radar (usually also actually a laser) gun is concerned, they're are notoriously susceptible to environmental conditions and need to have regular calibration checks. They can often pick up the wrong car or be thrown off due to reflections (etc). Plenty of people have tested these things and found them to read static objects breaking the speed limit... they're just bad evidence.

If they are regularly calibrated - which they should be and there should be a log - then you've got a mountain to climb. The devices need to be Home Office approved and so this will be a non-starter in all but the most exceptional of circumstances.

Chances are, like I said before, they're probably using something more sophisticated than those devices anyway and if they're not, they will probably pull you over immediately or do nothing at all.

The devices will either be Home Office approved and therefore meet the requirements to stand up in court or they won't. The police won't be using unapproved equipment.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Set cruise control lower and never worry? These people saying no officer will do you for 80 are not telling the truth, plenty of documented cases all over the internet of just that and even less. I'm not trying to preach, just saying it how it is.

In most of the 43 territorial forces in the UK they won't prosecute under 10% +2 MPH. There are exceptions though; Merseyside being one that comes to mind. It might be that this variation in geographic policy is causing confusion.

 

[Skillmister]

Genuine question, am I the only person that does about 74 (indicated) on the motorway because thats the speed limit?

Depends on the journey. Daily commute I do 70 max, normally just sit behind a truck, why would I spend more getting to work faster? Plus lane 2 is full of people hammering it up to 80 then slamming on and causing tail backs so can't be bothered with that.

Coming back from holiday last year, landed in London about 9pm after a 14 hour flight. Got back to my brother's in Oxford about 10:30pm, jumped in my car and set the cruise to 90 all the way to Colwyn Bay. Makes a bit of a difference over 200 miles

 

[Raymond Lin]

I stick to speed limits nowadays. Speeding makes hardly any difference to journey times so why bother risking it.

I just stick to the speed limit, i might accelerate faster if i am in a hurry but i find more often than not I catch up to those that overtakes me eventually down the road.

 

[peterwalkley]

My general experience of this is that the police are more interested in the deterrent effect than actual prosecutions: so tend to park something large and marked up on the motorway bridge when they're out. I guess you find out for sure in the next 2 weeks though.

 

[200sols]

In most of the 43 territorial forces in the UK they won't prosecute under 10% +2 MPH. There are exceptions though; Merseyside being one that comes to mind. It might be that this variation in geographic policy is causing confusion.

People are saying police wont pull you for 80 which is clearly not true. IMO no point risking an indicated 85 which is in reality is more like actual 81-2, may as well sit at 95 indicated?

 

[Burnsy2023]

People are saying police wont pull you for 80 which is clearly not true. IMO no point risking an indicated 85 which is in reality is more like actual 81-2, may as well sit at 95 indicated?

Police absolutely can pull you for 80, but in Hampshire, I couldn't write you a ticket for less than 80MPH as it would be bounced by the central ticket office for being out of policy. That's not the same everywhere though.

 

[B1scu1T]

The police officer has loads of evidence. They will have a speed reading and a statement detailing their observations. You would need to have a defence that you weren't there and explain where you were and introduce enough doubt that it wasn't you (which isn't easy). Simply saying the officer might have made a mistake isn't enough.

Im not saying you should go to court and just say "you're wrong", im saying that a statement based off a basic speed measuring device on a busy road is pretty flimsy by modern standards and the public has every right to be able to defend themself about wrongful accusation.
Lets say, for example, you get a NIP through that says your can was going 42 in a 30 zone, but you cant ever recall speeding in the area stated in the NIP. Should you just roll over and take it despite the fact that there is a realistic chance that there has been some kind of error?
No bloody chance, request further information to help identify the driver. Not evidence, just assistance, as step one, whether you're contesting the ticket or not, is for you to actually identify the driver. They don't have to provide it, but there is little reason for them not to do so as they actually want you to identify the driver... so they generally do... if they have the photo.
If there is nothing they can provide then I think you have grounds to appeal either informally or formally, and if that falls on deaf ears, consider taking the matter to the courts, because it's quite likely they have zilcho and it is up to them to prove that YOU were driving AND you were speeding.
That's exactly why you would generally get pulled if there is an officer monitoring with a basic speedgun, and why most of the modern system take a picture or video with the driver in shot. They want that NIP to be assigned to a real person.

If they are regularly calibrated - which they should be and there should be a log - then you've got a mountain to climb. The devices need to be Home Office approved and so this will be a non-starter in all but the most exceptional of circumstances.

They should be yes, but the Police are just as open to mistakes as you are and if you do take it to court, you will be presented with all the evidence they have, including logs, software version and calibration records. If an officer is sat with a speed gun writing down number plates and sending off NIPs, how detailed do you think his statement is going to be?

Anyway... this is a pointless argument as the overwhelming majority of speeding offenses are with cameras, it's far more efficient/profitable for them. If there is a dude with a speed detector and it doesn't have a camera, or a follow up car/bike... my guess is that it's more of a deterent.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Im not saying you should go to court and just say "you're wrong", im saying that a statement based off a basic speed measuring device on a busy road is pretty flimsy by modern standards

This is part of my point: it's either HO approved and therefore likely to stand up in court or it's not. The police don't use unapproved devices for this reason.

If there is nothing they can provide then I think you have grounds to appeal either informally or formally, and if that falls on deaf ears, consider taking the matter to the courts, because it's quite likely they have zilcho and it is up to them to prove that YOU were driving AND you were speeding.

Yes and no. Yes the court needs to be satisfied they have correctly identified the driver, but with the NIP comes a S172 notice to the registered keeper obligating them to identify the driver. Failure to do so is an offence in itself. If they get you for failing to provide details instead of speeding, then that's still a positive outcome.

That's exactly why you would generally get pulled if there is an officer monitoring with a basic speedgun, and why most of the modern system take a picture or video with the driver in shot. They want that NIP to be assigned to a real person.

Generally, it's quicker and less effort to pull someone for two reasons: you get rid of any identification issues and you don't need to worry about NIPs being served beyond the statutory timeframe as you can do it at the roadside.

They should be yes, but the Police are just as open to mistakes as you are and if you do take it to court, you will be presented with all the evidence they have, including logs, software version and calibration records. If an officer is sat with a speed gun writing down number plates and sending off NIPs, how detailed do you think his statement is going to be?

As detailed as it needs to be. Simply having time, date, registration, location and measured speed would be more or less enough. Calibration of the speed guns are done prior to use and added to a log. This would be fairly simple to provide.

Anyway... this is a pointless argument as the overwhelming majority of speeding offenses are with cameras, it's far more efficient/profitable for them.

Police forces don't profit from speeding prosecutions or FPNs, other than costs, the money goes to the Treasury.

 

[B1scu1T]

Yes and no. Yes the court needs to be satisfied they have correctly identified the driver, but with the NIP comes a S172 notice to the registered keeper obligating them to identify the driver. Failure to do so is an offence in itself. If they get you for failing to provide details instead of speeding, then that's still a positive outcome.

Actually the courts need to be satisfied you have take sufficient measures to identify the driver. If you write a letter to the police stating that none of the insured drivers have any recollection of driving in the location & time stated in the NIP, and you would like additional information to assist in identifying the driver then you're taking pretty reasonable measures. I'm not talking necessarily about "avoiding" a ticket, I'm talking about the measures you can take to protect yourself as a civilian.
If the police had made a mistake, then there would be no way you could identify the driver and you should be protected against this.
The Police have a due diligence to follow and should be held accountable to mistakes above and beyond the mistakes of the public. As far as I'm concerned a police officer with just a basic bit of hand held speed measuring equipment is open to user error far more than a static piece of automated electronic kit, and you have every right to make sure they haven't if you feel that's the case.

As detailed as it needs to be. Simply having time, date, registration, location and measured speed would be more or less enough. Calibration of the speed guns are done prior to use and added to a log. This would be fairly simple to provide.

Calibrating of the speed guns SHOULD be done prior to use. Again, mistakes can be made. Any mistakes in the recording of the incident would result in the ticket being thrown. It's up to the individual how far they plan to take it, but any solicitor worth half his salt will be able to dig up precedent setting cases of tickets being thrown out based on insufficient or inaccurate evidence from these devices.
All i'm saying here is if they have no photographic evidence of the alleged incident, I would seriously consider taking the case further, even if further only meant writing a letter to the constabulary to politely appeal the case on the grounds they may have made a mistake.

Police forces don't profit from speeding prosecutions or FPNs, other than costs, the money goes to the Treasury.

However you want to qualify the comment, I'm talking about the efficiency of the approach rather than the specifics of the money transfer. Cameras are undeniably more efficient at capturing and prosecuting traffic offenses.

 

[bainbridge]

Well if it is a speeding ticket then it's my own fault. I've been doing 85mph on long runs since my last speeding ticket 10 years ago when I got stopped for doing 91mph by a traffic cop on the M4 in between Chippenham and Swindon. I accepted the fixed penalty he wrote out while sitting in his police car on the hard shoulder (I didn't have a leg to stand on) but pointed out that most of the passing traffic was doing over 70mph and asked over what speed would he pull someone over? He said if they're over 15mph over the motorway limit.

Since then on a long run I've been doing 85 but after reading these comments I might reduce this to an indicated 79mph.

 

[fadetoblack]

I'm pretty sure with hand held they have to pull you over...

not with me they they posted it?

 

[Doobedoo]

I'm pretty sure with hand held they have to pull you over...

No I was done on the A303 by an bike officer wearing a scarf around his face pointing a device directly at me. I only saw it when I was just about to drive past it was very sneaky.

 

[Dr Who]

Police have had hand held speed cameras for about 12 months iirc

 

[The1nonly1]

If you get a ticket for doing over the speed limit, no matter if its 5 mph over, you deserve it. No sympathy at all for people who get tickets for this. There is a speed limit for a reason.

 

[Nasher]

There is some leeway or they would be swamped with issuing tickets to people doing 71mph. Since they don't make any profit on it ( ), that is a lot of time wasted on admin for something so insignificant.