Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. ‘Corroboration’ is a vital element in speeding cases - in other words to secure a conviction for speeding there must be two separate pieces of evidence each backing the other up. This is usually someone’s opinion backed up by the reading on the ‘speed-reading device’. In Court this would go something like this – “I saw the vehicle approach and formed the opinion that it was exceeding the speed limit” (first piece of evidence). “I then checked the ‘speed-reading device’ that read ??? mph” (second piece of evidence).

In theory, two pedestrians witnessing the same speeding event (and without any form of electronic device) can each corroborate each other’s opinion and succeed in Court, but this is extremely unlikely.

In the case of static speed cameras there should also be grid lines painted on the road surface a set distance apart and two pictures are taken with a one second interval, thus making it possible to work out the speed.

Mac

Corrected.

There is no rule of evidence that says that there must be at least 2 pieces of evidence for anything. I have no idea where this has come from, but it isn't the first time I've heard it.

To prove speeding, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following, (presuming there aren't any strange issues in the case like whether or not the car is a mechanically propelled vehicle):

1) The vehicle was being driven on a road or "other public place" (which is pretty widely defined)

2) The vehicle was being driven in excess of the posted speed limit

(and, I suppose 3) That the defendant was the driver at the relevant time)

That's it folks. Of course, if there are 15 pieces of evidence saying the car was exceeding the limit then the court is more likely to be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the car was speeding, but there's no requirement for more than one piece of evidence.

So in theory, if the camera just happens to be pointing at the road with nobody behind it "forming the opinion" that the target vehicle is speeding, then the reading of the camera alone is enough to secure a conviction. Think about the average speed cameras on the motorways - they are the only piece of evidence, but they are more than enough to secure convictions.

You are right about the lines on the road - they are there to allow speed to be calculated by the old "speed = distance/time" theory.

As to the percentage you must be over the limit before you are prosecuted, it's a matter of discretion for individual coppers and force areas. 71mph in a 70mph is an offence as a matter of law, but rarely prosecuted for public interest reasons.

Edited 15 March, 200917 yr by Bigw2069
fixed quote

I presume all it has to do is pass the CPS 2 tests then? (same as other crimes?)

1) public interest test - is it in the public interest to prosecute

2) evidential test? - what evidence there is?

sorry - had a recent brush with the fuzz, so becoming somewhat of a interested party in this subject

Yep - CPS are under a duty to review all cases on those two bases. That includes traffic cases, although the scrutiny that cases attract at review stages is proportional to their seriousness, so you can imagine how much of his time the average CPS lawyer devotes to considering the public interest test on a speeder...

Evidential test is "is there enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction." They interpret "realistic prospect" as being 50%plus chance of a guilty verdict, which is massively subjective.

The signed bit is a myth.

The person sending the form will be acting for the police authority/camera partnership.

70 - 78 - ingored - provided that your not driving like a ****

78- 85 - 3 poitns / £60

86 - 95 3/6 points + £x - possible dangerous driving charge (if driving like a ****) + potential ban

96 + dangerous driving + ban

Where did this come from ?

......otherwise. drag it out as much as you can. request the photo, ive heard about cases where thinking theyve got the prosectution, theyve chucked the photo. challenge everything, but dont be surprised if you end up loosing. sorry

Another of the 'I know I've done it but how can I get out of it' brigade.

Working in the legal system, if anyone had any idea how much money is wasted just because people aren't prepared to live up to their responsibilities, they might think again.

Just because you want to cause as much aggravation as possible, thousands of pounds of taxpayer's money goes down the tubes.

Personally it sickens me to the bone, but no doubt the practice will continue.

If you are prepared to speed, be prepared to face the consequences.

Here endeth the lesson.

(sits back and waits for the **** to hit the fan)

In the case of static speed cameras there should also be grid lines painted on the road surface a set distance apart and two pictures are taken with a one second interval, thus making it possible to work out the speed.

Mac

Think you'll find that the lines are not necessary -there's a method working out speed ( name escapes me ) by photographic method which is allowed for( in the type spec ,and is all that is required AFAIK) .The lines are there to make matters easier (I believe ) -sort of sop to make us believe that it's not SCP magic .In actual fact to determine the speed ,the time interval of the flash setting needs to be known -it may or may not be as said .(Have heard it quoted as different ,and some SCP being difficult on revealing this figure )

Corrected.

There is no rule of evidence that says that there must be at least 2 pieces of evidence for anything. I have no idea where this has come from, but it isn't the first time I've heard it.

To prove speeding, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following, (presuming there aren't any strange issues in the case like whether or not the car is a mechanically propelled vehicle):

1) The vehicle was being driven on a road or "other public place" (which is pretty widely defined)

2) The vehicle was being driven in excess of the posted speed limit

(and, I suppose 3) That the defendant was the driver at the relevant time)

That's it folks. Of course, if there are 15 pieces of evidence saying the car was exceeding the limit then the court is more likely to be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the car was speeding, but there's no requirement for more than one piece of evidence.

So in theory, if the camera just happens to be pointing at the road with nobody behind it "forming the opinion" that the target vehicle is speeding, then the reading of the camera alone is enough to secure a conviction. Think about the average speed cameras on the motorways - they are the only piece of evidence, but they are more than enough to secure convictions.

You are right about the lines on the road - they are there to allow speed to be calculated by the old "speed = distance/time" theory.

As to the percentage you must be over the limit before you are prosecuted, it's a matter of discretion for individual coppers and force areas. 71mph in a 70mph is an offence as a matter of law, but rarely prosecuted for public interest reasons.

The rule must either have been changed or it's being ignored.

Mac

Edited 15 March, 200917 yr by Bigw2069
fixed quote

The rule must either have been changed or it's being ignored.

Mac

You are possibly getting confused with the situation where the opinion evidence of one police officer is not sufficient. I think I'm right in saying that in that case there is a need for corroboration by a second officer.

Edited 15 March, 200917 yr by Bigw2069
fixed quote

Where did this come from ?

the above i got from a roaduser forum.

If you read through the posts the generally accepted point is that theres no consistancy in our road laws . For case point take any police camera action type program. youll get one road user whos banned for 2 years for doing 100 on a motorway driving like a t**t (rightly so) , then a little old lady 5 minutes late thats almost killed a child and got a slapped wrist. there is no consistancy on any of our road laws let alone speeding.

I would accept that what ive posted is not gospel (because there IS no gospel) - but is generally accepted.

Personally it sickens me to the bone, but no doubt the practice will continue.

problem is, youll never stop everyone speeding without a little black box in every car. Failing that - you know what the best speed limiting device in the world is? a 10 week old baby in the back of your car. they arnt cheap though

problem is, youll never stop everyone speeding without a little black box in every car. Failing that - you know what the best speed limiting device in the world is? a 10 week old baby in the back of your car. they arnt cheap though

And the little black box point is, I feel, somewhat prophetic...

And the little black box point is, I feel, somewhat prophetic...

sadly i think its the way its going. you see them in some american cars. insurers insist on them. i think they video the last 10 seconds before a crash (how do they know when your gonna crash ) so after the event the insurance company can decide whether to pay out

i really must stop watching Police Camera Road Interceptor Action Wars Stop or whatever it is

i think they video the last 10 seconds before a crash (how do they know when your gonna crash )

The way I presumed such devices worked is that it constantly records, then if/when an impact occurs it stops recording and keeps a certain period of footage prior to the moment of impact.

Steve

1 week today and no ticket yet.........fingers crossed

Corrected.

There is no rule of evidence that says that there must be at least 2 pieces of evidence for anything. I have no idea where this has come from, but it isn't the first time I've heard it.

To prove speeding, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following, (presuming there aren't any strange issues in the case like whether or not the car is a mechanically propelled vehicle):

1) The vehicle was being driven on a road or "other public place" (which is pretty widely defined)

2) The vehicle was being driven in excess of the posted speed limit

(and, I suppose 3) That the defendant was the driver at the relevant time)

That's it folks. Of course, if there are 15 pieces of evidence saying the car was exceeding the limit then the court is more likely to be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the car was speeding, but there's no requirement for more than one piece of evidence.

So in theory, if the camera just happens to be pointing at the road with nobody behind it "forming the opinion" that the target vehicle is speeding, then the reading of the camera alone is enough to secure a conviction. Think about the average speed cameras on the motorways - they are the only piece of evidence, but they are more than enough to secure convictions.

You are right about the lines on the road - they are there to allow speed to be calculated by the old "speed = distance/time" theory.

As to the percentage you must be over the limit before you are prosecuted, it's a matter of discretion for individual coppers and force areas. 71mph in a 70mph is an offence as a matter of law, but rarely prosecuted for public interest reasons.

soapywalrus - I invite your opinion on Section 89, sub-section 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Mac

Edited 15 March, 200917 yr by Bigw2069
fixed quote

1 week today and no ticket yet.........fingers crossed

he may have been in the front having a coffee......

soapywalrus - I invite your opinion on Section 89, sub-section 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Mac

(2) A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit

This subsection confirms the fact that when opinion evidence is the only evidence of speeding, corroboration is needed, such that the opinion of one person of speeding is insufficient to prove a case.

This subsection does not apply to cases where speed measuring devices are used.

Hopefully soapywalrus' view will back me up on this.

Edited 15 March, 200917 yr by Bigw2069
fixed quote

(2) A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit

This subsection does not apply to cases where speed measuring devices are used.

But the sub-section does not say that and we've had 'speed measuring devices' around since before this Act.

Mac

Edited 15 March, 200917 yr by Bigw2069
fixed quote

IIRC the limehouse is set to 34, so yes expect a ticket PDQ. The met are very quick at these.

The limehouse cameras are set at 36

The limehouse cameras are set at 36

Must have changed. Used to be 34.

i thought they were 35 and upwards

i thought they were 35 and upwards

ACPO only offer guidence on setting levels, not fixed law. And any force may choose to operate their own trigger points. They dont have to follow them.

Some forces set 30 cams to 39, some to 34. Some forces might be having a crack down to reduce injuries etc, so change them as well.

Dont bank on speed limit+10%+2 = 'safe'

But the sub-section does not say that and we've had 'speed measuring devices' around since before this Act.

Mac

The relevant word is 'opinion'.

A police officer with no measuring device might form an opinion that a person is exceeding the speed limit by judging the speed at which that person is travelling. One police officer is not sufficient to convict, hence the need for corroboration of other evidence.