Hello! - Need some thoughts / opinions / info...

I've been stopped by the traffic police, in a city centre who alleged I had been driving at 41mph over 2/10th of a mile, which they measured with a calibrated speedometer (no video) - two officers in the vehicle.

I am certain I was not going as fast as this, and more likely I had been going a little over 30mph (approx 32). My speed might have peaked at 40mph before slowing down. I dont have a habit of speeding about city centres - which I explained to the officers (without any joy).

The police vehicle had followed me in a straight line, from one set of traffic lights (where we were stopped at red) through 3 green sets, and then stopped at another set of traffic lights. Having been back and measured the distance between the two sets of lights where we were stopped - its 0.3 mile. I also know that they were not keeping an equal distance behind me throughout this time. They pulled away very slowly - as they do, and although keeping a long but equal distance for a short while, they kept getting closer to my vehicle for at least 50% of the time we were moving. This was only over 3/10 of a mile.

They presented me with a fixed penalty (3pts &

It's your word against theirs , and based on what you have said here, you have very little chance of getting away with this if you were to challenge it and go to court.

You even admit here that you *were* doing 40 , so you don't have much to complain about , and 2/10ths of a mile isn't all that long a distance at all.

Oh , and even if their speedo wasn't calibrated that doesn't mean you wouldd get off

Take the fine and the points. 2 traffic officers can be sufficient evidence that you were exceeding the speed limit.

You even admit here that you *were* doing 40 , so you don't have much to complain about

I *might* have been going as much as 40 - as going from 30 up to 40 in a remapped Furby can happen in a blink without trying. If this had been the case I would have let the car roll back down to normal speed (obviously not knowing plod was behind me at this stage - knew a car was there but the Fabia always had a manky rear end and the back window wasnt exactly clean).

What I'm challenging is when they say I had been going at 41mph over 0.2 mile when I'm certain I wasn't. 0.2 mile is short and as I was only moving for 0.3 mile thats what makes it harder to beleive as my slowing down and stopping distance when I saw the red light was probably about 0.1 mile. Unless I could gather CCTV footage - its my word against theres and the judge fella would likely go with there word.

Its all a bit annoying but I think I'm going to have to pay the fine and start getting taxis everywhere. Bloody cheaper!!

I am certain I was not going as fast as this, and more likely I had been going a little over 30mph (approx 32). My speed might have peaked at 40mph before slowing down.

In those 2 lines you've admited speeding on a public forum. I guess the fact that hitting someone at 40mph is worse than 30mph hasn't registered in your brain yet? Limits are there for a reason

In those 2 lines you've admited speeding on a public forum. I guess the fact that hitting someone at 40mph is worse than 30mph hasn't registered in your brain yet? Limits are there for a reason

Oh dear :thumbdwn:

I think a more appropriate word would be speculated instead of "admited".

IF I had been speeding over the 2/10th mile they suggested it would have been approx 32mph

IF I find that my speed has crept up to an unacceptable level (ie - 40mph) then I do slow down in a controlled maner, and not in a way that could in itself cause an accident.

PS -

Come on guys, handbags at 10 paces.

I *might* have been going as much as 40 - as going from 30 up to 40 in a remapped Furby can happen in a blink without trying. If this had been the case I would have let the car roll back down to normal speed (obviously not knowing plod was behind me at this stage - knew a car was there but the Fabia always had a manky rear end and the back window wasnt exactly clean).

What I'm challenging is when they say I had been going at 41mph over 0.2 mile when I'm certain I wasn't. 0.2 mile is short and as I was only moving for 0.3 mile thats what makes it harder to beleive as my slowing down and stopping distance when I saw the red light was probably about 0.1 mile. Unless I could gather CCTV footage - its my word against theres and the judge fella would likely go with there word.

Its all a bit annoying but I think I'm going to have to pay the fine and start getting taxis everywhere. Bloody cheaper!!

I don't really understand your point here... You've admitted that you were speeding, but appear to feel hard done by that you weren't speeding for as long as they say? The offence is complete whether you speed for 1 second or 1 hour, by 1mph or 10mph - If you go to court you either have to admit that you were speeding at points, or you have to lie. You'll lose either way, I suspect, and if you lie then you run the risk of a greater penalty and possibley perverting the course of justice...

Pay your 60 quid and take the points gracefully.

What you really need to ask yourself is:

Am I MATURE enough to be driving a car?

You said you drove over the speed limit in a 30mph zone. Quite clearly your not mature and I'm glad you got stopped. If you break the rules, expect to get hurt.

You said you might have peaked at 40mph. Is your eyesight that bad that you can't see your speedo? Can you see the legal limit on eyesight? I think it's slightly more than 10cm.

I can't stand it when people say 'I was speeding, got flashed by camera/stopped and I got a fine, it's so unfair'. If thats bloody unfair, get yourself a moped which can't do over 30mph and then you'll always be safe. Else enjoy your car on a track if you want to go fast and be safe and sensible on the road.

(And no, I'm not in any of the emergency services)

Come on guys, handbags at 10 paces.

I'll argue with people all day long mate gets some pressure out of my system.

Oh, and if you don't know whether you were speeding or not then you commit and offence in any event - driving without due care and attention. (I know you're talking Scots law and I'm talking E&W, but I presume it's the same on offences like that...)

Ross, you ain't got a chance mate. Just pay the fine. The word of 2 officers is enough.

Unless you get some form of evidence otherwise.

It's actually worse if you admit you DONT know what speed you were doing for exactly the reason DangerMouse is pointing out .

Also if it's two officers in the car, they will be believed. Full stop. You won't have a hope fighting it, unless you have video evidence to back up you were not speeding.

It s*cks, but that's the way it will probably be. I'd just pay up and move on - I was done speeding on a motorway etc and it still wasn't good for my points/money situation :(

Cheers for informative and in most cases dignified responses guys!

The only slither of hope I have of proving my case would be the CCTV - but lets face it

Ross just use cruise for a steady 30 in 3rd.

Dad tried contesting against 2 officers saying he jumped a red light, when Dad insisted it was orange. In the end it cost him £400 odd not £60.... In that situation I'd grimace and bear it.

There is a song that you should listen too!

I think I understand what your trying to say but at the end of the day the odds are stacked against you. Like others have said it will be best just to take the points and fine and write it off as a learning curve.

Post this on 5ive-o.org below and let us know what advice they offer. They may also be able to shed more light on how your speed was measured.

http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/index.php

Still wish they would concentrate on thieves/muggers that stab/murderers and vandals.And lock them all up properly with a slop pot.

Take the points.Not worth fighting over the governments easy earn car driver tax