Whole group pulled by copper
Discussion
Been lurking for a bit and have got a problem so thought Id join up and ask opinions of the regulars. Sorry it's not for something more fun!!
Group of us got pulled over by unmarked copper and all got fixed penalities. They only timed the last car and he was half a mile back and we all got his speed. Is this right or do they have to time each of us sepretley? Is it worth argueing and going to court? Could do without another 3pts.
Group of us got pulled over by unmarked copper and all got fixed penalities. They only timed the last car and he was half a mile back and we all got his speed. Is this right or do they have to time each of us sepretley? Is it worth argueing and going to court? Could do without another 3pts.
This doesn't make sense. If the car was half a mile behind you lot, how could he have pulled you? Or did he follow and then pull you all over? Were you all driving over the speed limit? Did the lagging car catch up to you and then did you all start speeding? Were you driving like Peens?
Or did you all get checked for drugs?
Or did you all get checked for drugs?
More explanation then. Long straight road, 4 cars, no mad speeds (78 in a 60) or overtaking (no one else about) pulled into Macdonalds on roundabout at end of straight. Copper timed car at back for 0.4 of a mile and applied it to all 4. Cars were probably spread out more than 0.4 mile!
No drugs, no one got arsy but think hes wrong using one vascar reading to nick more than one car.
No drugs, no one got arsy but think hes wrong using one vascar reading to nick more than one car.
norfolkscooby said:
More explanation then. Long straight road, 4 cars, no mad speeds (78 in a 60) or overtaking (no one else about) pulled into Macdonalds on roundabout at end of straight. Copper timed car at back for 0.4 of a mile and applied it to all 4. Cars were probably spread out more than 0.4 mile!
No drugs, no one got arsy but think hes wrong using one vascar reading to nick more than one car.
Sounds fair if you're admitting 78 in a 60? No drugs, no one got arsy but think hes wrong using one vascar reading to nick more than one car.
We all take a chance, but if you know you were speeding just man up and take the FPN!
killsta said:
norfolkscooby said:
More explanation then. Long straight road, 4 cars, no mad speeds (78 in a 60) or overtaking (no one else about) pulled into Macdonalds on roundabout at end of straight. Copper timed car at back for 0.4 of a mile and applied it to all 4. Cars were probably spread out more than 0.4 mile!
No drugs, no one got arsy but think hes wrong using one vascar reading to nick more than one car.
Sounds fair if you're admitting 78 in a 60? No drugs, no one got arsy but think hes wrong using one vascar reading to nick more than one car.
We all take a chance, but if you know you were speeding just man up and take the FPN!
norfolkscooby said:
Been lurking for a bit and have got a problem so thought Id join up and ask opinions of the regulars. Sorry it's not for something more fun!!
Group of us got pulled over by unmarked copper and all got fixed penalities. They only timed the last car and he was half a mile back and we all got his speed. Is this right or do they have to time each of us sepretley? Is it worth argueing and going to court? Could do without another 3pts.
When it gets to court, the police officer will have to satisfy the court that his evidence is sound.Group of us got pulled over by unmarked copper and all got fixed penalities. They only timed the last car and he was half a mile back and we all got his speed. Is this right or do they have to time each of us sepretley? Is it worth argueing and going to court? Could do without another 3pts.
He might be able to to that for the car at the rear, but he could certainly not say the same for the rest as he cannot track 4 cars.
He is playing a game of poker with you that you will not challenge this.
Are you willing to all reject the FPN and go to court?
I would suggest that if the front three did it, none of the cases would get to court.
JustinP1 said:
When it gets to court, the police officer will have to satisfy the court that his evidence is sound.
He might be able to to that for the car at the rear, but he could certainly not say the same for the rest as he cannot track 4 cars.
He is playing a game of poker with you that you will not challenge this.
Are you willing to all reject the FPN and go to court?
I would suggest that if the front three did it, none of the cases would get to court.
Unless of course he has all 4 cars on video, and tracking the rear car on vascar. He might be able to to that for the car at the rear, but he could certainly not say the same for the rest as he cannot track 4 cars.
He is playing a game of poker with you that you will not challenge this.
Are you willing to all reject the FPN and go to court?
I would suggest that if the front three did it, none of the cases would get to court.
killsta said:
JustinP1 said:
When it gets to court, the police officer will have to satisfy the court that his evidence is sound.
He might be able to to that for the car at the rear, but he could certainly not say the same for the rest as he cannot track 4 cars.
He is playing a game of poker with you that you will not challenge this.
Are you willing to all reject the FPN and go to court?
I would suggest that if the front three did it, none of the cases would get to court.
Unless of course he has all 4 cars on video, and tracking the rear car on vascar. He might be able to to that for the car at the rear, but he could certainly not say the same for the rest as he cannot track 4 cars.
He is playing a game of poker with you that you will not challenge this.
Are you willing to all reject the FPN and go to court?
I would suggest that if the front three did it, none of the cases would get to court.
However considering the last car would make the others almost invisible, there is no way he could do this.
killsta said:
Unless of course he has all 4 cars on video, and tracking the rear car on vascar.
I suspect a few of us have been here, although not nicked (here as in driving/riding in a group)Definately poker this one !
The officer obviously has the rear car bang to rights.
If you were speeding, it's the old "Clint Eastwood" question , ...... "how lucky do you feel ?" etc.
IF you were speeding, AND he has you on video, chances are you'll end up a lot worse off by challenging it.
If you weren't speeding, genuinely, and the rear car was playing catchup, then the rear car was just unlucky (assuming it was just exceeding an arbitary number, and not driving like a bell end as well), and you should (in my opinion) challenge it.
Supposedly you are innocent until proven guilty ........ although as a fellow motorist I don't feel it is that way against drivers at all these days, ....... so the onus should be on the officer to prove your guilt, not you prove your innocence.
I'd want to be very sure in ,my own mind, that there wasn't anything he was able to prove, before I decided to challenge a minor three pointer in court, because we seem to be satan against all life forms on the planet, if we speed and get caught these days, and if found guilty you'll no doubt wish you'd taken the three points or course.
Breadvan73 said:
The car behind you was travelling at 78 mph but not overtaking you. That suggests something about the speed at which you were travelling.
That is the same crap logic used by the Police Officer who stopped me on the M27. He said he was having to travel at 100mph to catch up with me, surprisingly did not qualify that by saying it was from a standing start from the motorway roundabout carriageway which I went under.mcflurry said:
If I knew I was doing a 78 in a 60 then i'd pay the £60 and close the matter.
It's a game of poker in which the judge will probably side with the PC if it goes that far, costing more in cash as well as time etc.
Your reference for the latter?It's a game of poker in which the judge will probably side with the PC if it goes that far, costing more in cash as well as time etc.
I've played a game of poker where 3 police officers tried to do me for running a red light.
I called their bluff and they looked silly in court when each one had to admit that they did not have the evidence required for a conviction.
There is no way the police officer will be able to state without any doubt that he was able to not only see but track all four cars and calculate a speed for each one to an evidential standard.
If the cars were side by side maybe, but not when they are a considerable distance ahead of eachother and the front one(s) obscure the vision from the chase car.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff