speeding help needed

[colinc]

I am in court in 4 weeks for a full trial for speeding.I was followed by an unmarked T5 and videotaped.The tape has been analysed and they have divided the distance travelled by the time elapsed to come up with an average speed. Are there any experts out there that can help me dispute this method of convicting me?

[john robson]

Ultimately whether you get convicted or not is down to the magistrates on the day. They do on occasion defy logic and let people off, but there are not many tried and tested ways of getting off. Given the circumstances you have outlined you have one big problem prooving that you were actually under the speed limit. a few people I have dealt with have gone to court disputing the actual speed that we state they were checked at eg. 48 in a 30 only to then go on and say that they were doing say 36mph what they fail to recognise is that the offence is 'exceeding the speed limit' not 'doing 48mph in a 30mph limit' so as 36 is exceeding the limit they still get convicted. If as in your case there is a tape of you committing the offence it will look pretty convincing at court and providing it shows you over the limit you will have problems. I'm not trying to discourage you but sometimes it is better to plead guilty and give mittigating circumstances, but depending how you want to play it speak to a solicitor.

[GasBlaster]

Er, there should be no onus on the defendant to prove innocence, it's meant to be the other way around! (Annecdotal) case law - what about the Fireblade rider who got vascared on the A38 a few years ago. The speed was so great that the Vascar was considered unreliable. The rider was not done for speeding, as the police could not say what speed he was travelling at.

[john robson]

Although I have not done it personally two officers on foot patrol can in theory 'do' someone for speeding, one only needs to 'form' the opinion that a vehicle is exceeding the limit, the other one just coroborates it, I suppose that this form of speed detection would give the motorist a more 'sporting' chance but as i have already said it is not realy used. I quite agree with the comment re onus of proof, but by the same token the accused is also supposed to tell the truth, but like a lot of cases that I end up in court with, that is also a rarety ,( just to be a bit cynical most of the excuses are the imagination of the solicitor as the accused usually needs all of the available brain power just to sign his name, criminal cases only I am not aiming this comment at anyone posting replies here) Edited by john robson on Monday 23 April 00:10

[GasBlaster]

I should mention that the Fireblade guy was convicted of dangerous driving, but not of speeding.

[Nightmare]

John, I haves an mesured IQ of 12 so there Night p.s. Im glad you added that bit Gasblaster...I know lots of people who think that EVERYONE should get let off for speeding...which I certainly dont agree with, and dont think most people who drive sports cars do....e.g. I was overtaken yesterday by a small child driving a bewinged monstrosity at about 55 (in a 30, about 100 yards from a school). I certainly didnt applaud

[mel]

Only know of one good one where the standard speed = distance / time equation got disputed sucessfully. This was done by a Navy Submarine sonar operator apparently it is an everyday calculation for these guys and because there are thousands of other variables such as air density, temperature and loads more that can all effect the calculation by a miniscule amount. He stood up launched into a half hour lecture on the facts of the equation and proved that if all the thirty or so factors he named came into effect at the same time by stacking all the differences he could have been below the speed limit !!!! He got off probably because the magistrates were so impressed with his knowledge and research they let him off for good sport. The copper in court had no answers to half of what was said because he hadn't a clue what the guy was talking about most of the time. But then again his whole job, life, and lives of collegues depends on several million £'s worth of computing power and his skill tracking torpedos using that same equation !!!!! It goes to show a really good expert can discredit most things if he puts his mind to it !