[lamogio]

i recently overtook an unmarked car and after that he followed me and i was doing over 90mph but no more than 100mph he eventioly put his lights on and stopped me.
he ask me to take a breath test which i passed and he also read my rights as he was writing on a piece of paper the one that you write when you go to tesco some information and he told me that i was doing around 97mph but only because of how fast he was going on his speedo as he did not record me or flash me with camera.
he then told me that i may receive something on the post. and caution me.
he also check all my documents which were in order
i am a bit puzzeld as why he did not make me sign anything or not give me a ticket, nothing at all he just let me go.

please advice

[98selitb]

I am not a legal expert but I know policemen are often trusted as being reliable at estimating the speed of a car using their own instinct and not a machine of any sort. I'm not saying I agree with this, as policemen can get it wrong sometimes and it is unfair. Whether or not you were going at 97mph, you have admitted with apparently no problem that you were going at over 90mph, which is severely over the limit, so if you do get any punishment I think it would be best to accept it and drive within the speed limits in the future. But maybe you have been very lucky this time if he didn't issue a ticket or anything. However, he could still have taken your details when he was writing/looking at your documents? So I would wait and see.

[Loony]

Originally Posted by lamogio

i recently overtook an unmarked car and after that he followed me and i was doing over 90mph but no more than 100mph he eventioly put his lights on and stopped me.

He also read my rights

he told me that i was doing around 97mph but only because of how fast he was going on his speedo as he did not record me or flash me with camera.

he then told me that i may receive something on the post.

and caution me.

It sounds like you were given a verbal nip so no need to sign anything.
If he proved who was driving etc then it may be a case of waiting to see if you get prosecuted.

[Rolebama]

As you were stopped at the time, and cautioned, it is not necessary for them to write to confirm. You will be reported to the Department that carry out prosecutions, and they will make a decision as to whether or not to prosecute you. As you were accused of doing more than 90mph, I would think they will prosecute, so the next thing is you will receive a Court Summons through the post. As for your comment about a camera, it is not necessary for them to photograph you, as they will attend Court as witnesses to your offence.

Something to think about:
As to your overtaking them, I think it shows a definite lack of observational skills that you did not see them for who they were. (They still wear uniforms. He also had lights, hidden or not.) Do you really think it is suitable for you to be driving at that speed, on a public road, with such a lack of such skills?

[lamogio]

ok thanks a lot,
i forgot to mention that i am not proud of what i did by no means,i know it was stupid and i admite that to the officer in charge,but i still did not get a clear message from him,first he said i would need to attent court after he said i MAY receive a letter in the post,and nothing on a formal paper?no ticket?just a pad that the waiter takes your order with!!
:confused:

[wagolynn]

Sorry I cannot add to what happens next, I assume that in the cop’s opinion you were not doing anything really dangerous in the context of where you were or else I would have expected more paperwork. Good luck any way.

Unless the situation has changed very recently, apart from static cash machines, you are being fined because in the opinion of the cop you were exceeding the speed limit. Photos, guns etc. are just supporting evidence. Does anyone know better?

I had a college who was caught by a cop with radar gun. The college decided to contest the fine on the grounds that the cop was not visible – he had been using a bus shelter as cover -. If I remember this correctly he defended himself and got the charges withdrawn. In the light of this I wonder how a plain car would stand up in court.

[Tony Aston]

There seems to be several misunderstandings with this and other similar posts. I stand to be corrected if my information is not correct.

The Tesco pad is the Constable's Pocket Book. All police carry these to make notes at the time of any incident and to record happenings. In some films where a police officer is giving evidence in court, he will make reference to and read from that pocket book.

The Gatsco camera flashes twice, 0.7 seconds apart, to enable adequate lighting of the vehicle if is in breach of the speed limit. Normally, the trigger is set 10 mph above the limit. The 2 flashes which each record an image enables the position of the car to be determined against the 'ladder' on the road. The number of 'rungs' confirms how fast the vehicle was travelling.

The Truvelo camera, forward facing, uses infra red light to illuminate the vehicle to photograph it if in breach of the speed limit. You can not see infra red light and would be unaware of the 'flash'.

Mobile speed camers, vans etc, use a hand held camera which uses a laser beam or Doppler beam to determine the speed of the vehicle. The sight target must be set on a vertical surface i.e. number plate, and if the speed is excessive enables a digital image to be stored which also captures the speed, date and time. No flashing takes place.

I belive still used is VASCAR, Vehicle Average Speed Computer And Recording. This requires the suspected vehicle being timed over a known distance. From these two parameters, average speed can be calculated. Again, no flashing.

Measured distances on motorways and dual carriageways are identified by a round disc on a support in the Armco barrier. Normally there are 5 such discs; the first is white, quarter mile further the disc has 3 quadrants white and1 quadrant red. The half mile is half read and half white, the 3 quarter mile is 1 white and 3 red and the mile marker is red.

Unmarked police cars and traffic cars have calibrated speedos and show speed in 1 mph indications and theses cars will be calibrated very frequently to ensure accuracy.

Unmarked cars will have tell tale signs; normally 2 persons, 2 internal rear view mirrors, maybe an additional 1 or 2 aerials which look different from the normal radio aerial. Sometimes there are cords in the rear window or a small rectangular box which will house the 'STOP POLICE' message.

From the above, you can see that there are possibly 3 times when excessive speed can be recorded without flashing. I believe some systems can also record without the flashes.

You seem aware you were driving in excess of the speed limit, the car that followed you must have increased its speed to keep up with you - another warning sign which you ignored.

As a previous poster has indicated, you seem to be driving without adequate skills and the first of those skills is discipline. You need the self discipline to maintain the speed limits.

Tony

[Hometune]

Agree with Loony on this. You had your documents with you so he made notes in his pocket book by the sound of it. He would then have all your details. He would only have given you a 'producer' (HO/RT/1) if you had not been able to produce your driving licence, insurance or MoT (if applicable). As he cautioned you it does sound like he has given you a Notice of Intended Prosecution verbally which is acceptable in law and negates the need to send one in the post within 14 days.
As for being followed, Tony Aston is correct, as he only has to follow you at a steady distance for about a quarter of a mile to get an accurate assessment of your speed and at 90+mph that will be very quickly. No cameras, no flashes etc. The calibrated speedometer in his car will need to be checked at regular intervals to ensure its accuracy.
Failure to do this has sometimes allowed a prosecution to fail. You should receive a summons within 6 months if you are to be prosecuted so wait and see.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Tony Aston

The Gatsco camera flashes twice, 0.7 seconds apart, to enable adequate lighting of the vehicle if is in breach of the speed limit. Normally, the trigger is set 10 mph above the limit. The 2 flashes which each record an image enables the position of the car to be determined against the 'ladder' on the road. The number of 'rungs' confirms how fast the vehicle was travelling.

Tony

I thought that in general the speed was - speed limit + 10% speed limit +1 – thus 30 limit setting would be 34.

[Tony Aston]

wagolynn,
Your comment is the ACPO recommendation for prosecution and I believe is correct.

My figure of 10 mph is based on talking to a civilan 'officer' who maintains the fixed speed cameras in Oxfordshire. He also told me that the level set for lorries was about 12 mph above the limit. I was unaware at the time of speaking to him that 2 levels can be set; one for lorries and one for cars. The set limit may vary from force to force.

As I said at the beginning of my previous post, I stand to be corrected.

Nevertheless, if you are not speeding, it does not matter what the set point is!

Tony

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Tony Aston

wagolynn,

Nevertheless, if you are not speeding, it does not matter what the set point is!

Tony

No No I am not picking holes just throwing in what I had picked up along the way
.
As until quite recently I drove daily (all day) for work. I am afraid I just see Cameras as a source of revenue, and make no contribution what so ever to road safety.
The best joke I have seen, is in Cambridgeshire all the signs got changed from 'Speed camera' to ‘Safety camera’, it still tickles me now. If you care to look at the legislation covering use of cameras both fixed and portable, you will find that the rules are blatantly broken and the original intent has long been forgotten.
I know that if I worked for one of these commercial outfits operating cameras in vans and I came back to base saying, I had a good day today boss, all the vehicles saw my van and therefore did not break the speed limit within my camera range, I would be sacked. Yet the intention of the legislation was to do just that, to discourage not entrap. From this you will gather I am not a fan of speed limits/cameras. Not because it means travelling slower but because it totally misses the real problems involved in road safety.

[98selitb]

I can never decide what my opinion is on speed cameras. First and foremost they don't concern me personally because I don't break the speed limits. If more people accepted the rules and didn't break the speed limits, there would be no speed cameras as they would not be financially viable. As it is, it is ironically often those who dislike them the most that keep them operating thanks to their speeding.

There are certainly many places where speed cameras have made no difference whatsoever, sure, but there are also places where they have made a dangerous stretch of road safer, this is concrete fact (not just opinion), e.g. near me there is a piece of road that is deceptively bendy and dangerous that non-locals could be forgiven for underestimating. Since the introduction of a speed camera a couple of years ago, there have been no accidents, yet before the camera there was an accident once every few months due to someone underestimating the sharp bend and going too fast round it, putting their car in the hedge.

Speed limits: in an ideal world there would be no need for speed limits as everyone would drive sensibly even at high speed, but as it is I think the standard of driving is too low to just go and get rid of speed limits. I find speed limits help a lot when I am in a place I am not at all familiar with, as they can give an indication as to how bendy or hazardous a piece of road is. E.g. if you are on an open country road and there is suddenly a 30 or 40 limit, but no settlement, it is obvious that there must be some sharp bends or dangerous places, and this lower speed limit warns you and makes you more wary of what is up ahead.

Whatever your view on speed cameras, it is both the law and courtesy to respect the speed limits and you can have no complaints if caught. As has been mentioned before on here, the most stupid drivers of all are the once who get caught by a speed camera then go and moan about it. I know it's not for me to judge who should be driving and who shouldn't, but if you can't see numerous signs warning of cameras and then a bright yellow box and white lines dotted along the road, I'm not sure your eyesight is good enough for driving.

As someone who is a stickler for speed limits, I feel my life is a lot easier and less nervous than someone who routinely speeds. I don't have to lose sleep about if I was caught by that last camera, or if that car I overtook on the motorway at 100mph was an unmarked police car, or if I'm going to get an NIP in the post.

[wagolynn]

Re bendy road; if the layout of the road ‘suckers drivers in’ then change the layout, not necessarily for speed but so that an approaching driver has a clear warning, else close it; I would argue that is what the camera is really doing now, flagging up the danger.

Speed limits: Now if these were speed 'recommendations', that would be a different kettle of waste oil. I can hear the screams from here...... But just bare with me a moment, if someone was involved in a life threatening/injury situation, it is possible, if anyone could be bothered, using crash reconstruction software plus data from the air bag control system (if ours are the same as American systems) to have a very good idea of what happened. From this would come, some usable evidence in the form of probabilities, (hey that went through ok and I thought in road safety circles ‘evidence’ was a dirty word). Armed with this evidence we can now check; was this event due to Driver/drivers error or road layout/condition (your bends above)? Obviously if one of the drivers was way above the recommended speed i.e. the event was inevitable due to his actions then he should be prevented from driving until he has been re-trained. I can easily see situations where both drivers could be up for retraining and/or the layout/condition of the road was the root cause. This way everyone wins, real efforts are made to correct the problem. Should anyone be killed or injured then I would obviously have sympathy with all involved. Society should support them in every way possible. I differentiate between someone who drives a car at someone to maim or Kill, as opposed to someone who accidently – through error or lack of knowledge – maims or kills. But the law should never be about revenge, it is about offending society as a whole not the individual.

How does that grab you?

Re country roads; do you not use the white line in the middle; it is designed to warn of danger ahead?

[Snowball]

Personally, I don't have a problem with speed cameras, providing roads have better indications of speed limits than at present (i.e., more regular placing of repeater signs). The fixed cameras are not very useful, because drivers familiar with any given locality will just ease back on the throttle at only the locations of the cameras. The mobile cameras are just as useless, in my opinion, because they always appear to be parked in speed-favourable positions, rather than at spots where driving faster than the limit is truely dangerous; suggesting the obvious accusation of "revenue before safety".

For anyone with limited time to spare, the motorways are there for that purpose. And yet too many drivers interpret these roads as a legitimate reason to start too late for a journey and to exceed the limit to get there even quicker.
For ordinary rural roads, I don't want all the bends straightened out, so as to make the roads boring. It will also encourage the madcap drivers to try and go even faster. And, in these cases, the faster, straighter road will usually result in a more serious crash than the bendy road.
White lines. Yes, these were provided for the incompetent drivers who are too lazy to use the correct speed and the steering wheel to properly negotiate a bend. And even the white line doesn't improve their obvious incapability.

As I have said previously; there is no such thing as a dangerous bend. I have yet to see such a bend vent its anger on road users. Even when a driver treats it with total contempt, the road does not make a single move to respond.

Regards, Snowball.

[wagolynn]

I know of some bends that are not apparent until you are in them, due to road layout trees etc. Rather similar to the illusion you can sometimes have of going downhill when you are actually going uphill!:confused:

[Rolebama]

In all honesty, I now want speed cameras to stay. I do not contribute to the coffers because of them, and those that are getting the money, are getting used to the income. If these cameras are scrapped now, something else will be introduced to raise these funds.
That may affect me. (I have heard of trials of a camera which photographs vehicles at night with only one tail light or headlamp working, and I have found a tail bulb failed after a night time journey.)

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Re bendy road; if the layout of the road ‘suckers drivers in’ then change the layout, not necessarily for speed but so that an approaching driver has a clear warning, else close it

Yes that is an option, but it is not always possible, depending on topography etc.

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Re country roads; do you not use the white line in the middle; it is designed to warn of danger ahead?

Yes, sorry I just completely forgot about that when I was writing my rambling post above:o That is indeed one way of alterting drivers to more hazardous bits of road.

[Rolebama]

I used to use the cats-eye spacing for bends, as they get closer together. Although locally, some of our lanes had substantial resurfacing work done a few years ago, and the cats-eyes still haven't been replaced, and the white lining appears to have been done quite randomly.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I used to use the cats-eye spacing for bends, as they get closer together. Although locally, some of our lanes had substantial resurfacing work done a few years ago, and the cats-eyes still haven't been replaced, and the white lining appears to have been done quite randomly.

Perhaps local authority has not read the Highway Code.:eek:

[Rolebama]

Nor the Statutes. They are still fighting trying to hang on to money they collected through parking penalties involving incorrect signage re parking on bus routes.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Nor the Statutes. They are still fighting trying to hang on to money they collected through parking penalties involving incorrect signage re parking on bus routes.

Oh silly me, I thought they were servants of the community.:confused:

[Snowball]

Is that phrase, "servant of the community" still legally recognised? I thought it had been discarded to avoid Joe Public from getting the idea that they work for us; even though we pay their salaries.