Safe Speed Forums

Well i've just received my first NIP in 25 years. Overtook a van then car on my bike that was doing 20 in a thirty limit and as i pulled alongside, noticed the van on the pavement.

I have a question or two, bearing in mind that i had overtaken a slower vehicle and was pulling into the lane, would i have any defence for my temporary increased speed.

And... does anyone know if this guns are accurate on motorcycles. I must of been alongside the slower car when he read my speed, i wasn't speeding before that time and i would of been obscured by the van until my manouvre.

I thought there needed to be a set distance travelled at a constant speed rather than a split second timing .

Sorry for a long post, but as a first offence i feel justified in making sure i'm not being "stung".

The operator has to form an opinion that you were speeding before pulling the trigger on the gun. Sounds like he/she would have had barely enough time to do this before you completed yopu maneouvre.
What speed are you being cited for?

The NIP says" Speeding- Exceeding 30Mph on a restricted road- Manned equipment" then gives the road name, NO speed!??

It then says this is supported with Photographic/video evidence.

First ask for a copy of photographs, which you need to verify it was you and your bike, not a clone of your bike, and to show you the speed.

If you then accept you were the biker, then ask for a copy of the video clip under the data protection act. Send a letter stating, “I am making a Subject Access Request under section 7(1) of the 1998 Data Protection Act that you provide me with a copy of all the information you are holding with respect to the speeding allegation you have made against me, including any photographic or video recording you have made.”

The police may try to claim exemption, but they are not exempt and I had a ruling from the Information Commissioner's Office that the police should provide a copy of this informatio when you ask for it.

You would need to do this as soon as possible to get it before expiry of the fixed penalty. This could show whether there were various problems, such as a car directly behind you in the laser beam that could have provided a false reading.

You may wish to consider a PACE statement, rather than using the NIP form, see PePiPoo, see http://www.pepipoo.com/NIP_wizard.php

The NIP also states that" In accordance with Data Protection Legislation full details of the alleged offence will only be disclosed to the person acknowledged to be the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, on his/her written request".

Should i of been informed of the alleged speed in the NIP?

Ask for the photos to verify it is you and your bike and the alleged speed.

Nope!


Assuming you were caught by the LTI2020: if you were close by when the reading was taken then I would tend towards the reading being reliable – with the caveat that he got you from the rear. If not (over say a hundred metres) then I wouldn’t place my trust in it. I don’t trust these things for front enforcement as there’s no decent flat surface to lock onto (like the VRM)


Only VASCAR comes close to fitting that description. Seems you were caught by a handheld camera instead (likely the LTI) so your clause won’t apply in your case.

I notice you are not contesting the speed reading.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I would tend to agree - if the operator was inside the van (cannot see behind). However, due to the cosine effect I expect that a competent operator to have waited until the bike was well down the road, so giving enough time to form opinion.

A picture says 1000 words, a video says 1000 pictures - stevie_s, if you're unsure then make dammed sure you get the accompanying video and get it examined by an expert.

Assuming you were caught by the LTI2020: if you were close by when the reading was taken then I would tend towards the reading being reliable – with the caveat that he got you from the rear. If not (over say a hundred metres) then I wouldn’t place my trust in it. I don’t trust these things for front enforcement as there’s no decent flat surface to lock onto (like the VRM)

I saw the guy clambering into the front of his vehicle as i went past, but didn't see him carrying anything, my speed had returned to legal limit as i went past.


Only VASCAR comes close to fitting that description. Seems you were caught by a handheld camera instead (likely the LTI) so your clause won’t apply in your case.

I notice you are not contesting the speed reading.[/quote]
There is no speed stated on the form!!

Is there any reason to question the vans position, sat ON the Pathway on a bend??

Sorry, that came out wrong. I should have said 'I notice you are not contesting the offence'.

Grey area really, The old chap in the car in front of the van had performed an "emergency stop" at traffic lights prior to this incident.

I had no problem as i was well back from both vehicles. Once around the corner the old chap had kept his speed to 20, naturally i saw the opportunity and had the distance to pass both vehicles safely and remain within the limit.

Unfortunately i saw the camera van when i was level with the cars bonnet and released the throttle, bad move but mind thinking faster than the rest. I then needed to accelerate as the van behind closed the gap between him and the car. This is when i must of been clocked.

Prior to this i was not in view of the camera van due to the other vehicles and obviously i couldn't see him due to his position on the path.

Hope this answers any questions.

As i have just received the NIP and have no idea what speed they are looking at, i would appreciate any help.

The camera van was on the left pathway on a slight right hand bend, just before a set of bollards, i slotted back in which is when laddo jumped into the front of his vehicle and i presume when he got my reg. (My manouvre was complete BEFORE the bollards by a good 30 yards)

i have heard some operators state that they formed an opinion initially by engine noise, if stevie s dropped a gear then cranked up the revs the CO would be ready and waiting for the bike to come into visual view on the overtake

I have the original "quiet" exhausts on, the van and car made more noise than my bike!!

I'm getting to the stage of "do i accept a ticket, and hands up" or still go down the pace and inaccuracy of the LTI on a bike that has more stealthy curves than a stealthy thing.

Stevie,

What you need to realise is that if you fight it you have to be prepared for a fight, it will not be easy for you. I know it shouldn’t be that way but they are after your money whether you are in the wrong or not. It shouldn’t be like this but that’s how it is I’m affraid. If you’d seen what I went through with the North Wales Police over a speeding offence (as like you first in 25 years) you would know what I mean. They even put the wrong code on my licence, would they change it, would they hell, even thought the news papers were involved.

If you fight it, I and everyone hear will be behind you. There are allot of people here that will help but it will not be easy and could cost you allot more money. If you want to fight it I would suggest that you would be better off over with PePiPoo, they are better equipped with the right people.

Dixie

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

As Dixie says, if you are prepared to fight then they ain't gonna give up easily. However, no matter how many bullshit laws they bring in, the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution.

The first thing they have to do is prove that it was actually your bike and that it was actually you riding it at the time of the alleged offence.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Who do you send the nip and pace to?

It should tell you that on the NIP.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Cheers Dixie,

Thought it had to go to the Chief constable for some reason.

Just spoke to a "colleague" at work ref lasers. Specula reflection and sweep and cosine error have been mentioned with ref to the bike and i feel fairly confident that i may have a case, i'll keep people posted.

Specular reflection - in context of secondary/tertiary bounces: not impossible but IMO highly unlikely given this return signal will be later and likely substantially weaker than the primary bounce; also, the path will need to exist for 1/3 sec even though you are moving.

Sweep - in context of sweeping along the bike: a possibility if you were pinged from the front but far less likely if from the rear due to the lack of large continuous surfaces to sweep across.
Sweep - in context of other surfaces (tarmac, lines, Armco): certainly possible but it sounds like you were in close proximity, thus requiring a huge alignment error for the beam to miss the bike. You will need the video – the full session video – to confirm the case.

Cosine error will always be in your favour. The reading will always be lower than your true speed (if the axis of travel is not in line with the gun – which sounds like a given in this case).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Well the saga continues, sent off the Pace statement and request for the photographic evidence. Have received a certificate of conformaty for the LTI2020 and a note that my other questions (confirm the area that the van was parked due to it being on the footpath etc) would be dealt with under the FOI act. They have sent me another NIP stating that if i don't inform them of the driver i could be charged under section 172. I know they have received the Pace statement Coz they have read my request for info. I have still have not seen the photo evidence. I gather that i must sit tight and wait.