If it wasn't laser and if they used Radar, it is a little easier to get away with if:

1. He was standing outside the car when he got you - if it were through a window the device may not give a true reading due to refraction etc
2. It was a straight line with no other cars near you - no other 'noise' for the radar.
3. The device has the correct calibration certificate (you must request this).

Laser is a little different as it is exact and will pin point rather than 'scatter'. IIRC they still need to be calibrated, but not as often.

Not sure why you were read your rights, as I thought this only happened if you were arrested?? It is also weird that you did not get a producer to take your license to the police station.

 

you don't have to be arrested. They read you your rights even if they only give you a producer

 

Cheers guys for the info. I don't think Scots Law is any different but to answer your questions:
- I was not given a "producer".
- I was not given a ticket.
- If I did get a verbal NIP I was unaware of it.
- It was a radar gun, they were in the car when they got the "alleged" reading.

What exactly is an NIP (written or verbal). I never got anything written. What would they have said "Notice of intent to Prosecute" or something like that.

I'll just wait and see. There is nothing I can do till i get that letter.

 

Sounds to me like, the others have stated, you will hear nothing more.

Still keep you awake at nite thou!

Think of this as a little warning, don't go the next step and end up in a hedge, respect the beast..........................................

 

AFAIK it's not different up here - RTA applies UK wide (may be a few small technical niceties relating to scotland, but I doubt they are significant).

 

I thought they had to tail you at the same speed for some time to get a proper reading.

A sudden burst of the ton to overtake, dropping back to sensible speed could be construed as proper driving by proper traffic officers.

This therefore sounds fishy to me. I suspect they are just jealous.

 

That would be using VASCAR for an average speed reading and not radar. If they were moving I doubt they were or even could use radar.

 

I agree with M@verick.

From what you've said it sounds like they just wanted to scare you, and wanted a plausible excuse (i.e. one most people wouldn't stamp their feet about) to pull you over.

If you weren't told in no uncertain terms that the matter would be taken further then you're probably in the clear.

 

Lot of fingers crossed for you.

 

'Reading you your rights' is an Americanism which has crept into usage over here. What we have is the police caution:- "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." In fairness they mean essentially the same thing.

It recognizes the right in law of a person to remain silent, the onus being on The Crown to prove it's case without you being invited to incriminate yourself. The caution is administered to remind you of that right, and if you're not properly cautioned, then a court may hold anything you say to be inadmissable. The bit in bold type was added about 10 years ago, and has the effect that whilst you still have the right to remain silent, the court can draw inference from the fact that you rely on some defence at your trial or hearing which you might reasonably be expected to have mentioned at the time. In other word, if you came up with six dodgy alibi witnesses on the day of the trial, (for example) the court is liable to conclude you just might be telling porkies.

Generally speakig there are two ways to get you to court in this country , by summons or process, which simlpy means you're told the facts will be reported and you may receive a summons to attend court in due course at a time and date stipulated in the summons.

The other method is by charging and bailing you to attend court at a time and date which is fixed there and then and is usually preceded by you being arrested. It's a far more formal procedure where you would stand in front of the Custody Sergeant who would read out the charge(s), caution you, and note any reply you choose to make.

Police officers should caution you as soon as they have reasonable grounds for believing you may have committed an offence, and again when telling you the facts will be reported or charging you.

The prescribed form of the NIP is "The facts will be reported for consideration of the question of prosecuting you for exceeding the speed limit" I doubt a court would place much emphasis on minor variations as long as the meaning remained intact. Since in effect the NIP is simply telling you the facts be will reported, albeit for a specific offence, it should be followed by the caution.