£50 fine :(

[potsy]

Slightly related but there was a piece on one of the 'cop' programmes the other week where a driver was 'seen' on the phone by a lone copper, despite the officers certainty the guy was adamant he was on a 'hands-free' phone and took the court option, his case was either thrown out or he was found not guilty, i forget which.
This was a police operation where the officer would radio in anything he saw and other officers further up the road would dish out the tickets, why oh why weren't they filming?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Cyclists be aware that you cannot be convicted on the "uncorroborated" evidence of a single police officer, that's why they have cameras or a mate with them, a simple "no comment" usually suffices in this situation and the CPS are aware of this. They generally rely on us laying down & wiggling our legs in the air "the dying fly" to secure a conviction.

I'm sure you're wrong.

My memory of the Road Traffic Act isn't what it used to be but I'm certain there is (was) an entry to the effect that for an offence of failing to obey a traffic sign or signal, the evidence of a single witness was sufficient.

I'm away to dig more..

GC

 

[CopperBrompton]

I thought that was an old wives tale?

It is.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It is.

Can you point me in the direction of the relevant legislation? I can only find evidence of it applying in Scotland.

GC

 

[Frood42]

I cannot find any specific legislation, but it seems from what I have read that the officers statement should be sufficient and that the specific legislation linked above is for Scotland due to a requirement of corroboration. Of course I could be talking complete tosh as I may not have read correct what I found...

The only thing I could find needing more than one witness, was the offence of speeding:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/89
.

 

[Freds Dad]

Slightly related but there was a piece on one of the 'cop' programmes the other week where a driver was 'seen' on the phone by a lone copper, despite the officers certainty the guy was adamant he was on a 'hands-free' phone and took the court option, his case was either thrown out or he was found not guilty, i forget which.
This was a police operation where the officer would radio in anything he saw and other officers further up the road would dish out the tickets, why oh why weren't they filming?

I was stopped about 2 years ago at a roadside check as the coppers mate round the corner had radioed ahead to say I was using a mobile while driving.

When I explained that the only phone in the car was in my golf bag in the boot and his mate must have been mistake he got quire arsey and threatened me with a ticket or a court appearance. When I chose the court option he was quite taken aback and didn't know what to do.

I got the phone out of the golf bag and showed him the last call made or received was over 6 hours earlier he still wasn't having any. The intervention of a more sensible officer on site meant that I was allowed to go "on this occasion"

After a bit of asking around locally several other people had been stopped in the same manner.

 

[benb]

Cyclists be aware that you cannot be convicted on the "uncorroborated" evidence of a single police officer, that's why they have cameras or a mate with them, a simple "no comment" usually suffices in this situation and the CPS are aware of this. They generally rely on us laying down & wiggling our legs in the air "the dying fly" to secure a conviction.

Only true in Scotland. How do you think people were convicted of anything before they invented video evidence?

 

[Twelve Spokes]

you must have a pretty face

No,just charm.

 

[Frood42]

That is one witness relying on their opinion. One officer with a speedgun would be a different matter

Yes, yes it would (in regards to the speeding).
.

 

[GrasB]

Hardly discretionary.

The decision of if it's dangerous or not to stop at the light turns to amber is my discretion. If it wasn't then there would need to be a document covering every possible situation for going through or not going through an amber light.

 

[raleighnut]

That is one witness relying on their opinion. One officer with a speedgun would be a different matter

That is corroboration!

 

[swansonj]

"The testimony of one eye is as naught - he may lie. But when it is corroborated by the other, that is good evidence that none may gain say. Here they both are in court , ready to swear."

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Only true in Scotland. How do you think people were convicted of anything before they invented video evidence?

That's not right, in relation to the traffic offence at hand and several others, no corroboration is required in Scotland. See my link in post 117.


GC

 

[benb]

The decision of if it's dangerous or not to stop at the light turns to amber is my discretion. If it wasn't then there would need to be a document covering every possible situation for going through or not going through an amber light.

No it's not. If a police officer sees you, and in their opinion you could have safely stopped, you could be prosecuted.

 

[benb]

That's not right, in relation to the traffic offence at hand and several others, no corroboration is required in Scotland. See my link in post 117.


GC

Thanks, I was unaware of that.