Bill, is there some hidden agenda as to why he needs to get off e.g. already got a load of points, loss of job etc?

The hassle of going to court, involving scum lawyers etc is just not worth it for 60 quid and 3 points when in reality, he was probably in the wrong?

In summation, heres my take on it.

Your son was detected driving at 44 mph at someplace by means of a hand held device - radaror laser, whatever, in his taxicab.

Cop(s) got into their vehicle and stopped him some distance away at some other town, hence the following him for a mile and a half bit....

Ticket reads as the location of him speeding, not where he was stopped.

Whether the location on the ticket is exact to the n'th degree is, in the greater scheme of things, probably somewhat immaterial but is worth some consideration if the three points are extremely important to him.

personal experience - Taxi drivers always got some (speeding) leeway from me (and others) when they were getting the drunks away home in the early hours but as long as they did not take the mickey by not paying attention.  the police cars are quite obvious these days by their reflective markings.  If he cannot see one of them, what chance does he have of seeing a drunk staggerring up the road in dark clothing??

Quote:


I suspect that perhaps Dad is getting sons somewhat distilled version of reality, both as regards the stop in question and as to whether he has NEVER broken the speed limit before...   

Selseybill wrote on 29. Nov 2009 at 19:43:


Bloody hell! where I am, the only things that walk the streets at that time are stray dogs, wolves, and 'ladies of the night', (in no particular order of seniority). You NEVER see a copper police constable on foot EVER at night, & rarely in daylight for that matter. As for Supers & above, I don't think they know their way out of the nick other than via the garage gate . BTW, sod to taking it on the chin, if he can get off on a 'technicality', then good for him. If the Law can't get it right, why should we give them any leeway?

hotel21 wrote on 29. Nov 2009 at 20:53:


The police car was unmarked and did not stand out from a normal car following him.at 03:30 there is a lot cabs saloon and taxi style using this road so a normal car does not stand out as something different.He knew there was other cars behind him but not a police car.So his eye sight does not come into question. 
As for speeding we all do it now and then,am proof i had 9 points at one stage.

As my previous post states it has been confirmed by the police,Sussex highways and lawyer the road has a 50 mph limit not 30mph as stated by the officer that stopped him.

Lawyer was saying if the ticket isn't quashed,he will go to court and claim for this and that but we have informed him as long as the ticket is quashed and the officer has had a talking too we would be happy.The lawyer for some unknown reason has no time for the local police.
Chief inspector is due to call us by 17:00 to let us know what is happening.

I am still baffled by Chief Inspectors getting involved in a little ticket query, especially one that's been issued by a trafpol Sarge!

Possibly because one of their underlings has quite possibly just done something which is tantamount to perverting the course of justice ?
Interestingly if the OP had taken the advice of some people to just "take it on the chin"his son would now be paying a fine and having his clean record tarnished,when in fact it looks like he commited no offence at all,and the officer doesnt even know the speed limits in his own patch,or worse,he does know but wanted  easy brownie points or whatever.
I have had this happen to me in my forst few months on the road.I was stopped for having a tail light bulb out ,but at the end of the conversation with the 2 officers the older seargant informed me that he was doing me for driving at 20mph above the limit.I told him that I eas driving in thick fog for the first time,was pretty nervous due to the conditions and there was no way on gods earth that I was doing anything like the speed he claimed.He informed me that I could argue all night long ,but the word of 2 police officers against mine would be what counted in court.I had no realistic choice but to plead guilty.
Since then,if they dont have a watertight case,I will use any technicality to get myself off if possible.

Selseybill wrote on 30. Nov 2009 at 14:35:

In that case, it's "cut & dried" for your son.....and make sure you screw the f**kers for every single last penny you can think of if they insist on putting it before a court of law.