NIP received, not me that was speeding?

[Eclassy]

@OP

Is this a road you regularly travel on? If so there is a good chance you were travelling below or at the limit. You sound sincere and pretty sure you werent breaking the limit.

When/if you write to them, you may want to ask if a NIP was sent to the RK of the other car and if so, what speed was the other car travelling when caught. I cant offer any technical advice (pretty useless at that) but goodluck and hope there is a positive outcome to this. Please keep us updated.

I have had the lights in the Limehouse link double flash me whilst I was doing 30mph and another car raced past me. I was worried enough to note down the number of the other car.

[V8LM]

SS2. said:

First things first (other than completing the s.172 and ensuring it's back within 28 days from the date it was served), you need to be positive on the spacing of the lines.

Streetview may help with the latter point.

For the faster car (Mercedes?), it appears just shy of 3 gaps long which would be reasonable for 5 ft spacing.

If you were doing 50 mph then you travelled 50 ft in the 0.7 seconds. With 8 gaps covered then the spacing would be over 6 ft per gap. This makes the faster car at least 18 ft long, 2 ft longer than a Range Rover.

[tenpenceshort]

Eclassy said:

@OP

Is this a road you regularly travel on? If so there is a good chance you were travelling below or at the limit. You sound sincere and pretty sure you werent breaking the limit.

When/if you write to them, you may want to ask if a NIP was sent to the RK of the other car and if so, what speed was the other car travelling when caught. I cant offer any technical advice (pretty useless at that) but goodluck and hope there is a positive outcome to this. Please keep us updated.

I have had the lights in the Limehouse link double flash me whilst I was doing 30mph and another car raced past me. I was worried enough to note down the number of the other car.

They won't give out that information. In any case, whether or not they sent out a NIP to the other driver and the other drivers speed are both irrelevant to the question of whether the OP was speeding.

AGTlaw from here is a motoring specialist solicitor based in Leeds. He might be worth a chat if you're convinced you were not speeding.

[telecat]

That's the one just after the Tunnel isn't it. Surprised it was loaded. However there is a layby just by it so measuring the gaps should be possible.

[HertsBiker]

Thought the time between pictures was meant to be 0.5 seconds. In 0.7 you have travelled a lot further. Maybe their spy camera is broken?

[Funk]

Yep, it all comes down to the line spacing.

[Phatboy317]

I may be wrong, but I believe the lines are only there in order to corroborate the primary evidence, which is the speed recorded by the camera. As the camera can only detect and record one speed at a time, and cannot distinguish which vehicle was actually doing the detected speed, I would say that, in this case, the primary evidence of your speed is missing.
Measured using GoogleEarth, the lines are 5 feet apart, so covering 8 lines in 0.7 seconds pegs your speed at around 39mph. At 50mph you would have covered just over 10 lines, and the other car looks like it did just that.
I think you have a strong case for contesting it, but nonetheless you should really speak to a specialist solicitor.

[Jon1967x]

I'd go 5' apart as well which is in your favour.

I'd also say that given the position of the cars, you seem a long way down the road before the camera first triggers whereas the car in L2 isn't.

I'd definitely appeal.

[RikGT4]

Thanks again everyone! I'm going to fill out and return the NIP today and will go and measure the lines tomorrow. I'll keep you updated on the outcome.

Yep, it's the camera straight after the tunnel that's been there years but never working. Always thought it was due to it being in a questionable position.

Cheers
Rik

[agtlaw]

RikGT4 said:

Thanks again everyone! I'm going to fill out and return the NIP today and will go and measure the lines tomorrow. I'll keep you updated on the outcome.

Yep, it's the camera straight after the tunnel that's been there years but never working. Always thought it was due to it being in a questionable position.

Cheers
Rik

Sounds dangerous and I'd hold off on that for the time being. Send the form with this letter. Keep copies of everything. Use Royal Mail Signed For.


Dear Sirs,

I enclose a completed section 172 form as requested.

I kindly ask that you review this case as I do not believe I was exceeding the speed limit on the A64. There are two vehicles shown in your photographs (copies enclosed) and I firmly believe that the car overtaking me has activated the Gatsometer. My initial estimate, based on my own secondary check, is that I was driving within the speed limit.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours etc.

[FiF]

Anyway didn't it used to say in that Code of Practice that were only guidelines that if two vehicles were in the measurement zone for automated speed enforcement by a radar device that the correct procedure for the ticketing back office was to take no further action.

This was because aiui of the issue raised earlier one detection device vs two targets. Which one is it measuring?

[agtlaw]

This was in the old version (ACPO, RPET):

"Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or
may, be in the measurement field, the reading must be disregarded."

This text is omitted from the current version.

[Dairymilk]

The lane markers are 6m apart in a 30 and 40 limit so that puts the check marks at 5ft apart.

The car in the outside lane checks at 49-50mph matching the radar. The car in the inside lane chacks out at 39mph.

There is no issue with 2 vehicles being in the measurement zone.

[agtlaw]

pitmansboots said:

The lane markers are 6m apart in a 30 and 40 limit so that puts the check marks at 5ft apart.

The car in the outside lane checks at 49-50mph matching the radar. The car in the inside lane chacks out at 39mph.

There is no issue with 2 vehicles being in the measurement zone.

Thanks Steve. I also got 39 mph but I wouldn't want D to 'nail his colours to the mast' in his initial letter.

[Dairymilk]

agtlaw said:

pitmansboots said:

The lane markers are 6m apart in a 30 and 40 limit so that puts the check marks at 5ft apart.

The car in the outside lane checks at 49-50mph matching the radar. The car in the inside lane chacks out at 39mph.

There is no issue with 2 vehicles being in the measurement zone.

Thanks Steve. I also got 39 mph but I wouldn't want D to 'nail his colours to the mast' in his initial letter.

I can't see why not as the error is quite obvious, the wrong vehicle registration plate has been used to issue the NIP. The legalities are best left to you of course.

[agtlaw]

It might be a mistake to concede 39 mph when a later examination of better quality photos may reveal an even lower speed. Probably an academic point in the circumstances and I'm possibly being over-cautious by simply saying "within the speed limit".

[Red Devil]

Human error is certainly a possibility. But so is them going for the jackpot and issuing FPNs for both vehicles given the reluctance of most people to contest a fixed camera 'ping'. The risk/reward ratio is not conducive to it for a first (alleged) offence. In these times of austerity the temptation for the state to maximise revenue from fines has to be considered.

[Dairymilk]

agtlaw said:

It might be a mistake to concede 39 mph when a later examination of better quality photos may reveal an even lower speed. Probably an academic point in the circumstances and I'm possibly being over-cautious by simply saying "within the speed limit".

It's safe to say the subject of the NIP is below the 40 limit and the one in the outside lane is the subject of the 50mph radar speed. The action is sure to be withdrawn.

[agtlaw]

Red Devil said:

Human error is certainly a possibility. But so is them going for the jackpot and issuing FPNs for both vehicles given the reluctance of most people to contest a fixed camera 'ping'. The risk/reward ratio is not conducive to it for a first (alleged) offence. In these times of austerity the temptation for the state to maximise revenue from fines has to be considered.

This case highlights the need to get the photos (if available). West Yorkshire has a website for this purpose - login details are on the NIP. It's a shame that every other county doesn't do the same.

[RikGT4]

Good news! I did as agtlaw advised and sent a letter with the NIP. Today i received a letter back saying they have made a clerical error (picked wrong number plate).

thanks again for all your help!

Rik