NIP received, not me that was speeding?

[Eclassy]

RikGT4 said:

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

Fantastic news.

Sad thing is 9 out of 10 people would have just paid up and taken the points.

[Mr Trophy]

Great news OP.

[RikGT4]

yep exactly, i think if i wasn't already wary of the camera and it had said something like 46-47mph i'd have just accepted it.

[Funk]

Good result!

[randlemarcus]

RikGT4 said:

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

Excellent news. If you were feeling particularly spiteful, a s.172 lookalike letter asking for a name to 'fess up to malfeasance in a public office should even out the score

[Sheepshanks]

randlemarcus said:

Excellent news. If you were feeling particularly spiteful, a s.172 lookalike letter asking for a name to 'fess up to malfeasance in a public office should even out the score

Well, they could at least send a complimentary get-out-of-jail-free card for your next offence.

[FiF]

Good result OP and agtlaw.

Now a question for my own edification.

Earlier the issue of two vehicles in the measurement zone no longer being an issue was stated.

Does the camera and radar have measurements for each lane or is it just the one across the whole carriageway?

If it's just one then it will show the higher speed presumably.

So what happens if the OP had been slightly over permitted limit in FPN or SAC territory and the other vehicle was in court or even ban territory.

Obviously the pictures will differentiate as they did in this case, but how is the issue of speed reading (non existent / inaccurate) and secondary corroboration work. In that case there would be only the photos from which to work.

[selym]

Well done chaps!

[EskimoArapaho]

Good work, agt! Helped OP and added to the value of PH at the same time.

[Dairymilk]

FiF said:

Good result OP and agtlaw.

Now a question for my own edification.

Earlier the issue of two vehicles in the measurement zone no longer being an issue was stated.

Does the camera and radar have measurements for each lane or is it just the one across the whole carriageway?

If it's just one then it will show the higher speed presumably.

So what happens if the OP had been slightly over permitted limit in FPN or SAC territory and the other vehicle was in court or even ban territory.

Obviously the pictures will differentiate as they did in this case, but how is the issue of speed reading (non existent / inaccurate) and secondary corroboration work. In that case there would be only the photos from which to work.

Only one car was in the measurement zone when the car in the outside lane was measured at 50mph. The car in the inside lane has passed through the measurement zone and is therefore not in the measurement zone in the first image.

Having two cars in the pictures isn't the same as having two cars in the measurement zone. Anyone who understands this particular speed camera can look at the first image and tell you which of those two cars is the subject of the radar measurement. It would seem the computer application that made the choice could not do that on this occasion, hence the error.

[FiF]

Ok thanks for that plus your calculations on behalf of the OP.

[telecat]

I thought this camera should have been removed by now as it is not visible within a certain distance. The one off the flyover on to the A64 was removed for this reason years ago.