Still liable for a ticket below 35MPH?
Discussion
Got a NIP, Scammered of course. Speed claimed is 38.
Now I was fully aware of the fixed camera and "joyously" watched the thing flash at me believing I was not driving at a prosecutable speed, so I know precisely how fast I thought I was going and I was not doing 38 - I am pretty confident of that - I did not expect to get a NIP, never mind one with 38 on it, so I am very suspicious of the recording accuracy.
If I go to court and, lets say, the photos prove I was doing 35, 34 or less but over 30 will they still proceed with prosecution? They allegedly don't issue a NIP for less than 10% +2 (ie 35) to allow for error, but once in court does this apply?
Also, if I go to court is there any way they can up the fine or points and what might the court costs be? Bear in mind there was no other car about, dry, daylight etc. so they cannot possibly prove driving "without due care" etc.
[Although to get NIPed in your own neighbourhood by a fixed camera you know is there possibly IS driving without due care and attention !!]
Now I was fully aware of the fixed camera and "joyously" watched the thing flash at me believing I was not driving at a prosecutable speed, so I know precisely how fast I thought I was going and I was not doing 38 - I am pretty confident of that - I did not expect to get a NIP, never mind one with 38 on it, so I am very suspicious of the recording accuracy.
If I go to court and, lets say, the photos prove I was doing 35, 34 or less but over 30 will they still proceed with prosecution? They allegedly don't issue a NIP for less than 10% +2 (ie 35) to allow for error, but once in court does this apply?
Also, if I go to court is there any way they can up the fine or points and what might the court costs be? Bear in mind there was no other car about, dry, daylight etc. so they cannot possibly prove driving "without due care" etc.
[Although to get NIPed in your own neighbourhood by a fixed camera you know is there possibly IS driving without due care and attention !!]
Technically the offess is excess speed, without the buffer zone.
There might be a route to persuade them to drop the prosecution as not in the public interest if you are below the ACPO guidelines -- the public after all expect policing to be fair and equitable, and it would not make sense for them to proceed if the evidence is below their (secret) trigger point.
However, you I don't think you could compel them to do this in law.
There might be a route to persuade them to drop the prosecution as not in the public interest if you are below the ACPO guidelines -- the public after all expect policing to be fair and equitable, and it would not make sense for them to proceed if the evidence is below their (secret) trigger point.
However, you I don't think you could compel them to do this in law.
Pop over to www.pepipoo.com and read up on the PACE response. It's the flavour of the month at the moment and could be worth a try.
JonRB said:
Pop over to www.pepipoo.com and read up on the PACE response. It's the flavour of the month at the moment and could be worth a try.
Yes I have seen that - I am what you would call a "generally law abiding middle class sort of person" (ie the ones who always get caught) and trying for a technicality would not come easy. I genuinely don't beleive I was doing 38 - I was watching the speedo as the 2nd flash went off so I know where the needle was. So I would rather prove that the evidence only indicates a lower speed and them choose not to proceed because of that. However, I see on another post that a policeman is being done for 35 so I guess I have to prove 34 or less to stand any chance - mind you with parallax error, the finite distance of the markes etc, it might just wash.
UpTheIron said:
How can you be so sure you were doing "less than 35?"
That's the rub, I can't be sure, I only have a suspicion - I am confident it was less than 38 but by how much I could not say without the evidence. If I can get the photos before I have to commit myself, then I'll be happy - 35+ and I'll pay up without further wrangling. But they have a habit of brinkmansship I understand and are unlikely to make it that easy.
thirsty33 said:I agree and sympathise. However, I firmly believe that the only reason the Safety (sic) Camera Partnership exists and is so successful (financially at least) is because generally law abiding middle class sort of people like you and I are inclined to just pay up.
Pop over to <a href="www.pepipoo.com">www.pepipoo.com</a> and read up on the PACE response. It's the flavour of the month at the moment and could be worth a try.
I believe that it is our duty as law-abiding citizens to challenge dodgy laws. I really mean that - this isn't just a convenience thing. The very basis of our justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty and that the due process of the law should be followed. And that includes being cautioned and having the right to a solicitor before you make any statement that could be used in evidence against you or could be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
The PACE response plays on just that. You cannot make a statement that can be used in evidence against you until you have been cautioned by a Police Officer. I do not recognise a lackey sitting in a van with a Kodak as being one and I do not see why I should have to fill in a form that purports to simply say who was driving but is actually a signed confession of guilt that can (and will) be used in evidence against you.
The PACE response merely says "yes, I was driving" as legally required but, crucially, in a way that is believed (at present) to be in a form that is not a signed confession.
I do not see any conflict between this and being an upstanding citizen.
Of course, it is your decision. However, I feel quite strongly about it although for legal reasons I would rather not say whether or not I am involved in a similar situation at this time.
BliarOut said:
If you genuinely think it's wrong, request the pictures. Simple time Vs distance calculations will reveal your actual speed. They do make mistakes and that's exactly what the white lines are for.
I will certainly ask for the photos - I have actually visited the site this evening and the marks are 1.5 metres apart (well approximately!) - that's a pretty course measure and when I was at school, you could not claim accuracy better than the ruler being used, so in my mind only whole graduations count which at this site means they can only PROVE speeds of 27, 33.5, 40.5, Even doing 35 there might only be proof of 27 but I'd appreciate some advice of whether there is case law to support this argument. I think it very dodgy if they are allowed to estimate how far past one mark you are, but it wouldn't surprise me. Also, they have stated the location of a camera not the one I thought it was but another 100 yards past it, so I really really want to see the photos cos something does not add up.
thirsty33 said:True, but the graduations are not the primary means of measurement. They are a rough rule (no pun intended) to verify that the radar / laser reading is the the right ball-park.
when I was at school, you could not claim accuracy better than the ruler being used, so in my mind only whole graduations count which at this site means they can only PROVE speeds of 27, 33.5, 40.5
So that is the question, in the final argument what is considered accurate? Does the radar support the lines or vice versa?
Bloody amazing in this day and age that they can still leave this much room for doubt.
I have the photos coming soon (promised) so maybe it will become clearer then; I hope to see on each photo a time with 1/100's of a second so that I can verify the time between the photos and distance - I may be dissappointed.
What I cannot understand (OK, its money making, they don't care etc), but if they want to gain public support (or at least acceptance), why not always supply the photos and calibration data etc. OK, so they would loose some tickets, but so many total criminals get off on the tiniest technicality for some henous crimes, yet someone with a pure speeding offence gets robbed of the same rights.
Bloody amazing in this day and age that they can still leave this much room for doubt.
I have the photos coming soon (promised) so maybe it will become clearer then; I hope to see on each photo a time with 1/100's of a second so that I can verify the time between the photos and distance - I may be dissappointed.
What I cannot understand (OK, its money making, they don't care etc), but if they want to gain public support (or at least acceptance), why not always supply the photos and calibration data etc. OK, so they would loose some tickets, but so many total criminals get off on the tiniest technicality for some henous crimes, yet someone with a pure speeding offence gets robbed of the same rights.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff