dratted scamera vans!
Discussion
got scamed near hull by a dreaded scamera van last saturday night at 6.30pm. 38 in a 30. 3 points, 60 quid fine.
im not going to dispute that i was speeding and intend to pay and take my points.
the thing that galls me is that ive had a clean licence for 13 years (unlucky for some eh?).
i saw the van as i drove towards it (following another car) and noticed that there was a black (or dark blue) unmarked (possibly with unreflective red bits on the back) parked half in a bus stop half bumped up onto the grass verge as if it had broken down. i remember thinking 'what a place to break down - the bus drivers are going to be pi$$ed'. its only as i actually drove past that i spotted the hatch and thought 'what a crafty git!'
when i got home i recounted the tale to my family and made the obsevation that with the way it was parked and the dark colour that a good few people would get done by it. little did i know that it included me!
my grumble is that its a fair cop if a traffic car does you for speeding or if the vans are white and reflective coats etc are worn, but a dark van badly parked on a fairly straight urban road is just mean.
but hey ho i guess this is a reflection (no pun intended!) of the world we live in today.
my only question (apart from the obvious - how do i retain my clean licence :-() is:-
how far away do these vans get you?? i was definatley doing 30 as i approached the van because i looked at my speedo(guilty conscience in hindsight!). im thinking it must have been a good few hundred yards away.
experts??
im not going to dispute that i was speeding and intend to pay and take my points.
the thing that galls me is that ive had a clean licence for 13 years (unlucky for some eh?).
i saw the van as i drove towards it (following another car) and noticed that there was a black (or dark blue) unmarked (possibly with unreflective red bits on the back) parked half in a bus stop half bumped up onto the grass verge as if it had broken down. i remember thinking 'what a place to break down - the bus drivers are going to be pi$$ed'. its only as i actually drove past that i spotted the hatch and thought 'what a crafty git!'
when i got home i recounted the tale to my family and made the obsevation that with the way it was parked and the dark colour that a good few people would get done by it. little did i know that it included me!
my grumble is that its a fair cop if a traffic car does you for speeding or if the vans are white and reflective coats etc are worn, but a dark van badly parked on a fairly straight urban road is just mean.
but hey ho i guess this is a reflection (no pun intended!) of the world we live in today.
my only question (apart from the obvious - how do i retain my clean licence :-() is:-
how far away do these vans get you?? i was definatley doing 30 as i approached the van because i looked at my speedo(guilty conscience in hindsight!). im thinking it must have been a good few hundred yards away.
experts??
I believe there must be a sign (either temporary or permanent) warning of a speed camera site ahead.
Also, IIRC, speed traps are supposed to only be operating where a fatal accident has occurred in recent years (though I doubt this is adhered-to very much).
If you are unfortunate enough to receive a letter in the post, ask for a copy of the image and check that the time on the image matches EXACTLY with that on the letter - if not, call them and inform them of the miss-match.
Also, IIRC, speed traps are supposed to only be operating where a fatal accident has occurred in recent years (though I doubt this is adhered-to very much).
If you are unfortunate enough to receive a letter in the post, ask for a copy of the image and check that the time on the image matches EXACTLY with that on the letter - if not, call them and inform them of the miss-match.
Regarding the comment about making sure all details are correct, one of my drivers got scammed by a gatso in S. Yorks - when it came through it had the wrong date on it. I spoke to the fines office and they promptly sent a letter out acknowledging the error and he escaped with a 'ticking off' - lucky so and so - he'd already 6 points on board !!!
wolosp said:Guidance only. The absence of such a sign will not, on its own, cause a prosecution to fail.
I believe there must be a sign (either temporary or permanent) warning of a speed camera site ahead.
wolosp said:Not only "Killed" but can include seriously injured, as well as "Community Concern" sites, and sites identified as having a particular "problem" with speeders.
Also, IIRC, speed traps are supposed to only be operating where a fatal accident has occurred in recent years (though I doubt this is adhered-to very much).
wolosp said:Often this info will not be released at the NIP stage - it is only when the case is going through the courts that full disclosure is required (unless it's a matter of identification).
If you are unfortunate enough to receive a letter in the post, ask for a copy of the image and check that the time on the image matches EXACTLY with that on the letter - if not, call them and inform them of the miss-match.
There's an argument that you might get off with concerning when the van scams you.
The policeman in the van (that doesn't include a civilian or policeman on overtime apparently) is allowed to use the equipment in the van to zap you only to back up his prior expert opinion that you are speeding.
Hence if you plead guilty and ask for the evidence - and see that he caught you as you came around the corner - how could he have prior opinion that you are speeding?
I'd check more professional opinion on these 2 arguments (ie if a civvy can get you and prior opinion).
Fight them all the way!!! Don't roll over and take the points, that's what they want.
Also state at some point in writing that they are violating the ECHR and that you would like the case reviewed after Idris Francis's case is heard there (some time in 2006 probably).
Check www.abd.org and www.pepipoo.com.
Fight, fight, fight!
The policeman in the van (that doesn't include a civilian or policeman on overtime apparently) is allowed to use the equipment in the van to zap you only to back up his prior expert opinion that you are speeding.
Hence if you plead guilty and ask for the evidence - and see that he caught you as you came around the corner - how could he have prior opinion that you are speeding?
I'd check more professional opinion on these 2 arguments (ie if a civvy can get you and prior opinion).
Fight them all the way!!! Don't roll over and take the points, that's what they want.
Also state at some point in writing that they are violating the ECHR and that you would like the case reviewed after Idris Francis's case is heard there (some time in 2006 probably).
Check www.abd.org and www.pepipoo.com.
Fight, fight, fight!
puggit said:I'm not an expert, just another victim. However I don't think the highlighted bit above will work - they will not release evenidence unless you plead not guilty.
There's an argument that you might get off with concerning when the van scams you.
The policeman in the van (that doesn't include a civilian or policeman on overtime apparently) is allowed to use the equipment in the van to zap you only to back up his prior expert opinion that you are speeding.
Hence if you plead guilty and ask for the evidence - and see that he caught you as you came around the corner - how could he have prior opinion that you are speeding?
I'd check more professional opinion on these 2 arguments (ie if a civvy can get you and prior opinion).
Fight them all the way!!! Don't roll over and take the points, that's what they want.
Also state at some point in writing that they are violating the ECHR and that you would like the case reviewed after Idris Francis's case is heard there (some time in 2006 probably).
Check www.abd.org and www.pepipoo.com.
Fight, fight, fight!
Everything is against you.
1. You can't KNOW if you were inoccent or guilty (who can recall exactly what speed they were travelling at on a particular stretch of road two weeks ago, especially when they won't be specific about where the alleged incident occurred? - we can all have momentary lapses of concentration).
2. You can't get access to the evidence unless you plead guilty.
3. If you want to plead guilty you must pass up the opportunity to accept 3 points and £60.
4. In most cases if you do so and opt to go to court you will have to pay costs.
5. In most cases if you go to court the points will be more, the fine will be greater, and even now, before the recent punitive fines announcements come into force, the fines will be means tested.
I believe there is something fundementally illegal about this whole regime, in that my limited understanding is that any conviction made on the evidence of a confession made under inducement is inadmissable. Isn't this obtaining evidence under duress? Or at the very least exerting undue influence?
My own situation is that I received a NIP and was 99% certain I had not been speeding, but as I said you can never be sure. I didn't accept the offer of a fixed penalty, as I was pretty confident that I was not guilty. Along with a summons came photgraphic evidence. Now while I cannot be sure that the photographs were taken in the place alleged (I certainly can't identify the location precisely, and the road in question has 30mph and 40mph limits and NSL), having taken measurements and made calculations based on the frame speed of the equipment, I concede that if the limit was 30mph then I could well have been speeding.
I don't see any option at this point but to cut my losses, but I am looking at a minimum 4 points and a fine into the hundreds at least, according to magistrates guidelines.
I was confident of my innocence as I always adhere to speed limits in built up areas. (I do what the hell I like elsewhere but thats not the issue.) That confidence now appears to have been misplaced; it seems that a genuine momentary lapse may have cost me dearly; my angst is that I will be inevitably be punished more harshly for not having "rolled over" at the NIP stage.
cheers for all the opinions.
as its my first offence im going to pay the fine and accept the points. it would appear that ive missed out on the speeding seminar, 50 quid fine and no points option due to doing 38 in a 30. rats!
one thing that is bothering me is that the time of the offence is 6.30. i have a petrol recipt from 5.33 that shows i was in weatherby (on my way home from work). i know,(and i know this from trying damm hard somedays) that its impossible to get to where the camera was in an hour. it always takes hour and ten minimum, hour and twenty average.
im 99% sure that the time is wrong. i got home 6.50 that night (my mum remembers 'cos she put my tea on) from the camera site home its ten minutes.
this all adds up to the time been nearer 6.40 when i was done. but i just dont see that this would stand up as a legal arguement.
as its my first offence im going to pay the fine and accept the points. it would appear that ive missed out on the speeding seminar, 50 quid fine and no points option due to doing 38 in a 30. rats!
one thing that is bothering me is that the time of the offence is 6.30. i have a petrol recipt from 5.33 that shows i was in weatherby (on my way home from work). i know,(and i know this from trying damm hard somedays) that its impossible to get to where the camera was in an hour. it always takes hour and ten minimum, hour and twenty average.
im 99% sure that the time is wrong. i got home 6.50 that night (my mum remembers 'cos she put my tea on) from the camera site home its ten minutes.
this all adds up to the time been nearer 6.40 when i was done. but i just dont see that this would stand up as a legal arguement.
Dibble said:
I believe there must be a sign (either temporary or permanent) warning of a speed camera site ahead.
Guidance only. The absence of such a sign will not, on its own, cause a prosecution to fail.
wolosp said:
Also, IIRC, speed traps are supposed to only be operating where a fatal accident has occurred in recent years (though I doubt this is adhered-to very much).
Not only "Killed" but can include seriously injured, as well as "Community Concern" sites, and sites identified as having a particular "problem" with speeders.
wolosp said:
If you are unfortunate enough to receive a letter in the post, ask for a copy of the image and check that the time on the image matches EXACTLY with that on the letter - if not, call them and inform them of the miss-match.
Often this info will not be released at the NIP stage - it is only when the case is going through the courts that full disclosure is required (unless it's a matter of identification).
So this talk we get from Government and BiB etc saying that the camera partnerships are playing fair with the motorist in that all sites will be clearly marked and that they will be sited at known accident blackspots is total cr@p then? They can (and will) get you anywhere and anyway they can.
As regards the accuracy matter - I know of a notice that was binned after it was shown that the date/time stamp on the image differed with that in the letter in a conversation over the phone....no court action needed.
guru_1071 said:Call them, ask for a copy of the image as you don't think you were in the area at the time....it's a reasonable request to make.
one thing that is bothering me is that the time of the offence is 6.30. i have a petrol recipt from 5.33 that shows i was in weatherby (on my way home from work). i know,(and i know this from trying damm hard somedays) that its impossible to get to where the camera was in an hour. it always takes hour and ten minimum, hour and twenty average.
im 99% sure that the time is wrong. i got home 6.50 that night (my mum remembers 'cos she put my tea on) from the camera site home its ten minutes.
this all adds up to the time been nearer 6.40 when i was done. but i just dont see that this would stand up as a legal arguement.
puggit said:
There's an argument that you might get off with concerning when the van scams you.
The policeman in the van (that doesn't include a civilian or policeman on overtime apparently) is allowed to use the equipment in the van to zap you only to back up his prior expert opinion that you are speeding.
Not quite, it must be a 'serving police officer' therefore on OT is fine, however civilian is a no-no.
puggit said:
Hence if you plead guilty and ask for the evidence - and see that he caught you as you came around the corner - how could he have prior opinion that you are speeding?
I presume you mean 'not-guilty', they must release evidence to you if you plead not guilty, there is no requirement to do so if you plead guilty.
Always request the video evidence as an aid to identifying the driver and also request the police service number of the policeman who formed the opinion of excessive speed prior to you being zapped.
Never roll-over and accept it, make it difficult for them and it might just go away.
james_j said:
wolosp said:
So this talk we get from Government and BiB etc saying that the camera partnerships are playing fair with the motorist in that all sites will be clearly marked and that they will be sited at known accident blackspots is total cr@p then?
It certainly is.
What gets me is that the permanent camera signs are on every road anyway even those that have never had a camera so us drivers don't even notice them anymore.
My favourite one used to be on the Portwood roundabout in Stockport. Yes actually on the roundabout.
>> Edited by cliffe_mafia on Monday 17th January 10:51
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff