36 in 30 - NIP vs Camera Evidence discrepancy - Advice
Discussion
Fellow PH'ers.
On the 13th April I was photographed apparently breaking a 30mph limit through average speed cameras.
The documentation duly arrived on the 21st.
I have checked it and included some of it below - location included as an FYI...
Given the difference in timestamp versus the alleged time of offence on the NIP I'm guessing that the cameras haven't had their clocks put forward for BST.
I have returned the NIP with my details as TBH I didn't notice the time difference until this afternoon.
Second assumption is that I have to wait for the Conditional Offer to see if the discrepancy is duplicated.
If the error was repeated would it be worthwhile going the Magistrates route on a Not Guilty technicality?
Your thoughts, please.
On the 13th April I was photographed apparently breaking a 30mph limit through average speed cameras.
The documentation duly arrived on the 21st.
I have checked it and included some of it below - location included as an FYI...
Given the difference in timestamp versus the alleged time of offence on the NIP I'm guessing that the cameras haven't had their clocks put forward for BST.
I have returned the NIP with my details as TBH I didn't notice the time difference until this afternoon.
Second assumption is that I have to wait for the Conditional Offer to see if the discrepancy is duplicated.
If the error was repeated would it be worthwhile going the Magistrates route on a Not Guilty technicality?
Your thoughts, please.
dmanders said:
Fellow PH'ers.
On the 13th April I was photographed apparently breaking a 30mph limit through average speed cameras.
The documentation duly arrived on the 21st.
I have checked it and included some of it below - location included as an FYI...
Given the difference in timestamp versus the alleged time of offence on the NIP I'm guessing that the cameras haven't had their clocks put forward for BST.
I have returned the NIP with my details as TBH I didn't notice the time difference until this afternoon.
Second assumption is that I have to wait for the Conditional Offer to see if the discrepancy is duplicated.
If the error was repeated would it be worthwhile going the Magistrates route on a Not Guilty technicality?
Your thoughts, please.
The camera says it's showing the time in GMT & the NIP would be sent for BST so there is no discrepancy.On the 13th April I was photographed apparently breaking a 30mph limit through average speed cameras.
The documentation duly arrived on the 21st.
I have checked it and included some of it below - location included as an FYI...
Given the difference in timestamp versus the alleged time of offence on the NIP I'm guessing that the cameras haven't had their clocks put forward for BST.
I have returned the NIP with my details as TBH I didn't notice the time difference until this afternoon.
Second assumption is that I have to wait for the Conditional Offer to see if the discrepancy is duplicated.
If the error was repeated would it be worthwhile going the Magistrates route on a Not Guilty technicality?
Your thoughts, please.
2102 GMT is 2202 BST.
Spleen said:
Driver101 said:
I do laugh at the efforts to worm out of speeding and parking fines on here.
How far can you actually see on a high horse? Just curious.BertBert said:
Spleen said:
Driver101 said:
I do laugh at the efforts to worm out of speeding and parking fines on here.
How far can you actually see on a high horse? Just curious.I seem to recall a similar incident a few years ago.
As there is an inconsistency with the evidence, there may be a way out.
Wait for the conditional offer and take it from there.
The police (or whoever) seem to be saying we are charging you with an offence at 10 o'clock with evidence from 9.
So which is it?
caziques said:
I seem to recall a similar incident a few years ago.
As there is an inconsistency with the evidence, there may be a way out.
Wait for the conditional offer and take it from there.
The police (or whoever) seem to be saying we are charging you with an offence at 10 o'clock with evidence from 9.
So which is it?
As there is an inconsistency with the evidence, there may be a way out.
Wait for the conditional offer and take it from there.
The police (or whoever) seem to be saying we are charging you with an offence at 10 o'clock with evidence from 9.
So which is it?
vonhosen said:
The camera says it's showing the time in GMT & the NIP would be sent for BST so there is no discrepancy.
2102 GMT is 2202 BST.
2102 GMT is 2202 BST.
kiethton said:
The the powers that be want to trap you on a technicality/artificially low limit why wouldn't you try to uncover every technicality to null it? I'd be doing exactly the same
It's not a technicality. It's just the law. The OP is grasping at a technicality. But he has to face going not guilty and the repercussions of that in court.caziques said:
As there is an inconsistency with the evidence, there may be a way out.
But there isn’t an inconsistency.One quotes the time as GMT, which is a perfectly valid way of quoting time. It clearly says GMT after one of the times, and not with the other - whenever it doesn’t say GMT, local time (currently BST) is assumed by convention. The two times agree with each other.
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
But there isn’t an inconsistency.
One quotes the time as GMT, which is a perfectly valid way of quoting time. It clearly says GMT after one of the times, and not with the other - whenever it doesn’t say GMT, local time (currently BST) is assumed by convention. The two times agree with each other.
Whoops, missed the GMT part. Point taken - bend over and take the punishment. 37 in a 30, very serious matter.One quotes the time as GMT, which is a perfectly valid way of quoting time. It clearly says GMT after one of the times, and not with the other - whenever it doesn’t say GMT, local time (currently BST) is assumed by convention. The two times agree with each other.
Spleen said:
Driver101 said:
On my high horse? Really?
The issue isn't how many drivers struggle to accept any responsibility or fault?
That wasn't the point of the question, your sanctimonious response validated that. The issue isn't how many drivers struggle to accept any responsibility or fault?
It's exactly the point of the OP's question.
Ultima Chat | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff