SP30 Advice

[TedMaul]

Hi,

Been a lurker for some time, but need some advice hence my 1st post. Just received a friendly letter from BIB about potential SP30 - usual accept 3 points and £60 fine and we'll say no more. It was for 81mph in a 70 on m180. Road was pretty clear, bright sunny day, no danger to man or beast.

Tempted to argue as I have heard unless they can prove they had reason to monitor you, they aren't allowed and as I wasn't caning it, I can't see why they would? I certainly wasn't the fastest at that point.... Also, if I try and argue the case, what is the worse they could give me? Double the fine or double the points or both? Has anyone argued the toss and won?? Humberside Police if that makes a difference.

Already have 3pts for well deserved sp30 (91 in a 70 which I have no problem with - runs out in 12 months) but feel this latest one is pretty harsh...

Also, if I go to court, do I need to hire a solicitor, or can I represent myself?

Thoughts appreciated

TM

[Andy Mac]

TedMaul said:

Hi,

Been a lurker for some time, but need some advice hence my 1st post. Just received a friendly letter from BIB about potential SP30 - usual accept 3 points and £60 fine and we'll say no more. It was for 81mph in a 70 on m180. Road was pretty clear, bright sunny day, no danger to man or beast.

Tempted to argue as I have heard unless they can prove they had reason to monitor you, they aren't allowed and as I wasn't caning it, I can't see why they would? I certainly wasn't the fastest at that point.... Also, if I try and argue the case, what is the worse they could give me? Double the fine or double the points or both? Has anyone argued the toss and won?? Humberside Police if that makes a difference.

Already have 3pts for well deserved sp30 (91 in a 70 which I have no problem with - runs out in 12 months) but feel this latest one is pretty harsh...

Also, if I go to court, do I need to hire a solicitor, or can I represent myself?

Thoughts appreciated

TM

When I had my speeding ban, the resident solicitor, who was not lined up for me that day, said need any help. I, (well my brother, I was at sea at the time), said yeah, that would be god. And for doing 130 mph, (done for 112 after slowing down), I had a 3 month ban, and 360 quid fine. I thought that was pretty reasonable. If you prefer to pay a fine, and have less ban that normally works.

[planetdave]

I don't think you're onto a winner with that arguement. If you really want to get out of it be a lot more devious - try looking up 'peripoo' or a search in our Speeding Plod & The Law forum.

[TedMaul]

Surely even if I contest, they won't ban me for doing 81 in a 70??

[planetdave]

It's a slap on the wrist 3 pointer + fine + costs. Probably cheaper to take the offer though.

[TedMaul]

Planetdave - thought as much, but really 81mph,ffs, you have to admit its a con. Made worse as myself, Mrs Maul and my 13 month old were almost killed on M6 on way back from Glasgow this afternoon by nutter in Land Cruiser who thinks swerving widly between lanes at 80-90 is funny and good way of showing off..... bet he has clean licence... grumble grumble etc etc

Thanks anyway,

TM

[TedMaul]

Anyway, have Ferrari day at Bruntingthorpe a week on Sat, so teh BIB can't have my licence until thats done )

[vonhosen]

TedMaul said:

Hi,

Been a lurker for some time, but need some advice hence my 1st post. Just received a friendly letter from BIB about potential SP30 - usual accept 3 points and £60 fine and we'll say no more. It was for 81mph in a 70 on m180. Road was pretty clear, bright sunny day, no danger to man or beast.

Tempted to argue as I have heard unless they can prove they had reason to monitor you, they aren't allowed and as I wasn't caning it, I can't see why they would? I certainly wasn't the fastest at that point.... Also, if I try and argue the case, what is the worse they could give me? Double the fine or double the points or both? Has anyone argued the toss and won?? Humberside Police if that makes a difference.

Already have 3pts for well deserved sp30 (91 in a 70 which I have no problem with - runs out in 12 months) but feel this latest one is pretty harsh...

Also, if I go to court, do I need to hire a solicitor, or can I represent myself?

Thoughts appreciated

TM

There is no requirement to show any danger, good conditions etc are only mitigation after a guilty verdict, not a defence to the offence.

They don't need any reason to monitor you, they formed an opinion that you were speeding initially & that was backed up by a measured reading from an approved device.

If you elect to go to court you can hire a solicitor at your expense (no legal aid for speeding), or represent yourself & seek advice (for free) from the duty solicitor at the court if you wish. If you are contesting the case though, simply stating that you think you shouldn't be prosecuted for doing 81 won't be of much use.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th July 18:24

[Stubby Pete]

i regret to say that you will have to accept this one.

Whilst it was almost certainly safe (from your description) and you may feel that you have been right royaly shafted, Von is absolutely right. Clear roads etc can be used in mitigation for sentence but have nothing to do with the offence which is strict, i.e. above 70mph can be prosecuted. Most allow 10% +2mph but that is a guide.

DO you know what system you were caught on. If it was VASCAR, you may be able to argue that the 1/10 second delay in activating the system twice (normal reaction speed) could put you within the safety margin etc.

TBH, if its your second offence and the first will be points clear in 12 months, take it.

[shuvitupya]

I agree that 81mph on a 70mph motorway is a bit harsh, but if you knew you were speeding, then
there is not a lot you can do as the legal limit is 70mph, and you are over the 10% +2mph threshold.

[puggit]

vonhosen said:

They don't need any reason to monitor you, they formed an opinion that you were speeding initially

We all know this is absolute tosh, even you VH!

For 81mph on an empty M180 they would have had a van on the bridge and just filmed the entire period. Afterwards they would have gone back to base and ticketed the cars that were over the threshold for that day - set to whatever level they needed to set it at to make that day's quota.

The original poster might have a good chance of fighting this by visiting www.pepipoo.com - you'd need to plead not-guilty and request the ENTIRE video to be disclosed.

Not promising a win by any stretch of the imagination, just a fighting chance...

[stockhatcher]

the bib do have to have reason to zap you, get the photo, and in the bottom right corner it will tell you the distance away you were when zapped. if its something crazy like 400+m then you could arguw how can you form an opinion of me speeding from that distance, if the road was very quiet, like the m180 usually is, then there answer of , you were moving faster then the other traffic, might not wash.

it might be worth a punt, the courts generally take a dim view of it though, as you are not saying that you weren't speeding, you just saying that proper procedure wasn't followed. for that you'll defo need a solicitor.

[justinp1]

stockhatcher said:

the bib do have to have reason to zap you, get the photo, and in the bottom right corner it will tell you the distance away you were when zapped. if its something crazy like 400+m then you could arguw how can you form an opinion of me speeding from that distance, if the road was very quiet, like the m180 usually is, then there answer of , you were moving faster then the other traffic, might not wash.

it might be worth a punt, the courts generally take a dim view of it though, as you are not saying that you weren't speeding, you just saying that proper procedure wasn't followed. for that you'll defo need a solicitor.

I completely agree.

Your choice is either to accept the offer or you are quite within your rights to ask whoever sent the allogation to prove it!

You can (and probably should) ask them so see the said evidence. Thwy will probably send you a couple of pictures which will let you know how far you were zapped from. You can then ask for a copy of the full video - you are legally entitled to this *before* you go to court. Many cases have been dropped as somewhere on the tape there is proof that the equipment is not as 'accurate' as is claimed, has not been set up properly, or the operator has zapped many people under the limit. This then proves that the operator was making a prior assesment of speed total tosh!

I would fight it, and would be quite happy to advise on the best ways forward as they will eventually drag it out months as they dont like actually proving cases to make their money and just rely on people writing out a cheque and accepting 5 years of increased insurance premiums!

Up to you though........!

[bigdods]

Happened to me a few weeks back - 81 in a 70 A34 chieveley empty road etc., no way with the van being positioned where it was that they could have formed any prior opinion of speed but its just not worth the hassle - 3 points and £60 for me on my clean licence isnt an issue. Of course if I had 9 points it would be different !

[Flat in Fifth]

There is anecdotal evidence that one of the sites used on the M180 is more liable to slip erors than is otherwise the norm. This is because, and I am only repeating what I have been told by others more local than I, is because due to the road and the position of the van, ie just after a bend and brow in road allegedly, that there is relatively little time to a) form an opinion b) lock on and get a clear stable reading. On the other hand from my memory I recall the M180 as particularly flat straight and boring. It gets a bit less flat etc east of Shorpe but even so...

However what I would say is this, if you were there and you were at or about the speed alleged, then imho you should accept the offer. Yes it sucks I know. If however you feel that the allegation is incorrect then you have the right to fight it and make the prosecution prove their case.

[10 Pence Short]

Flat in Fifth said:

There is anecdotal evidence that one of the sites used on the M180 is more liable to slip erors than is otherwise the norm. This is because, and I am only repeating what I have been told by others more local than I, is because due to the road and the position of the van, ie just after a bend and brow in road allegedly, that there is relatively little time to a) form an opinion b) lock on and get a clear stable reading. On the other hand from my memory I recall the M180 as particularly flat straight and boring. It gets a bit less flat etc east of Shorpe but even so...

That particular one is between the Gainsborough junction and the Trent Bridge when you're heading Eastbound. The position is a raised platform on the exit to a rising right hand bend in the motorway, shrouded by trees on the nearside. Even in lane 3 it's very late before you'd see anything sat in there (which a camera van often is). What concerns me are the safety implications of being in such a position when you consider driver's reactions when they see a camera van.

We all know very well that even when someone is driving within the speed limit, being suddenly confronted with a speed camera often leads to sudden braking followed by a check of the speedometer. I'm not sure how it could be advocated along the lines of a safety camera when in effect you're creating a very short notice hazard that in many people creates a sudden manoevre without warning? Hardly promoting safety in my eyes.

[jith]

Flat in Fifth said:

There is anecdotal evidence that one of the sites used on the M180 is more liable to slip erors than is otherwise the norm. This is because, and I am only repeating what I have been told by others more local than I, is because due to the road and the position of the van, ie just after a bend and brow in road allegedly, that there is relatively little time to a) form an opinion b) lock on and get a clear stable reading. On the other hand from my memory I recall the M180 as particularly flat straight and boring. It gets a bit less flat etc east of Shorpe but even so...

However what I would say is this, if you were there and you were at or about the speed alleged, then imho you should accept the offer. Yes it sucks I know. If however you feel that the allegation is incorrect then you have the right to fight it and make the prosecution prove their case.

I have exactly the same situation up here FiF on the M90 and a few interesting cases on the go because of it.
Three of them involve the camera running constantly operated by a civilian.
Makes me utterly sick to my stomach this kind of injustice.
How did we get here???

[Flat in Fifth]

jith said:

Flat in Fifth said:

There is anecdotal evidence that one of the sites used on the M180 is more liable to slip erors than is otherwise the norm. This is because, and I am only repeating what I have been told by others more local than I, is because due to the road and the position of the van, ie just after a bend and brow in road allegedly, that there is relatively little time to a) form an opinion b) lock on and get a clear stable reading. On the other hand from my memory I recall the M180 as particularly flat straight and boring. It gets a bit less flat etc east of Shorpe but even so...

However what I would say is this, if you were there and you were at or about the speed alleged, then imho you should accept the offer. Yes it sucks I know. If however you feel that the allegation is incorrect then you have the right to fight it and make the prosecution prove their case.

I have exactly the same situation up here FiF on the M90 and a few interesting cases on the go because of it.
Three of them involve the camera running constantly operated by a civilian.
Makes me utterly sick to my stomach this kind of injustice.
How did we get here???

Firstly just noticed the citizens of that steel town south of the Humber have the injustice of being zapped by Ted's swear filter. If Typhoo put the Tea in Britain who put the :ahem: ..

In answer to your last question jith; how we got here is like this.

Very first camera was positioned in the smoke, in a 30 where city wide boys (and girls) were constantly falling off the island and killing themselves and others. Often speeds in three figures were involved in the appraoch to a reduction in lanes, a sharp bend and a junction.

Anyway after the experiment showed some positive results a wider roll out was mooted. I am reliably informed by someone who was involved at a senior level in traffic and accident investigation, as it was then known, that certain questions were raised. Very much along the lines oft discussed on here, so I will not repeat the issues on road traffic unit manning levels, discretion, accuracy and so on.

They, and we, were told, don't worry we are only after the real pee takers, we will only place these where excess speed above the limit is the main precipitating and causal factor; and so on and so on.

In short, The Powers That Be Told Lies, and continue to do so.

[jith]

Flat in Fifth said:

jith said:

Flat in Fifth said:

There is anecdotal evidence that one of the sites used on the M180 is more liable to slip erors than is otherwise the norm. This is because, and I am only repeating what I have been told by others more local than I, is because due to the road and the position of the van, ie just after a bend and brow in road allegedly, that there is relatively little time to a) form an opinion b) lock on and get a clear stable reading. On the other hand from my memory I recall the M180 as particularly flat straight and boring. It gets a bit less flat etc east of Shorpe but even so...

However what I would say is this, if you were there and you were at or about the speed alleged, then imho you should accept the offer. Yes it sucks I know. If however you feel that the allegation is incorrect then you have the right to fight it and make the prosecution prove their case.

I have exactly the same situation up here FiF on the M90 and a few interesting cases on the go because of it.
Three of them involve the camera running constantly operated by a civilian.
Makes me utterly sick to my stomach this kind of injustice.
How did we get here???

Firstly just noticed the citizens of that steel town south of the Humber have the injustice of being zapped by Ted's swear filter. If Typhoo put the Tea in Britain who put the :ahem: ..

In answer to your last question jith; how we got here is like this.

Very first camera was positioned in the smoke, in a 30 where city wide boys (and girls) were constantly falling off the island and killing themselves and others. Often speeds in three figures were involved in the appraoch to a reduction in lanes, a sharp bend and a junction.

Anyway after the experiment showed some positive results a wider roll out was mooted. I am reliably informed by someone who was involved at a senior level in traffic and accident investigation, as it was then known, that certain questions were raised. Very much along the lines oft discussed on here, so I will not repeat the issues on road traffic unit manning levels, discretion, accuracy and so on.

They, and we, were told, don't worry we are only after the real pee takers, we will only place these where excess speed above the limit is the main precipitating and causal factor; and so on and so on.

In short, The Powers That Be Told Lies, and continue to do so.

Exactly FiF, and it has been the same up here.
The first traffic camera, although not a speed camera was placed on a stantion at the top of the Kingston Bridge smack in the middle of Glasgow and caused an outrage at the time.
The then Chief Constable, David(the Hammer)McNee, a man of true principle and integrity appeared on the front page of all the local papers with the somewhat inaugural statement that, "As long as there is breath in my body cameras will not be used to prosecute motorists!"
The rest, as they say, is history.

[justinp1]

jith said:

Flat in Fifth said:

There is anecdotal evidence that one of the sites used on the M180 is more liable to slip erors than is otherwise the norm. This is because, and I am only repeating what I have been told by others more local than I, is because due to the road and the position of the van, ie just after a bend and brow in road allegedly, that there is relatively little time to a) form an opinion b) lock on and get a clear stable reading. On the other hand from my memory I recall the M180 as particularly flat straight and boring. It gets a bit less flat etc east of Shorpe but even so...

However what I would say is this, if you were there and you were at or about the speed alleged, then imho you should accept the offer. Yes it sucks I know. If however you feel that the allegation is incorrect then you have the right to fight it and make the prosecution prove their case.

I have exactly the same situation up here FiF on the M90 and a few interesting cases on the go because of it.
Three of them involve the camera running constantly operated by a civilian.
Makes me utterly sick to my stomach this kind of injustice.
How did we get here???

Pre-printed sworn 'statements' which include:

I (so and so) confirm that I formed an opinion of excess speed...... that I have been trained in the use of the device........ it was operated correctly....... has been tested and calibrated correctly etc.

If the CPS pursued purjury cases for each one of these cases where the operator signed a document to state this when it was not true I think this would at least uphold some standards. Similarly, if Brunstroms ACPO Code of Practice was not renamed the 'ACPO Guidelines' in speeding cases by the CPS and the police officers who are giving evidence, and operators who have not used the CODE correctly were disciplined then this would also at least attach some credibility.

However, from the top down there is support by Magistrates and Judges for operators to convict in speeding cases despite the primary evidence being an 'opinion of expess speed' being gathered at half a mile away. On many of these occasions this primary evidence is 'proved' by the use of a device despite there being numerous procedural errors in gathering the evidence which will incur errors. In some cases the operator of the device *has never even read the Code*.

So, if cases can be taken to an easy conviction by the CPS despite these faults, why should the camera partnerships, police and the operators themselves improve standards!?