96 on M6 - photo with other vehicle visible

[Quickstop]

Am asking on behalf of my Dad. He was photographed on the M6 southbound near carlisle allegedly doing 96. He can't remember what speed as it was in July 2007.

In the photo being submitted as evidence, there is another vehicle in the picture on the inside lane. (Never been sure - outside lane is the fast one right ? )

Is this grounds for dismissal of the case due to doppler error/ splashback? Anyone successfully pleaded this?



Thanks!

M

[softtop]

from the size of the other vehicle it looks like it would struggle to get over 50mph. What makes you think this affected your fathers reading?

[Quickstop]

thought it was a legal thing that if there was more than one vehicle in the picture, it would void the case.

Doppler splash could be bouncing off the other vehicle - 1st reading off the truck, second off my dad, giving a false higher reading - in theory. At any rate, some error may have crept in...

Just thought I would see - take your point about the other slower vehicle.

[SirSimon]

it is just me, but 96 around that corner??

[Vesuvius 996]

You have two hopes.


1. Bob Hope. He's dead.
2. No hope.


Hope that helps.


Tell him to slow down. 96 in that car on that bend is stupid.

Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Friday 28th December 14:36

[stuthemong]

Looks far from stupid to me on an empty 3 lane motorway guys. Dismount from horseys please, ta.

[pikey]

Hang on.... alledged offence was in July, but they write to him in December? I thought there was a 14 day NIP, or is that no longer the case?

[SirSimon]

pikey said:

Hang on.... alledged offence was in July, but they write to him in December? I thought there was a 14 day NIP, or is that no longer the case?

court offence maybe? 96 not ofer the guide lines?

[pikey]

Quickstop said:

What sort of camera took this? Mobile unit, operator triggered or something extremely high up on a pole?

[softtop]

pikey said:

Quickstop said:

What sort of camera took this? Mobile unit, operator triggered or something extremely high up on a pole?

if you look at the distance between car and camera, bearing in mind it would be on a bridge given the position over the road, it smacks of revenue.When you see the camera it is too late. Coming round a bend at that speed is not dangerous, depends also on your car, granted, Rover with uprated brakes?

Edited by softtop on Friday 28th December 15:14

[delboy735]

softtop said:

pikey said:

Quickstop said:

What sort of camera took this? Mobile unit, operator triggered or something extremely high up on a pole?

if you look at the distance between car and camera, bearing in mind it would be on a bridge given the position over the road, it smacks of revenue. Coming round a bend at that speed is not dangerous, depends also on your car, granted, Rover with uprated brakes?

MG then??

[pikey]

Hardly a bend - it's just the angle of the camera gives a funny perspective. When have you seen a motorway with a sharp right like that?

[G51CAV]

softtop said:

pikey said:

Quickstop said:

What sort of camera took this? Mobile unit, operator triggered or something extremely high up on a pole?

if you look at the distance between car and camera, bearing in mind it would be on a bridge given the position over the road, it smacks of revenue. Coming round a bend at that speed is not dangerous, depends also on your car, granted, Rover with uprated brakes?

Of course its not dangerous! I mean other than losing control at that speed, something straying into his path or a mechanical failure and with an approaching heavy goods vehicle that may have to take evasive action to avoid flattening him what could possibly happen?
96mph is not beyond the capabilities of the car but the point is it's a public road not a track day.

[E36GUY]

picture is shite as well. can't clearly see the numberplate or driver. Isn't there something in law which says the 'authorities' can't digitally enhance photos if they are unclear?

[texasjohn]

@ G51CAV

I agree completely, 96mph is fine given zero risk to yourself and other road users but there is always the chance of something 'unexpected' happening which of course means it is not a zero risk scenario.

It would seem logical to me to be able to link 'something unexpected' to most RTAs...

[alphadog]

pikey said:

Hardly a bend - it's just the angle of the camera gives a funny perspective. When have you seen a motorway with a sharp right like that?

Looks like the scamera is equipped with a telephoto lens type arrangement. The car is more than 500m away.

Edited by alphadog on Friday 28th December 15:47

[MonkeyHanger]

The only negative comment i would make is about the wisdom of doing 96 on the M6 in Scumbria. Given that the local Scumera Pratnership is second only to Brunstrom's lot in its rabid pursuit of motorists i'd say a little discretion is advisable in that neck of the woods.

[FishFace]

delboy735 said:

softtop said:

pikey said:

Quickstop said:

What sort of camera took this? Mobile unit, operator triggered or something extremely high up on a pole?

if you look at the distance between car and camera, bearing in mind it would be on a bridge given the position over the road, it smacks of revenue. Coming round a bend at that speed is not dangerous, depends also on your car, granted, Rover with uprated brakes?

MG then??

[petermansell]

This http://pepipoo.com/NIP.htm suggests that the offence is out of date.

[vonhosen]

petermansell said:

This http://pepipoo.com/NIP.htm suggests that the offence is out of date.

Except he doesn't say the NIP wasn't issued within time limits & prior to the photo being supplied.