Quick NIP/Photo question....
Discussion
Just to clarify things I've heard.
Does the photograph that will be submitted as evidence have to clearly show both the speed AND your registration plate? What about if there's a sequence of photographs that show your plate, but the one that actually shows the offending speed doesn't?
Also, if there is another vehicle present, traveling in the opposite direction, in between the camera and offending vehicle, that is obscuring a large part of the picture, is this still admisable as evidence, given that it could've been the other vehicle that was the trigger?
Does the photograph that will be submitted as evidence have to clearly show both the speed AND your registration plate? What about if there's a sequence of photographs that show your plate, but the one that actually shows the offending speed doesn't?
Also, if there is another vehicle present, traveling in the opposite direction, in between the camera and offending vehicle, that is obscuring a large part of the picture, is this still admisable as evidence, given that it could've been the other vehicle that was the trigger?
Or, hie youself off to <a href="http://www.pepipoo.com">www.pepipoo.com</a> read the FAQ, and post your query on their Judicial Process forum.
Smart bunch, those Pepipoo-ers.
>> Edited by $lowpoke on Saturday 16th April 19:18
>> Edited by $lowpoke on Saturday 16th April 19:19
Smart bunch, those Pepipoo-ers.
>> Edited by $lowpoke on Saturday 16th April 19:18
>> Edited by $lowpoke on Saturday 16th April 19:19
neil.b said:
Also, if there is another vehicle present, traveling in the opposite direction, in between the camera and offending vehicle, that is obscuring a large part of the picture, is this still admisable as evidence, given that it could've been the other vehicle that was the trigger?
Was the camera fixed or mobile?
kevinday said:
Also, if there is another vehicle present, traveling in the opposite direction, in between the camera and offending vehicle, that is obscuring a large part of the picture, is this still admisable as evidence, given that it could've been the other vehicle that was the trigger?
Was the camera fixed or mobile?
Van.
Interesting one......
You need to see the FULL VIDEO not a sequence, not cuttings but the full video. They will be very very reluctant to provide this.
Assuming this was using an LTI 20-20 it will have a timeout message, a few seconds after the speed has been recorded. It will also show a plus or minus before the speed figure indicating approaching or receeding target.
What is very very important for you in a possible defence is that the device was pointing at you, it recorded your speed & only your speed.
Does it say timeout on the picture?
Does the speed part say minus when your approaching?
Or positive when going away?
Its quite probable & highly likely that the laser device recorded your speed plus or minus a sweep error depending on how the device was aimed etc.
Also the crosshairs in the video must be aligned with the dot of the Lasegun sight, which in turn must be aligned with the laser beam (easier said than done). Seeing the full video will allow you or a professional to assess if this was the case.
There are currently a few cases being fought in the courts and it will not be long before a precedent is set. It is extremely easy to get erronous readings with these devices.
It would appear the partnerships are becoming very greedy & their quest for convictions is quashings their quality controls on such matters. Hence you MUST get the full video.
Email me for further contact details for the UK's most senior expert on the use of such devices.
You need to see the FULL VIDEO not a sequence, not cuttings but the full video. They will be very very reluctant to provide this.
Assuming this was using an LTI 20-20 it will have a timeout message, a few seconds after the speed has been recorded. It will also show a plus or minus before the speed figure indicating approaching or receeding target.
What is very very important for you in a possible defence is that the device was pointing at you, it recorded your speed & only your speed.
Does it say timeout on the picture?
Does the speed part say minus when your approaching?
Or positive when going away?
Its quite probable & highly likely that the laser device recorded your speed plus or minus a sweep error depending on how the device was aimed etc.
Also the crosshairs in the video must be aligned with the dot of the Lasegun sight, which in turn must be aligned with the laser beam (easier said than done). Seeing the full video will allow you or a professional to assess if this was the case.
There are currently a few cases being fought in the courts and it will not be long before a precedent is set. It is extremely easy to get erronous readings with these devices.
It would appear the partnerships are becoming very greedy & their quest for convictions is quashings their quality controls on such matters. Hence you MUST get the full video.
Email me for further contact details for the UK's most senior expert on the use of such devices.
neil.b said:
Just to clarify things I've heard.
Does the photograph that will be submitted as evidence have to clearly show both the speed AND your registration plate? What about if there's a sequence of photographs that show your plate, but the one that actually shows the offending speed doesn't?
What cptsideways said.
Depending on the camera gear in use ( i.e. is it in South Wales and fitted with a big f off lens for use on motorway bridges with high traffic volumes) the video frames with the measurement may not have the resolution to provide a readable plate. After all they do shoot you at about 300 meters. At that distance you can probably hardly see them at most of their locations so the chances of the plate being readable is remote.
BUT, since the video runs constantly, the chances are they will either catch the plate later deliberately as you drive towards them (at about 80 to 100 meters) or it will appear as part of the regular movie anyway.
If you are going away from them they need the plate in an early shot!
When the wife was done three years ago we were able to go to the unit concerned and view the vid (several times since the vid machine was playing up or the operator could not use it properly.) But that was before everyone started to ask to see the video and they got a bit stroppy about it. It was an interesting day. I still think there was something wrong with the measurement and I can come up with strong evidence that the average speed between the two snaps did not exceed the limit plus tolerance. What I could not prove was that
a) she didn't slow down significantly for any reason (she claims she had no reason to) and
b)that she wasn't doing the claimed 40mph for the fraction of second when the measurement was taken.
You do need to see that video if at all possible.
neil.b said:
Just to clarify things I've heard.
Does the photograph that will be submitted as evidence have to clearly show both the speed AND your registration plate? What about if there's a sequence of photographs that show your plate, but the one that actually shows the offending speed doesn't?
Also, if there is another vehicle present, traveling in the opposite direction, in between the camera and offending vehicle, that is obscuring a large part of the picture, is this still admisable as evidence, given that it could've been the other vehicle that was the trigger?
Had a very similar thing happen to my niece a while back. We were contesting the details of the postion where the offence was supposed to have occured. They wrote back and provided 3 photos and smarmy reply stating that the occupant could clearly be identified. Trouble was the 3 photos showed:
1. car, no number plate, no speed
2. car, number plate, no speed
3. car (in a gap between two cars going in the opposite direction), number plate, speed, and TIMEOUT
I then asked for a photo which contained ALL of the following:
car, number plate, speed and no "TIMEOUT"
They dropped the case.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!
Tossers!
Ask for the photos by writing to them and telling them you don't think your car was in the area at the time and NOT that you want the photos to identify the driver. It's never failed.
Actually, just checked one of the other photos, the one that shows "40mph" and it says "Timeout" on it.
The one that shows my claimed speed (more than 40) has an asterisk in front of it, and does not show my plate. Its a very good shot of the rear half of a bloody big van obscuring my car though....
And I'm still not sure it was me driving. Very difficult to tell from the photo.
The one that shows my claimed speed (more than 40) has an asterisk in front of it, and does not show my plate. Its a very good shot of the rear half of a bloody big van obscuring my car though....
And I'm still not sure it was me driving. Very difficult to tell from the photo.
neil.b said:
Actually, just checked one of the other photos, the one that shows "40mph" and it says "Timeout" on it.
The one that shows my claimed speed (more than 40) has an asterisk in front of it, and does not show my plate. Its a very good shot of the rear half of a bloody big van obscuring my car though....
And I'm still not sure it was me driving. Very difficult to tell from the photo.
Seems like you might have a chance here. Ask them for a photo showing:
car, number plate, speed and no "TIMEOUT
Good luck!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff