Yet another 35 in a 30 NIP but a possible twist...?
Discussion
I've got a NIP. 35 in a 30, fair enough I wasn't paying attention.
However the recorded speed by the camera was 35.0, the lower limit of enforcement.
The calibration certificate shows the camera consistently over-records speeds by 0.1mph, therefore I was actually doing 34.9mph.
I've already returned the NIP as I don't want to void my chance of a SAC from the comfort of my home with beer and crisps, but...is there any potential mileage in writing to the traffic unit and saying that I am very, very sorry etc, bad boy etc and can this be voided because the camera over-read my speed?
Cheers!
Edit: Shall I redact and post up the calibration cert? I'm not sure the dates are valid either but that might just be my misunderstanding of it all.
However the recorded speed by the camera was 35.0, the lower limit of enforcement.
The calibration certificate shows the camera consistently over-records speeds by 0.1mph, therefore I was actually doing 34.9mph.
I've already returned the NIP as I don't want to void my chance of a SAC from the comfort of my home with beer and crisps, but...is there any potential mileage in writing to the traffic unit and saying that I am very, very sorry etc, bad boy etc and can this be voided because the camera over-read my speed?
Cheers!
Edit: Shall I redact and post up the calibration cert? I'm not sure the dates are valid either but that might just be my misunderstanding of it all.
Edited by joebongo on Sunday 9th May 08:27
There's no twist here, the speed limit is 30, your camera will show you were doing over 30mph. If you are offered a speed awareness course take it, if you try and argue technicalities and start asking for calibration certificates etc to show you were under 35 I think it's more likely you will get someone's back up and you will end up in court anyway.
The guidelines for prosecution are exactly that, guidelines. If you were going to prove you were actually driving at 29.5mph that would be a different thing.
The guidelines for prosecution are exactly that, guidelines. If you were going to prove you were actually driving at 29.5mph that would be a different thing.
joebongo said:
I've got a NIP. 35 in a 30, fair enough I wasn't paying attention.
However the recorded speed by the camera was 35.0, the lower limit of enforcement.
The calibration certificate shows the camera consistently over-records speeds by 0.1mph, therefore I was actually doing 34.9mph.
The guidance being set at 10% + 2MPH would seem to have a 0.1MPH error quite well covered.However the recorded speed by the camera was 35.0, the lower limit of enforcement.
The calibration certificate shows the camera consistently over-records speeds by 0.1mph, therefore I was actually doing 34.9mph.
joebongo said:
Edit: Shall I redact and post up the calibration cert? I'm not sure the dates are valid either but that might just be my misunderstanding of it all.
Could you do it for the NIP. Heard lots of people getting caught at 35 but no one has been able to provide evidence. Edited by joebongo on Sunday 9th May 08:27
I've returned the NIP already.
Apparently an out of date cert makes no odds due to common law presumption of correct functioning unless otherwise proven.
Best case is a friendly person on the desk at the traffic office deciding out of a sunny disposition to cancel it but that's it.
So my plan of action is a proper friendly fyi “did you realise” letter with no expectations of anything and hope for a minor miracle.
In the meantime I'll find some nice beers and snacks ready for the SAC.
Apparently an out of date cert makes no odds due to common law presumption of correct functioning unless otherwise proven.
Best case is a friendly person on the desk at the traffic office deciding out of a sunny disposition to cancel it but that's it.
So my plan of action is a proper friendly fyi “did you realise” letter with no expectations of anything and hope for a minor miracle.
In the meantime I'll find some nice beers and snacks ready for the SAC.
Tomo1971 said:
You are basically asking for a telerance (0.1mph) be added to an existing tolerance (guideline of 10% + 2mph)........
Think that there is enough tolerance given in the 3+2 really.....
The tolerance is there to ensure that if the instrument reads 35mph then the thing it is pointed at really is moving at over 30mph. In some respects it also allows for some leeway to the driver and their speedometer to ensure that the driver should also be aware they are over the limit.Think that there is enough tolerance given in the 3+2 really.....
The laser devices are spec'd at +/-1mph iirc so a calibration with a 0.1mph overead is fine. It is a bit more complicated than that and they can be made to misread, but that is the basic premise. They are not trying to prove you are doing 35mph, but clearly over 30mph.
PH User said:
agtlaw said:
joebongo said:
… is there any potential mileage in writing to the traffic unit and saying that I am very, very sorry etc, bad boy etc and can this be voided because the camera over-read my speed?
No.joebongo said:
I've returned the NIP already.........
........Best case is a friendly person on the desk at the traffic office deciding out of a sunny disposition to cancel it but that's it.........
Struggling to see that happening, but you never know I guess.........Best case is a friendly person on the desk at the traffic office deciding out of a sunny disposition to cancel it but that's it.........
joebongo said:
So my plan of action is a proper friendly fyi “did you realise” letter with no expectations of anything and hope for a minor miracle...........
Can't see that idea making any difference whatsoever (it might give the authorities a bit of a laugh I suppose)If they can be ar$ed, you might get a: "proper friendly fyi" "Did you realise that the speed limit is 30mph, you were driving in excess of 30mph, and we don't have to apply any tolerance over 30mph at all if we don't want to?" reply.
Seriously, don't bother wasting your time sending in any sort of "Did you realise" letter/email/message.
Sheepshanks said:
joebongo said:
I've got a NIP. 35 in a 30, fair enough I wasn't paying attention.
However the recorded speed by the camera was 35.0, the lower limit of enforcement.
The calibration certificate shows the camera consistently over-records speeds by 0.1mph, therefore I was actually doing 34.9mph.
The guidance being set at 10% + 2MPH would seem to have a 0.1MPH error quite well covered.However the recorded speed by the camera was 35.0, the lower limit of enforcement.
The calibration certificate shows the camera consistently over-records speeds by 0.1mph, therefore I was actually doing 34.9mph.
Camera tolerance is far smaller.
The 10% + 2mph (Authorities measurement of speed) is so that people aren't prosecuted for minor transgressions. So that people who are genuinely making the effort, but marginally fail briefly in that effort aren't penalised.
Once you reach 10% + 2mph over you are deemed to not be making sufficient effort.
They also reserve the right to take action for a lower level where the individual circumstances are judged to warrant it (though that is probably more likely where dealt with directly by a Police officer than through camera activations).
A way out for the OP............No
The 10% + 2mph (Authorities measurement of speed) is so that people aren't prosecuted for minor transgressions. So that people who are genuinely making the effort, but marginally fail briefly in that effort aren't penalised.
Once you reach 10% + 2mph over you are deemed to not be making sufficient effort.
They also reserve the right to take action for a lower level where the individual circumstances are judged to warrant it (though that is probably more likely where dealt with directly by a Police officer than through camera activations).
A way out for the OP............No
People expecting tolerances on the tolerances goes to show how a 80mph motorway limit would never work, at least not from an enforcement point of view.
Plenty of people disingenuously state that it would make people more law abiding, “as everyone does 80mph anyway”, but all it would do is make those people in the main do 90mph instead, as that would be the new “cutoff for enforcement” (real or imagined).
Plenty of people disingenuously state that it would make people more law abiding, “as everyone does 80mph anyway”, but all it would do is make those people in the main do 90mph instead, as that would be the new “cutoff for enforcement” (real or imagined).
I think the first line says it all I definitely would not want I was not paying enough attention to be an opening line as that could land you even more hot water, as the next thing is what else was not being paid attention to.
I think one of the big issues people forget and become fixated on with the guidelines is the fact they think they are safe.
As said above they are only guidelines, also certain forces can have their own interpretation, handily some forces publish their SOP's as they can deviate slightly from the original guidelines, and sometimes obviously be put on zero tolerance.
Furthermore and it is a big one that people forget that the usual 10% + 2 is when prosecution begins, not you are safe to this speed that is 1mph lower than the guidelines state. Plus sometimes GPS can introduce issues of how accurate it is, granted more accurate than the speedo, but I will admit cars are becoming much closer and less tolerance overall.
That being said in lower limits you are likely to find tougher approaches to speeding due to road user risk. Always one area that has perplexed me is people speeding in lower limits and not understanding the slightly more robust response, yet when they can do a higher limit and it is safe to do so they spend an age getting there and sometimes don't even reach it.
I think one of the big issues people forget and become fixated on with the guidelines is the fact they think they are safe.
As said above they are only guidelines, also certain forces can have their own interpretation, handily some forces publish their SOP's as they can deviate slightly from the original guidelines, and sometimes obviously be put on zero tolerance.
Furthermore and it is a big one that people forget that the usual 10% + 2 is when prosecution begins, not you are safe to this speed that is 1mph lower than the guidelines state. Plus sometimes GPS can introduce issues of how accurate it is, granted more accurate than the speedo, but I will admit cars are becoming much closer and less tolerance overall.
That being said in lower limits you are likely to find tougher approaches to speeding due to road user risk. Always one area that has perplexed me is people speeding in lower limits and not understanding the slightly more robust response, yet when they can do a higher limit and it is safe to do so they spend an age getting there and sometimes don't even reach it.
SS2. said:
There's no issue with 35 and upwards - it's the 'my mate's dad's milkman got caught doing 32, 33, 34' which raises a few eyebrows.
Curious, not to derail the thread, how does one go about contesting a '34 in a 30' besides calling someone like yourself? My friend claims he got caught doing 52 in a 50 a couple of years ago through an average speed zone yet contradicts my knowledge of at least what North Yorkshire plod issue a fixed penalty notice at when I got done by a camera van. Does it happen often and does it challenge well?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff