NIP - London (25 in a 20) with Pics - Opinions
Discussion
Disclaimer:
No defence offered. Full acceptance etc. No making excuses. This is not a thread to question the system or my actions - I have worked within it, I get it, and I know it, and am well versed on the PH opinion - so bed laid out. Open and honest on my part and will not be offended with replies as too thick skinned.
The reason for posting is purely to invite opinion on a few specifics.
Firstly and as can be ascertained from my post history if you can be bothered (EV forum) I drove an EV through London for 5 days for a one off job. I did a good job of avoiding the majority of NIP's but one has come through, for Albany St NW1. 25 in a 20. I have logged on and seen the images, it is the car I drove and I was there. It all looks good.
The only issue I have is that, on the day it happened I saw the speed trap ahead of me (facing away). I went through the entire length of road at at max 20 if not 15 - I remember doing so as I approached and watched them facing away from me and using the equipment. I used to be in the same game and I recognized them as traffic PCSO's wearing blue hats and high vis jackets. They also had a tripod with a mounted camera - different to my days in the game as I used to wear a full uniform and a white hat, and we used hand held laser and stopped and dealt with the driver at the time. My concern is that, I saw them, facing the other way, and crept past at a stuipdly low speed.
It all looks legit to me. I understand most of the figures, the minus figure is a negative which is "going away from" so have no issue there.
But it doesn't detract from the fact I know that:
1) I know they were there and slowed to beneath the limit.
2) The two images have cross hairs which "sweep" up to different parts of the rear of the car with a 1 second differential. In my days of Pro-laser sweeping was a no no and could be used to give a false read.
I don't think for one second that a false reading was engineered. But the images posted on my ticket show me that the cross hairs and 1 second difference adds doubt. This, combined with my knowledge that I actively passed them at a reduced speed sows a seed of doubt.
For what it is worth, I barely drive, don't need to drive, and have no points, I know I can just say yes and get a SAC, but I am interested in the above.
I welcome thoughts.
No defence offered. Full acceptance etc. No making excuses. This is not a thread to question the system or my actions - I have worked within it, I get it, and I know it, and am well versed on the PH opinion - so bed laid out. Open and honest on my part and will not be offended with replies as too thick skinned.
The reason for posting is purely to invite opinion on a few specifics.
Firstly and as can be ascertained from my post history if you can be bothered (EV forum) I drove an EV through London for 5 days for a one off job. I did a good job of avoiding the majority of NIP's but one has come through, for Albany St NW1. 25 in a 20. I have logged on and seen the images, it is the car I drove and I was there. It all looks good.
The only issue I have is that, on the day it happened I saw the speed trap ahead of me (facing away). I went through the entire length of road at at max 20 if not 15 - I remember doing so as I approached and watched them facing away from me and using the equipment. I used to be in the same game and I recognized them as traffic PCSO's wearing blue hats and high vis jackets. They also had a tripod with a mounted camera - different to my days in the game as I used to wear a full uniform and a white hat, and we used hand held laser and stopped and dealt with the driver at the time. My concern is that, I saw them, facing the other way, and crept past at a stuipdly low speed.
It all looks legit to me. I understand most of the figures, the minus figure is a negative which is "going away from" so have no issue there.
But it doesn't detract from the fact I know that:
1) I know they were there and slowed to beneath the limit.
2) The two images have cross hairs which "sweep" up to different parts of the rear of the car with a 1 second differential. In my days of Pro-laser sweeping was a no no and could be used to give a false read.
I don't think for one second that a false reading was engineered. But the images posted on my ticket show me that the cross hairs and 1 second difference adds doubt. This, combined with my knowledge that I actively passed them at a reduced speed sows a seed of doubt.
For what it is worth, I barely drive, don't need to drive, and have no points, I know I can just say yes and get a SAC, but I am interested in the above.
I welcome thoughts.
Edited by Ubiquitous2024 on Friday 25th October 23:23
Edited by Ubiquitous2024 on Thursday 23 January 07:12
Surely the crosshairs are stationary, and the car moves between the pictures. Also, unless there's some detail I'm missing, I don't think you can infer there's a second between the pictures. Because the time is only specified in whole seconds there could be anything from almost nothing up to almost two seconds between them.
Ubiquitous2024 said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Because the time is only specified in whole seconds there could be anything from almost nothing up to almost two seconds between them.
Just re reading this.2 seconds between a second? Assume you mean split seconds.
16:53:18:98 & 16:53:19:02
or
16:53:18:03 & 16:53:19:97
Although the 16:53:18 and 16:53:19 are the same in both cases, the first is a few hundredths of a second apart, the latter almost 2 secs apart
To expand on my post above, looks like you travelled 10.2m between the two shots (95.7 less 85.5)?
If the photos were taken exactly 1 second apart, you were travelling at 10.2m/s = 22.82mph
If they were taken at the contrasting 2 decimal place intervals in my previous post, the calculation of speed could vary +/- c.5mph depending on whether it was a few hundredths of a second (18.98 to 19.02) or almost two seconds (18.03 to 19.97) between the photos.
No way of telling as the time is not shown with sufficient accuracy to calculate the speed over that distance without this margin of error.
I would push back on it if in your shoes:
They have shown you travelling 10.2m in 1 second. That is undeniably 10.2m/s = 22.82mph. They have recorded this as 25mph with no substantiating evidence.
Correctly calibrated, their kit has to be accurate to +/- 1mph, so potentially you could have been doing 24mph if it was reading at max over.
24mph readout could be anything from 23.51mph rounded up.
Taking things to the extreme admittedly, but if all of the above were the case you are facing a NIP for a speed within normally recognised tolerances.
Even a terrible solicitor could likely get you off this one if you are so inclined.
Pretty ridiculous all in all. 20mph limits around schools and other busy places are a good thing, but if I had to tell you whether I was doing 20 or 23 mph on my analogue clocks I'd be spending more time peering at the dash than looking out of the windscreen.
If the photos were taken exactly 1 second apart, you were travelling at 10.2m/s = 22.82mph
If they were taken at the contrasting 2 decimal place intervals in my previous post, the calculation of speed could vary +/- c.5mph depending on whether it was a few hundredths of a second (18.98 to 19.02) or almost two seconds (18.03 to 19.97) between the photos.
No way of telling as the time is not shown with sufficient accuracy to calculate the speed over that distance without this margin of error.
I would push back on it if in your shoes:
They have shown you travelling 10.2m in 1 second. That is undeniably 10.2m/s = 22.82mph. They have recorded this as 25mph with no substantiating evidence.
Correctly calibrated, their kit has to be accurate to +/- 1mph, so potentially you could have been doing 24mph if it was reading at max over.
24mph readout could be anything from 23.51mph rounded up.
Taking things to the extreme admittedly, but if all of the above were the case you are facing a NIP for a speed within normally recognised tolerances.
Even a terrible solicitor could likely get you off this one if you are so inclined.
Pretty ridiculous all in all. 20mph limits around schools and other busy places are a good thing, but if I had to tell you whether I was doing 20 or 23 mph on my analogue clocks I'd be spending more time peering at the dash than looking out of the windscreen.
Edited by OzzyR1 on Saturday 26th October 04:01
OzzyR1 said:
To expand on my post above, looks like you travelled 10.2m between the two shots (95.7 less 85.5)?
If the photos were taken exactly 1 second apart, you were travelling at 10.2m/s = 22.82mph
If they were taken at the contrasting 2 decimal place intervals in my previous post, the calculation of speed could vary +/- c.5mph depending on whether it was a few hundredths of a second (18.98 to 19.02) or almost two seconds (18.03 to 19.97) between the photos.
No way of telling as the time is not shown with sufficient accuracy to calculate the speed over that distance without this margin of error.
I would push back on it if in your shoes:
They have shown you travelling 10.2m in 1 second. That is undeniably 10.2m/s = 22.82mph. They have recorded this as 25mph with no substantiating evidence.
Correctly calibrated, their kit has to be accurate to +/- 1mph, so potentially you could have been doing 24mph if it was reading at max over.
24mph readout could be anything from 23.51mph rounded up.
Taking things to the extreme admittedly, but if all of the above were the case you are facing a NIP for a speed within normally recognised tolerances.
Even a terrible solicitor could likely get you off this one if you are so inclined.
Pretty ridiculous all in all. 20mph limits around schools and other busy places are a good thing, but if I had to tell you whether I was doing 20 or 23 mph on my analogue clocks I'd be spending more time peering at the dash than looking out of the windscreen.
The OP could “push back” on the word of a chimp on the Internet who has had a go at some calculations based on his crazy assumptions. Would that be wise? Probably not.If the photos were taken exactly 1 second apart, you were travelling at 10.2m/s = 22.82mph
If they were taken at the contrasting 2 decimal place intervals in my previous post, the calculation of speed could vary +/- c.5mph depending on whether it was a few hundredths of a second (18.98 to 19.02) or almost two seconds (18.03 to 19.97) between the photos.
No way of telling as the time is not shown with sufficient accuracy to calculate the speed over that distance without this margin of error.
I would push back on it if in your shoes:
They have shown you travelling 10.2m in 1 second. That is undeniably 10.2m/s = 22.82mph. They have recorded this as 25mph with no substantiating evidence.
Correctly calibrated, their kit has to be accurate to +/- 1mph, so potentially you could have been doing 24mph if it was reading at max over.
24mph readout could be anything from 23.51mph rounded up.
Taking things to the extreme admittedly, but if all of the above were the case you are facing a NIP for a speed within normally recognised tolerances.
Even a terrible solicitor could likely get you off this one if you are so inclined.
Pretty ridiculous all in all. 20mph limits around schools and other busy places are a good thing, but if I had to tell you whether I was doing 20 or 23 mph on my analogue clocks I'd be spending more time peering at the dash than looking out of the windscreen.
Edited by OzzyR1 on Saturday 26th October 04:01
The time between the 2 images is 0.92s. So 10.2m/0.92s = 11.09m/s or 24.8 mph.
The time between the 2 measurements is 0.9 s, so the average speed is 10.2m/0.9s = 11.333’ m/s or 25.4 mph. Allowing for the reduction caused by the offset of the laser to the track of the vehicle and the removal of the decimal places that makes 25mph.
Still “pushing back”? Not really supported by the evidence I would say.
Edited by 2020vision on Saturday 26th October 09:15
Why are there two photos even? I was done by a handheld LTI2020 and I only got the one photo, as I thought they did an instantaneous speed measurement, no a time over distance from two points like VASCAR?
Sorry to read this though OP, there's a few similar stories floating about of misreads from handheld devices.
What's the 9/10 CM measurement on the bottom right hand side of both photos?
Sorry to read this though OP, there's a few similar stories floating about of misreads from handheld devices.
What's the 9/10 CM measurement on the bottom right hand side of both photos?
Edited by catfood12 on Saturday 26th October 08:29
I believe the images are from a WG Digital Speed Enforcement Handheld Camera. The device measured speed using lidar. It also records video, and these are two frames from the video. I think the number towards the bottom left is the frame number of the video. Assuming this is captured at 25 frames per second, then there is 23/25 seconds between these frames. The D is the average distance to the car. Possibly the d is a measurement of error in this, or could be the size of the spot*.
Car moved 10.2 m in 0.92 seconds. 11.08 m/s = 24.8 mph.
Car moved 10.2 m in 0.92 seconds. 11.08 m/s = 24.8 mph.
- ETA: looks to be the calculated spot size calculated using the measured distance D with a 1 milliradian divergence of the beam.
Edited by V8LM on Saturday 26th October 09:51
OzzyR1 said:
To expand on my post above, looks like you travelled 10.2m between the two shots (95.7 less 85.5)?
If the photos were taken exactly 1 second apart, you were travelling at 10.2m/s = 22.82mph
If they were taken at the contrasting 2 decimal place intervals in my previous post, the calculation of speed could vary +/- c.5mph depending on whether it was a few hundredths of a second (18.98 to 19.02) or almost two seconds (18.03 to 19.97) between the photos.
No way of telling as the time is not shown with sufficient accuracy to calculate the speed over that distance without this margin of error.
I would push back on it if in your shoes:
They have shown you travelling 10.2m in 1 second. That is undeniably 10.2m/s = 22.82mph. They have recorded this as 25mph with no substantiating evidence.
Correctly calibrated, their kit has to be accurate to +/- 1mph, so potentially you could have been doing 24mph if it was reading at max over.
24mph readout could be anything from 23.51mph rounded up.
Taking things to the extreme admittedly, but if all of the above were the case you are facing a NIP for a speed within normally recognised tolerances.
Even a terrible solicitor could likely get you off this one if you are so inclined.
Pretty ridiculous all in all. 20mph limits around schools and other busy places are a good thing, but if I had to tell you whether I was doing 20 or 23 mph on my analogue clocks I'd be spending more time peering at the dash than looking out of the windscreen.
Absolute offence though, 22mph is still speeding no?If the photos were taken exactly 1 second apart, you were travelling at 10.2m/s = 22.82mph
If they were taken at the contrasting 2 decimal place intervals in my previous post, the calculation of speed could vary +/- c.5mph depending on whether it was a few hundredths of a second (18.98 to 19.02) or almost two seconds (18.03 to 19.97) between the photos.
No way of telling as the time is not shown with sufficient accuracy to calculate the speed over that distance without this margin of error.
I would push back on it if in your shoes:
They have shown you travelling 10.2m in 1 second. That is undeniably 10.2m/s = 22.82mph. They have recorded this as 25mph with no substantiating evidence.
Correctly calibrated, their kit has to be accurate to +/- 1mph, so potentially you could have been doing 24mph if it was reading at max over.
24mph readout could be anything from 23.51mph rounded up.
Taking things to the extreme admittedly, but if all of the above were the case you are facing a NIP for a speed within normally recognised tolerances.
Even a terrible solicitor could likely get you off this one if you are so inclined.
Pretty ridiculous all in all. 20mph limits around schools and other busy places are a good thing, but if I had to tell you whether I was doing 20 or 23 mph on my analogue clocks I'd be spending more time peering at the dash than looking out of the windscreen.
Edited by OzzyR1 on Saturday 26th October 04:01
GR86oldboy said:
You might have crept past them, but this was nearly 100 metres later, is there a chance you let your speed increase when you thought you were in the clear?
I'm really not sure but from memory I was driving what felt like painfully slow up the road knowing full well I was in their line of sight. I do remember thinking that they were more than likely getting people coming towards them rather than going away.The only other thing is this arrived through my letterbox 15 days after the date. But they would have had to gt my details from a company first as it's not my car.
Ubiquitous2024 said:
I'm really not sure but from memory I was driving what felt like painfully slow up the road knowing full well I was in their line of sight. I do remember thinking that they were more than likely getting people coming towards them rather than going away.
The only other thing is this arrived through my letterbox 15 days after the date. But they would have had to gt my details from a company first as it's not my car.
If it’s not your car then you need no NIP served upon you. So the 14 days for the NIP is not relevant to any correspondence you receive.The only other thing is this arrived through my letterbox 15 days after the date. But they would have had to gt my details from a company first as it's not my car.
If you have correspondence at 15 days then it is not unreasonable to say the registered keeper has received an NIP in 14 days or fewer. Especially if you consider posting is assumed to be 2 days between posting and delivery.
Your recall of speed at a time that you can’t establish accurately is not something that is going to be more reliable than a speed measurement perhaps.
V8LM said:
I believe the images are from a WG Digital Speed Enforcement Handheld Camera. The device measured speed using lidar. It also records video, and these are two frames from the video. I think the number towards the bottom left is the frame number of the video. Assuming this is captured at 25 frames per second, then there is 23/25 seconds between these frames. The D is the average distance to the car. Possibly the d is a measurement of error in this, or could be the size of the spot.
Car moved 10.2 m in 0.92 seconds. 11.08 m/s = 24.8 mph.
Came to post this morning as some of the analysis was 'interesting'.Car moved 10.2 m in 0.92 seconds. 11.08 m/s = 24.8 mph.
Edited by V8LM on Saturday 26th October 09:14
The above post is a good summary of the right answer.
Posters aren't understanding either how the measurments are made, nor what the times shown indicate.
The speed isn't calculated from either of those timed photos. Multiple measurements are made in a few ms, which are averaged or discarded.
The photos are just a record at 'around the time' of the start and end of the capturing session.
Ubiquitous2024 said:
Disclaimer:
No defence offered. Full acceptance etc. No making excuses. This is not a thread to question the system or my actions - I have worked within it, I get it, and I know it, and am well versed on the PH opinion - so bed laid out. Open and honest on my part and will not be offended with replies as too thick skinned.
The reason for posting is purely to invite opinion on a few specifics.
Firstly and as can be ascertained from my post history if you can be bothered (EV forum) I drove an EV through London for 5 days for a one off job. I did a good job of avoiding the majority of NIP's but one has come through, for Albany St NW1. 25 in a 20. I have logged on and seen the images, it is the car I drove and I was there. It all looks good.
The only issue I have is that, on the day it happened I saw the speed trap ahead of me (facing away). I went through the entire length of road at at max 20 if not 15 - I remember doing so as I approached and watched them facing away from me and using the equipment. I used to be in the same game and I recognized them as traffic PCSO's wearing blue hats and high vis jackets. They also had a tripod with a mounted camera - different to my days in the game as I used to wear a full uniform and a white hat, and we used hand held laser and stopped and dealt with the driver at the time. My concern is that, I saw them, facing the other way, and crept past at a stuipdly low speed.
The images:
It all looks legit to me. I understand most of the figures, the minus figure is a negative which is "going away from" so have no issue there.
But it doesn't detract from the fact I know that:
1) I know they were there and slowed to beneath the limit.
2) The two images have cross hairs which "sweep" up to different parts of the rear of the car with a 1 second differential. In my days of Pro-laser sweeping was a no no and could be used to give a false read.
I don't think for one second that a false reading was engineered. But the images posted on my ticket show me that the cross hairs and 1 second difference adds doubt. This, combined with my knowledge that I actively passed them at a reduced speed sows a seed of doubt.
For what it is worth, I barely drive, don't need to drive, and have no points, I know I can just say yes and get a SAC, but I am interested in the above.
I welcome thoughts.
You were doing 25 mph. No defence offered. Full acceptance etc. No making excuses. This is not a thread to question the system or my actions - I have worked within it, I get it, and I know it, and am well versed on the PH opinion - so bed laid out. Open and honest on my part and will not be offended with replies as too thick skinned.
The reason for posting is purely to invite opinion on a few specifics.
Firstly and as can be ascertained from my post history if you can be bothered (EV forum) I drove an EV through London for 5 days for a one off job. I did a good job of avoiding the majority of NIP's but one has come through, for Albany St NW1. 25 in a 20. I have logged on and seen the images, it is the car I drove and I was there. It all looks good.
The only issue I have is that, on the day it happened I saw the speed trap ahead of me (facing away). I went through the entire length of road at at max 20 if not 15 - I remember doing so as I approached and watched them facing away from me and using the equipment. I used to be in the same game and I recognized them as traffic PCSO's wearing blue hats and high vis jackets. They also had a tripod with a mounted camera - different to my days in the game as I used to wear a full uniform and a white hat, and we used hand held laser and stopped and dealt with the driver at the time. My concern is that, I saw them, facing the other way, and crept past at a stuipdly low speed.
The images:
It all looks legit to me. I understand most of the figures, the minus figure is a negative which is "going away from" so have no issue there.
But it doesn't detract from the fact I know that:
1) I know they were there and slowed to beneath the limit.
2) The two images have cross hairs which "sweep" up to different parts of the rear of the car with a 1 second differential. In my days of Pro-laser sweeping was a no no and could be used to give a false read.
I don't think for one second that a false reading was engineered. But the images posted on my ticket show me that the cross hairs and 1 second difference adds doubt. This, combined with my knowledge that I actively passed them at a reduced speed sows a seed of doubt.
For what it is worth, I barely drive, don't need to drive, and have no points, I know I can just say yes and get a SAC, but I am interested in the above.
I welcome thoughts.
Edited by Ubiquitous2024 on Friday 25th October 23:23
Thank fek! for digital speedos. No way would I be able to stick to a definite 20 without constantly staring at the clock.
Boils my urine that whilst the cars outside my house are crawling along,
s on overpowered electric bikes, scooters and mopeds minus plates are whizzing up and down the same road and pavements.
I've been here 5 years but only since the 20 came in have there been two nasty accidents.
One a car into an elderly neighbour, lost her leg, another a neighbour having his car written off as someone fell asleep, lost concentration and drifted into the opposite lane. All at a safe 20mph.
Drivers are so effing bored that they are daydreaming, playing with touchscreens, staring fixedly at their dashes.
20 may work when all cars are autonomous but not whilst humans still operate them.
Rant over!
Boils my urine that whilst the cars outside my house are crawling along,
s on overpowered electric bikes, scooters and mopeds minus plates are whizzing up and down the same road and pavements.I've been here 5 years but only since the 20 came in have there been two nasty accidents.
One a car into an elderly neighbour, lost her leg, another a neighbour having his car written off as someone fell asleep, lost concentration and drifted into the opposite lane. All at a safe 20mph.
Drivers are so effing bored that they are daydreaming, playing with touchscreens, staring fixedly at their dashes.
20 may work when all cars are autonomous but not whilst humans still operate them.
Rant over!
croyde said:
Thank fek! for digital speedos. No way would I be able to stick to a definite 20 without constantly staring at the clock.
Boils my urine that whilst the cars outside my house are crawling along,s on overpowered electric bikes, scooters and mopeds minus plates are whizzing up and down the same road and pavements.
I've been here 5 years but only since the 20 came in have there been two nasty accidents.
One a car into an elderly neighbour, lost her leg, another a neighbour having his car written off as someone fell asleep, lost concentration and drifted into the opposite lane. All at a safe 20mph.
Drivers are so effing bored that they are daydreaming, playing with touchscreens, staring fixedly at their dashes.
20 may work when all cars are autonomous but not whilst humans still operate them.
Rant over!
Come on!!! Just keep the pointy thing the right side of the big white 20Boils my urine that whilst the cars outside my house are crawling along,
s on overpowered electric bikes, scooters and mopeds minus plates are whizzing up and down the same road and pavements.I've been here 5 years but only since the 20 came in have there been two nasty accidents.
One a car into an elderly neighbour, lost her leg, another a neighbour having his car written off as someone fell asleep, lost concentration and drifted into the opposite lane. All at a safe 20mph.
Drivers are so effing bored that they are daydreaming, playing with touchscreens, staring fixedly at their dashes.
20 may work when all cars are autonomous but not whilst humans still operate them.
Rant over!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff