Front facing speed camera !!!

[ALE 111s]

Just received a nice letter from the local bib advising me I was doing 47 in a 40 zone and I was caught on camera. I remember the flash but I was driving towards the camera and presumed it was for traffic in the other direction.

The letter does however have the incorrect make of vehicle (MG which was about 7yrs ago)although the correct registration. Can't see much point in arguing when they have a photo though.

[Justin S]

I'd not admit to the offence, but ask for further evidence to prove and the usual calibration for the camera etc. Just draw it out a bit, so they are out of pocket with administration costs etc.Don't wait until the next letter, just do it straight away.

[Hollywood Wheels]

First rule of Elise ownership........bin the front plate.

[marky999]

i'd pay the fine and accept i broke the law. no, not joking

[ALE 111s]

I realise I broke the law and accept the fine, what does annoy me is the financial cost over the next 4 years through insurance.

If everyone stuck to the speed limit would our roads grind to a halt ? The roads are that busy now it almost seems pointless owning a car with any performance.

[Risotto]

Have you been done before? Depending on where you live, you may get the 'opportunity' to do a speed awareness course if it's a first offence. Costs more than the fine but you duck the points.

[ALE 111s]

Risotto said:

Have you been done before? Depending on where you live, you may get the 'opportunity' to do a speed awareness course if it's a first offence. Costs more than the fine but you duck the points.

20yrs of clean driving and been done twice in a year, will this rule out the "speed awareness" opportunity ?

[Mr_B]

Worth trying writing back and saying you don't own any MG on that plate ? Then when they correct their mistake say they never sent a valid NIP within the 14 days. I'd give it a go.

[Swiss Tone]

One point to make is that if it was a forward facing camera it should be a Truvelo, which as far as I'm aware in turn will not have a 'flash' that you would be able to see....for safety reasons.

So if you saw a flash it should have been for the other side and not you.

Swiss.

[ALE 111s]

Swiss Tone said:

One point to make is that if it was a forward facing camera it should be a Truvelo, which as far as I'm aware in turn will not have a 'flash' that you would be able to see....for safety reasons.

So if you saw a flash it should have been for the other side and not you.

Swiss.

Was your standard "yellow" camera in middle of the road, they swap it around for both directions of traffic. Was surprised at the time and presumed it was for the other side of the road. Think I will contest the fact it flashed in my face and the wrong make of car.

[andy_s]

My insurance was unaffected after an SP30, you shouldn't have many worries there.

[Scuffers]

Swiss Tone said:

One point to make is that if it was a forward facing camera it should be a Truvelo, which as far as I'm aware in turn will not have a 'flash' that you would be able to see....for safety reasons.

So if you saw a flash it should have been for the other side and not you.

Swiss.

Truvelo's do flash, they just have a coloured filter infront on the flash, but it's still very visible, if it flashes, you can't really miss it.

[ALE 111s]

andy_s said:

My insurance was unaffected after an SP30, you shouldn't have many worries there.

This will be my second SP30 within a year (almost to the day), surely insurance will rise. It did last time but after shopping around got it cheaper with A plan.

Will re visit the camera and check what type.

[Anatol]

An error as to make/model of vehicle would invalidate the NIP, provided you've done the right thing in registering the cherished transfer.

Return the NIP/requirement to provide driver details crossed through with "No knowledge of a vehicle with these details at this address". Make sure you do it just before the deadline so a replacement NIP cannot be issued within the statutory deadline.

It would then be illegal to proceed to prosecute you. Yes, you shouldn't have been speeding (if you were), but an error of this nature invalidates any prosecution. Take advantage of the rules when they benefit you!

Tol

[ALE 111s]

Anatol said:

An error as to make/model of vehicle would invalidate the NIP, provided you've done the right thing in registering the cherished transfer.

Return the NIP/requirement to provide driver details crossed through with "No knowledge of a vehicle with these details at this address". Make sure you do it just before the deadline so a replacement NIP cannot be issued within the statutory deadline.

It would then be illegal to proceed to prosecute you. Yes, you shouldn't have been speeding (if you were), but an error of this nature invalidates any prosecution. Take advantage of the rules when they benefit you!

Tol

Thanks for the advice, I was thinking along similar lines but didn't want to end up in court. Do you have any experience of similar errors ? So if I send it back just within 28 days I should be ok ?

[Swiss Tone]

Scuffers said:

Swiss Tone said:

One point to make is that if it was a forward facing camera it should be a Truvelo, which as far as I'm aware in turn will not have a 'flash' that you would be able to see....for safety reasons.

So if you saw a flash it should have been for the other side and not you.

Swiss.

Truvelo's do flash, they just have a coloured filter infront on the flash, but it's still very visible, if it flashes, you can't really miss it.

Opps, really must need to get my eyes tested. Thanks for the correction Scuffers.

Swiss.

[Swiss Tone]

Swiss Tone said:

Scuffers said:

Swiss Tone said:

One point to make is that if it was a forward facing camera it should be a Truvelo, which as far as I'm aware in turn will not have a 'flash' that you would be able to see....for safety reasons.

So if you saw a flash it should have been for the other side and not you.

Swiss.

Truvelo's do flash, they just have a coloured filter infront on the flash, but it's still very visible, if it flashes, you can't really miss it.

Opps, really must need to get my eyes tested. Thanks for the correction Scuffers.

Swiss.

Scuffs you've got me checking my info now!!!!

Just pulled this off a website ....

speedcamerasuk.com said:

Truvelo Speed Cameras

The forward facing Truvelo camera system is designed to take photographs of the front of a passing vehicle, this allows the picture taken to show the driver of the vehicle as well.

To avoid the 'flash' which is given out by a rear facing Gatso camera the Truvelo system uses an infra red flash which produces no visible 'flash' to the approaching driver. These rely on 3 white-lines in the road, painted just before the camera, and are triggered by strips in the road, used to gain the vehicles speed.

Swiss.

[Anatol]

ALE 111s said:

Do you have any experience of similar errors ?

Oh yes, I was a cop for nearly ten years.

From pepipoo.com (go read it!) on inaccurate NIP's:

Inaccurate NIPs - The "Slip Rule"

There is a "slip rule" that allows the court to modify small errors (such as name/address of the keeper) due to typographical mistakes. Serious errors cannot be modified, and will invalidate the NIP.

Incorrectly identifying the make and model of the vehicle is significantly more serious than a typographical error.

It would be wise to assume that you still have to return the document, as you can identify the incident. You have 28 days to do so - and a VALID NIP needs to be served on you within 14. If you return the slip unsigned but captioned that you have no knowledge of a vehicle with this make, model and VRM, and are not the registered keeper of such, after the 14 day deadline for an NIP to be issued, but within the deadline for return, you should be fine. The only way they could wriggle is to argue that despite the significant error on the face of the NIP, it is still valid. Worst case scenario, you're no worse off.

Usual disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, get professional advice where the criminal justice system is concerned...

Tol


ETA - the NIP details are usually grabbed from the DVLA database. Which means the VRM transfer may be wrong there. Do you have documentation to prove that you correctly registered the plate to the current car, such as the reissued V5 or certificate of plate entitlement? They may try to go after you for the number plate offence instead, and being able to show that you did things properly will help. Probably an error at your DVLA local office has meant the DVLA computer was never updated...

Edited by Anatol on Friday 3rd October 11:30

[ALE 111s]

Anatol, many thanks

I have a correct V5 for the vehicle, i've had 5 cars since the MG all with my private plate on.

Only problem I can see is the photo !

Edited by ALE 111s on Friday 3rd October 12:32

[Scuffers]

Swiss Tone said:

Swiss Tone said:

Scuffers said:

Swiss Tone said:

One point to make is that if it was a forward facing camera it should be a Truvelo, which as far as I'm aware in turn will not have a 'flash' that you would be able to see....for safety reasons.

So if you saw a flash it should have been for the other side and not you.

Swiss.

Truvelo's do flash, they just have a coloured filter infront on the flash, but it's still very visible, if it flashes, you can't really miss it.

Opps, really must need to get my eyes tested. Thanks for the correction Scuffers.

Swiss.

Scuffs you've got me checking my info now!!!!

Just pulled this off a website ....

speedcamerasuk.com said:

Truvelo Speed Cameras

The forward facing Truvelo camera system is designed to take photographs of the front of a passing vehicle, this allows the picture taken to show the driver of the vehicle as well.

To avoid the 'flash' which is given out by a rear facing Gatso camera the Truvelo system uses an infra red flash which produces no visible 'flash' to the approaching driver. These rely on 3 white-lines in the road, painted just before the camera, and are triggered by strips in the road, used to gain the vehicles speed.

Swiss.

Yes, but trust me, you can still not miss it!

it may well have an infra red component, but it's also very visable...

their resoning for saying this is the saftey people suggested a flash going off in peoples faces (when they are trying to drive) was a bad idea...