Is there a police officer in the house?

[oliwally]

I Need A Little Bit Of Advise,Got Flashed On The 10th Of The Month And Recieved A Letter Asking Me To Name The Driver?
What Have I Actually Recieved? Is This An NIP?
Whats The Likely Out Come For Doing 66 In A 40? As I Was Distracted By 2 Drunk 26 Year Old Toddlers With An Airhorn In My Ear!!!,Yes Really.
How Can I Fight This To Lessen My Points/Fine?
Many Thanks
Oli

[friedfrog]

Tell them that many people drive your car and that you have no real recollection of who borrowed it on that day.
Remember "The Hamiltons", Christine and that tory fella ooh whats his face......Neil. They were in the news a year or so ago using the same type of excuse. Both got away with it!
I wouldn't make any mention of the airhorns in your ear that could be a driving without care and attention, (Though I'm no copper)

Good luck,
Friedfrog

[barrie013]

There appears to be a get-out called 'under duress'. Its an escape that 'celebrities' use to get out of a speeding ticket if they're being chased by the press. As far as I can tell, us mere mortals can use this reason to get ut of a speeding ticket. It goes without saying that you would need to take proper legal advice about this, but I have seen this used on 'traffic cops' or something similar.

[timway]

When did you get the letter, today? They have to send you a letter within 14 days of the offence don't they?

[oliwally]

It was posted 12 days after the flash. Bugger.:angry2:
I was going to talk to the soliciters my mum works for to see what they say?

[cumbrianmale]

I Need A Little Bit Of Advise,Got Flashed On The 10th Of The Month And Recieved A Letter Asking Me To Name The Driver?
What Have I Actually Recieved? Is This An NIP?
Whats The Likely Out Come For Doing 66 In A 40? As I Was Distracted By 2 Drunk 26 Year Old Toddlers With An Airhorn In My Ear!!!,Yes Really.
How Can I Fight This To Lessen My Points/Fine?
Many Thanks
Oli

It is indeed a NIP.

What date did you receive it on? It must reach the registered keeper within 14 days of the alledged offence.

For the current state of play, take a look at PePiPoo (www.pepipoo.com)

How many points do you have? IIRC if you have 8 or more then it's automatic trip to Magistrates.

If less then you could take the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty = 3pts + £60

If you go to court then Magistrates guidelines (http://www.pepipoo.com/Magistrates_guidelines.htm) are endorse with 6pts or consider 14 - 56 day ban + fine up to £1000 on scale to income.

If you can't afford the points then you could do nothing and wait for the s.172 prosecution which will be a higher fine but no points.

BUT it could have a major impact on your insurance premium so try a few online quotes to see if the offence code pushes it up.

You have 28 days to reply so use them and do your research.

[cumbrianmale]

It was posted 12 days after the flash. Bugger.:angry2:
I was going to talk to the soliciters my mum works for to see what they say?

WHEN DID YOU GET IT?

You must receive it within 14 days NOT they must post it.

What is the postmark on the envelope?

Was it sent first class?

[bob13]

A friend of mine while out on his motorbike was flashed doing 100 ish in a 50, on a empty dual carriageway. His solisitor said it is up to the road safety patrnership (who runs the cameras round us) to prove he was the one riding, inocent until proven guilty. The soliistor said make them work to prove you were driving, which in reality they can't unless caught by one of those forward faceing cameras.

He said he didn't know who was driving, he got letters threatening with court etc. But in the end he got a letter for the police with a fine which i think was £100 for not providing the details of driver of the vehicle but no points.

I guess you could take it all the way to court and get a big fine so my mate got out when he thought he had a good deal (deal or no deal).

[timway]

You could also say that you have no recollection of driving in that area and that your car must have been "cloned" :thinking:

[bob13]

You could also say that you have no recollection of driving in that area and that your car must have been "cloned" :thinking:

That doesn't work exspecially if the car in the photo is the same make with the same bumper stickers and marks on the back !.

[cumbrianmale]

You could also say that you have no recollection of driving in that area and that your car must have been "cloned" :thinking:

And a conviction for perverting the course of justice is an imprisonable offence.

Don't lie. If you don't know who was driving then say so, but they have a pic of the car and will look closely to find unique indentifying features.

If they think your playing games with them the a visit from plod is not unheard of

[LankyTim]

Innocent until proven guilty doesnt seem to apply to motorists anymore. If you cant "remember" who was driving they will still try to do you, the registered keeper. You are also entitled to see all the evidence with which they intend to prosecute you with but they now try to obstruct you doing this. They wont post pictures for you to view, you have to go to them. They basically try to intimidate you into lying down and taking the points and fine without giving them a fight, dont be bullied, flex your rights muscle!!

Its worth remembering that some police forces "throw out" speeding tickets if you contest them, due to the sheer volume of tickets they issue. They simply dont have the resources to follow up cases where they have to work to prove who the driver really was. Thats why they put so much pressure onto you to simply admit the offence and pay the fine as its easier for them.

A couple of years ago I contested a ticket from cambrigeshire police and they simply dropped it. Result! and just because I excercised my rights.

[cumbrianmale]

And in Cumbria they now send a pin number with the NIP to allow you to view the pics online.

This is to speed up the automation of fines collecting.As people used to claim they didn't know the driver and ask for photo's to aid in identification. In reality they were just trying to run out the six month clock.

[LankyTim]

In reality they were just trying to run out the six month clock.

Thats something else I forgot, after 6 months they cant do you.

[TheJoyOfSix]

Equally the NIP MUST correctly state the location, ie Acacia Gardens will not suffice, it must say outside no.23 Acacia Gardens. This is to avoid any confusion as to the speed limit at the location.

Also worth bearing in mind is that if the Constabulary concerned wish to claim the money back from speeding fines the cameras/vans must be in an advertised location AND be visible from 250 metres away.

[clarker]

Nottingham Police are blitzing speed this week - its a bitter, bitter pill to swallow being pulled up by a T5 - of all cars!

Here's a double-standard for you:

Floored it from a set of lights in the centre of town on Saturday, 30 limit gone in seconds, 40, 50, 60, 70... ran out of road at the next island. To my horror there's a police car right behind me! Pulls up alongside, officer gets out... Nothing. Not pulled over, not flashed, not a sausage...

Total brain switch-off moment luckily escaped.

Cruised on a 4-lane main road at 9.30 Sunday morning, 40 in a 30, no traffic, bright sunshine... "Talivan" hiding in a bus-stop. Grrr...

So I'm awaiting the mail :)

Oh, and even better - when I pop over to the Magistrates to let them scribble on my licence they can draw a line through my previous "conditional offer" - they only expired last month!

And don't worry about SP30 on your insurance, I took 0 no claims and moved from a Ford Ka to a C70 and it set me back all of 500 notes for the year. At age 25.

[cumbrianmale]

Equally the NIP MUST correctly state the location, ie Acacia Gardens will not suffice, it must say outside no.23 Acacia Gardens. This is to avoid any confusion as to the speed limit at the location.

Only if the road is more than 4 miles long. Young vs. Day 1959

Also worth bearing in mind is that if the Constabulary concerned wish to claim the money back from speeding fines the cameras/vans must be in an advertised location AND be visible from 250 metres away.

As for netting off, don't waste your breath. I know of may cases of breaches of the rules regarding netting off being reported and nothing has been done. Not a single £ has been withheld.

[Track_Rod]

If you are worried about the potential points, most, if not all areas offer a course as an alternative. I believe it has to be offered and I am not sure if that involves court.

It costs about the same as any fine would. Someone more 'in the know' may have more details.

[TheJoyOfSix]

Ah, I stand corrected.

You could always try the old spin things out for as long as possible game as they'll rarely follow up tickets that are over 3 months old.

Firstly they send out the 'you are the reg'd keeper, tell us who was driving' letter. Ignore it. Wait for the reminder and leave it untill the last minute before sending it back with all the correct details, but don't sign it. It'll then get returned recorded delivery for you to sign. Ignore that too (you've already given the info). Then you'll get the 'we have evidence you were the driver, now pay us £60 and have 3 points or we'll take you to court' letter. Ignore that. Wait for the reminder before doing anything and only then at the last minute.

With a bit of luck the three months will have gone by and they'll forget about it as there's too great a backlog to deal with it. If they still come after you it's then up to you to decide what to do, but at least you've had the satisfaction of making them work for their money. Also, if you have a good lwyer they could argue that you've not admitted to driving the vehicle.

[oliwally]

WHEN DID YOU GET IT?

You must receive it within 14 days NOT they must post it.

What is the postmark on the envelope?

Was it sent first class?

Unfortunatly this is not the case,its got to be in the post before the 14 days are up.
They do this because they cant rely on royal mail to deliver on time.
Just been reading up on things and if I ask for the picture and i cant see the markings I can argue that they cant gauge my speed correctly,and,if the only thing you can clearly mark out is my number plate clear as day and the car is so dark you cant clearly make out what it is then the pictures be highlighted to show my number plate then thats tampering with evidence.

[cumbrianmale]

See 1.(1).(c).(ii) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_2.htm#mdiv1)

Also 2 "it will be deemed to be served unless it can be proven otherwise"

So if you can prove the NIP was served out of time then you have a defence. However you still must satisfy s.172 and name the driver. Search for the RAC letter.

[cumbrianmale]

Also be aware that some gatso's have had their timings questioned. It should be a 0.5 sec interval between 1st and 2nd picture. Some are alledged to be 0.7 sec interval which allows you to travel a greater distance. This is a 40% discrepancy.

[perussell]

Obviously a lot of opinions on this one but here are a couple of comments as I understand them and as advised by a friend who is an ex-traffic Cop
1) The NIP must be in the post within 14 days , not received. Think about all those company car drivers where the NIP is sent to the company where the car is registered and then sent onto the individual, that doesn't always occur within 14 days.

2) Speed - my understanding is TYPICALLY as follows:

Speed limit + 10% + 2 mph - warning/caution
Speed limt + up to 20 mph - 3 points, auto fine £60
Speed limit + 20-30 mph - day in court, could be more than 3 pts and variable fine
Speed Limit + 30mph and more - Ban! (some people think you only get banned for doing over 100 mph - not true, its because they are doing 30 mph more than 70. You are just as likely to get banned for doing 61 in a 30 zone as 101 in a 70 zone.

Even with distractions you are going to have some trouble explaining away a 26 mph overspeed!

[scottishvolvo]

Correct me if I am wrong. I have been following this post since it started. I myself have been guilty of the occasional lapse when it comes to speeding, maybe 5/6 mph over the limit in built up areas, 30/40 zones, but it seems to be that every reply here condones 26mph over a 40 limit ok and are suggesting ways of beating an inevitable fine and points. Oliwally you even admit to not paying proper attention at the time, that is a danger at the correct limit never mind what you were clocked at.
At the end of the day, you sped, you got caught, take the consequences.
I know this might upset people here but consider the effects if you maybe had a front tyre blowout at the same time, people in the car badly injured and heaven forbid innocent passers by injured or killed.
Chris

[Mike_Brace]

Thats something else I forgot, after 6 months they cant do you.

But htey can and they do - here in North Wales the summons is backdated to within the six months and posted well outside the six months. As the magistrates make the decision they decide you were summonsed within the six monthe period! My son has had this happen on more than on occasion.

Mike

[MissDMeanor]

I've resisted posting in thread but scottishvolvo has given me courage!

I was caught doing 108mph on the M4 in December of 2004. Everybody's advice at the time was: say the car was cloned, get a hot London lawyer, blag it, etc. But I didn't want to do that. I was speeding and I was prepared to stand up in court and take the consequences of my actions. Obviously, I would have apologised and cited mitigating circumstances such as visibility was good, the road was dry, it's a safe car, etc etc. But at the end of the day, I was speeding and was willing to take what was coming (I actually felt that I deserved to be banned & that it might do me good). As it happened, I moved house and called the Magistrate to notify them of my new address only to be told that my case had been dropped.

A friend of mine was caught doing approximately 100mph. He received the inevitable NIP and went to court with 9 points already on his licence. He represented himself and apologised profusely, admitted he was speeding and that it was wrong. I think they're so used to people trying to wriggle out of it, they were more lenient with him and he didn't get banned.

Just thought I'd share this with you - I'm not giving any advice, you do whatever you wish to do.

[222s]

A friend of mine was caught doing approximately 100mph. He received the inevitable NIP and went to court with 9 points already on his licence. He represented himself and apologised profusely, admitted he was speeding and that it was wrong. I think they're so used to people trying to wriggle out of it, they were more lenient with him and he didn't get banned.

Just thought I'd share this with you - I'm not giving any advice, you do whatever you wish to do.
I agree.

My brother received a NIP for riding his motorbike at 72 in a 40 on a dual carriageway (he thought it was derestricted). Not surprisingly, he was expecting a ban, but due to doing the same thing as MissD's friend, all he received was points (iirc, 6) and a fine (can't remember how much but not too much!), which he considered to be a very good outcome. The guy before him in court, who tried to be clever had the book thrown at him by the magistrates.....

[Engineer]

We all know the majority of speed cameras and vans etc. are really only placed to gain revenue and hence increase the bankroll of the companies involved. I have no problem in obeying the law except when it involves points that can take an otherwise innocent member of the public’s livelihood away.

Drive from the South of England to the North of Scotland hit 4 cameras and get 12 points lol. A fine is ok but points no way, save those for dangerous/drink/drug driving etc. which do really endanger life, how can a Gatso camera determine that?

IMHO bring back decent supported traffic police if you want justice, not financially viable but a whole lot safer for all and we might even be able to get somewhere a whole lot quicker, which is, if I’m not mistaken the whole idea of a modern transport system.

During the War……………lol.

[Fulcanelli]

Thats something else I forgot, after 6 months they cant do you.

This is not the case. I was caught doing 42 in a 30 zone (shocking I know) and it took months and months until I went to court.

I stood up in front of the magistrates and suggested there was "no case to answer" (I quoted some law, I forget which, which said you had to be prosecuted within a "reasonable amount of time") and the prosecution bloke jumped up and quoted some precedent of I think three years or so.

I think your options are:

Call their bluff and ask to see the photo. You'll have to go down to county hall to look at it. No photo = no case. Although most likely there will be a photo.

Or: find someone with a driving licence who doesn't mind the points and will "confess" to driving your car. i.e. a student, who won't be driving for the next four years, and by the time they finish university the points will be gone.

[timway]

Or: find someone with a driving licence who doesn't mind the points and will "confess" to driving your car. i.e. a student, who won't be driving for the next four years, and by the time they finish university the points will be gone.

Think the going rate for that is about £300 ? Your mates with the air horn should pay for that though!!

[scottishvolvo]

Engineer, on a stretch of road near me they have a system called "average speed cameras", I don't know if you are aware of them. On this road, I think it is the A77, if I am wrong please someone correct me, you could effectively have started your journey with no points and finish it with a ban. The cameras note reg No's and the time it takes you to travel between all cameras on the route.
Chris

[oliwally]

Correct me if I am wrong. I have been following this post since it started. I myself have been guilty of the occasional lapse when it comes to speeding, maybe 5/6 mph over the limit in built up areas, 30/40 zones, but it seems to be that every reply here condones 26mph over a 40 limit ok and are suggesting ways of beating an inevitable fine and points. Oliwally you even admit to not paying proper attention at the time, that is a danger at the correct limit never mind what you were clocked at.
At the end of the day, you sped, you got caught, take the consequences.
I know this might upset people here but consider the effects if you maybe had a front tyre blowout at the same time, people in the car badly injured and heaven forbid innocent passers by injured or killed.
Chris
Let me clarify something,it was on the A127 which is mostly national speed,I had been distracted as the signs for the first of 17 cameras came,hence why i was 66 in a 40,it was only 50 yards after the sign.
I do know what can and does happen,I spend nearly 10 weeks in hospital because of a car accident 5 years ago,I still find it difficult to walk and my younger brother was killed 7 years ago when a bus hit the car he was traveling in.
I'm not some chav!!!
Do you have kids? bet you dont stop before tending to them with toys/drinks/food?

[scottishvolvo]

I am deeply sorry to hear about your accident and your brother.
And ,yes I do have kids who behave in the car. In fact, now I remember, I too was involved in an accident with a speeding in a 30 driver who was also un-licensed, un-accompanied and because of that un-insured. This was when my son was 2 years old and thankfully strapped in the back with his mother, because the vehicle which hit me would have severely injured or even killed him if he had been on the passenger seat as normal.
Chris

[Mike_Brace]

.Or: find someone with a driving licence who doesn't mind the points and will "confess" to driving your car. i.e. a student, who won't be driving for the next four years, and by the time they finish university the points will be gone.

Beware a local police officer "persuaded" his mother to do this for him and both ended up in court for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Mike

[Track_Rod]

on a stretch of road near me they have a system called "average speed cameras",

Also known as SPECS and used more and more often in long-term motorway roadworks. There's also the infamous A616 in South Yorkshire which is where they were first trialled I believe.

More info here if you really want to know ;

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/SPECS.htm

[MissDMeanor]

Let me clarify something,it was on the A127 which is mostly national speed,I had been distracted as the signs for the first of 17 cameras came,hence why i was 66 in a 40,it was only 50 yards after the sign.
I do know what can and does happen,I spend nearly 10 weeks in hospital because of a car accident 5 years ago,I still find it difficult to walk and my younger brother was killed 7 years ago when a bus hit the car he was traveling in.
I'm not some chav!!!
Do you have kids? bet you dont stop before tending to them with toys/drinks/food?

I'm sorry to hear this Oliwally.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do:)

[IC]

oliwally, I'm sorry to hear about your brother and your accident. I really feel that speed changes need to be more realisticaly sighted where cameras are placed, it's ridiculous having speed reductions over such short distances - this could cause accidents. Is there no thought in speed camera placement - are they there to catch people out? I have no problem having speed cameras in appropriate places such as areas where there are pedestrians, only recently a young girl was killed at a crossing near where I live - I've been narrowly missed while crossing at a zebra crossing on the dual carriageway near my house as a driver didn't stop at a red light because he was driving too fast. I don't think that people have problems where cameras are sighted to protect pedestrians - it's the inappropriate placement of cameras on straight motorways that people could comment that are purely placed as a revenue collector that people get annoyed about, or the placement of cameras to catch people out as there is no clear indication of big changes in speed over short distances.

[Oli]

The road I find worst for trying to keep track of the changing speed limit is the A11? between M25/M11 and Blackwall tunnel. This road changes from 70mph, to 60mph, to 50mph, to 40mph, to 50mph and so on for several miles, all of which is littered with speed cameras. I've not driven it for a while, but the signs notifying a change are pathetic.

I would have thought that painting the speed limit on the road in each lane on a couple of occasions after a change is one way to help the driver get it right, as in traffic you're normally more aware of the road and tarmac in front than signs on sticks off to the side (particularly relevant if you're in the middle lane of 3. Also, how about having patches of tarmac, say 10 to 20m that is a notably different colour (Red/Green etc) so that a change in road conditions stands out.

Sometimes you'll see quite a well thought out count down system to a new speed limit using the scheme that is used to indicate the distance to a junction (///, //, /) with the impending speed noted too.

I bet there are several other ideas to help manage speed in areas where the need to control speed is important, but not necessarily obvious. Just having a camera, does not contribute to the safety element, when one is not a frequent user of a given road. All the regulars will know the camera and drive accordingly, but if the speed limit is not obvious, you're not helping to prevent an offence/accident for the first time or infrequent user of that road.

Oli

[cumbrianmale]

Correct me if I am wrong. I have been following this post since it started. I myself have been guilty of the occasional lapse when it comes to speeding, maybe 5/6 mph over the limit in built up areas, 30/40 zones, but it seems to be that every reply here condones 26mph over a 40 limit ok and are suggesting ways of beating an inevitable fine and points. Oliwally you even admit to not paying proper attention at the time, that is a danger at the correct limit never mind what you were clocked at.
At the end of the day, you sped, you got caught, take the consequences.
I know this might upset people here but consider the effects if you maybe had a front tyre blowout at the same time, people in the car badly injured and heaven forbid innocent passers by injured or killed.
Chris

The original post from the OP asked what the likely outcome would be. To which I replied.

We then went off topic with various suggestions, which I have tried to reply to with factual information. I have not condoned speeding, nor do I have an opinion on this particular case.

I have points for speeding and you can clearly see the sign for the limit change in my photo.

Everyone needs to make their own decisions how they respond to a NIP. Remember if they want to enforce the law they must abide by the law.

In my view, we need less cameras and more real police.

[cumbrianmale]

Thats something else I forgot, after 6 months they cant do you.

But they can and they do - here in North Wales the summons is backdated to within the six months and posted well outside the six months. As the magistrates make the decision they decide you were summonsed within the six month period! My son has had this happen on more than on occasion.

Mike

AH but Mike you have the delightful Mr. Brunstrom in your neck of the woods.

Or Brainstorm as he is more commonly known.

[LankyTim]

The law clearly states that they have to "do" you, i.e set a court date or similar within 6 months otherwise the offence becomes void. I had heard of people being convicted outside of the 6 months but this is simply the magistrates "bending" the rules a little to ensure a conviction. They use every trick in the book to get our hard earned cash out of our pockets and put us one step closer to losing our licences,and in many cases careers so why cant we "bend the rules" a little in our favour? Its all well and good standing up and admitting your mistake in court and hoping for a softer outcome but in my opinion speed cameras especially are just one giant money making scam. Next time I get a ticket ill try anything to get out of it, legally of course.

As mentioned before there should be more cops on the road and there should be less reliance on speed cameras. Too many times Ive been badly cut up or had some BMW 4 inches from my rear bumper on the motorway, in my opinion these offences are far more serious but due to the lack of police they almost always go unpunished.

Rant over :)

[MissDMeanor]

I agree with you to some extent Lanky Tim. However, when deciding what I was going to do I had to take into consideration that I was caught doing over 100mph (same as my friend). Maybe had we been caught at similar speeds to Oliwally we would've approached it differently.

My thoughts at the time were that I knew I needed to be stopped but that is a long story! But may explain why I was happy to accept what was coming.

When I was considering which move to make, if it became apparent to the Magistrates at all that I was trying to blag or get away with it I'm sure the courts would've thrown the book at me. I suppose it's a game of strategy and it's up to the individual person how they'd like to play it.

I still think that if I were summonsed again for any speeding (whatever the speed), unless I could guarantee I could get away with it somehow, I would adopt the same strategy of going cap in hand and asking for leniency.

[LankyTim]

Ok I can see where your coming from. I guess when your pretty much certain of a conviction, especially for a banning offence, going cap in hand and appealing to the courts better side would be the best option, but if you can pick holes in their case and perhaps clear yourself then go for it. Especially for something like a 3 point offence.

[MissDMeanor]

Ok I can see where your coming from. I guess when your pretty much certain of a conviction, especially for a banning offence, going cap in hand and appealing to the courts better side would be the best option, but if you can pick holes in their case and perhaps clear yourself then go for it. Especially for something like a 3 point offence.

Thanks Tim. Trust me, if anyone could guarantee me a 'get away with it' strategy that worked I would've done it (as it transpired, I didn't need to - didn't stop me worrying before hand though). I suppose every speeder caught has unique circumstances/speeds/mitigating circumstances.

Apparently, if an appearance in court is required (as I think it is in Oliwally's case) being able to state weather conditions were good, roads were clear, roads were dry, etc etc does help.

[oliwally]

Wonder if AP 4 Pots being better than standard brakes and Leda suspension much more suited to harsh brake would work:speechless-smiley-0
Safer with this set up than standard lol.

[oliwally]

Ok,The Police Have Emailed The Photos To Me But How The Hell The Can Say I Was Doing 66 I'll Never Know. They Say That The Lines Are 5 Feet Apart,But Which Ones??? If They're Talking About The Shorter Ones Then My Volvo Is 25 Feet Long!!!!
Cant Really Work Out From The Second Picture As Its Too Blurey

[Wind-Dreams]

a friend that i work with recently went to the magistrate saying that he couldn't say for definate who was driving a car that got flashed as he has a trade insurance policy and about 6 people drive on it.

the magistrate told him that they are closing that loophole that people use all the time to get away with it by simply giving the points and fine to the named policy holder. if no actual driver can be named. (I also confirmed this with a member of my family that is a solicitor) so either way they will get you in the end.

so i say just take the points and fine and dont push it and have to pay court costs and risk more points.

[oliwally]

I've Got No Choice But To Go To Court As I'm 26mph Over The Speed Limit. Thats My Point. I Cant Get Close To The 66mph. Looks Like Its Being Pushed Up For More Money From Me. But The Camera Partnership Never Does That Do They!
Unless I'm A Complete Idiot In Doing My Maths?

[740Estate]

Ok,The Police Have Emailed The Photos To Me But How The Hell The Can Say I Was Doing 66 I'll Never Know. They Say That The Lines Are 5 Feet Apart,But Which Ones??? If They're Talking About The Shorter Ones Then My Volvo Is 25 Feet Long!!!!
Cant Really Work Out From The Second Picture As Its Too Blurey

Take it to court. Politely and genuinely ask the magistrate if he could explain the photo to you as you cannot see how they arrived at your speed.

That will then require an expert to read the picture.

If it is blurry and illegible, with the expert not being able to arrive at the speed they found, you should be off the hook.

All done with genuine sincerity of course.

Might work

[LankyTim]

I dont understand this country. If they do the named policy holder when they cannot find out who was driving at the time that means that they are convicting somone who they know stands a good chance of not being the driver at the time. I.E they could be sending an innocent man to the gallows!

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? There is no PROOF that you were driving. Its not fair that you have to prove your innocence and not them prove your guilt. Surely theres some European law against this? European law of human rights anyone?

I dont see the justice in paedophiles, rapists and murderers having more rights than the motorist, but then some would have you believe that driving your car at 35 mph in a 30 zone was more antisocial than being a paedophile.

[timway]

I've Got No Choice But To Go To Court As I'm 26mph Over The Speed Limit. Thats My Point. I Cant Get Close To The 66mph. Looks Like Its Being Pushed Up For More Money From Me. But The Camera Partnership Never Does That Do They!
Unless I'm A Complete Idiot In Doing My Maths?

Email the photos to me and I'll have a look if you want?
(my username)22@hotmail.com

[V70driver]

From what you and others have said, it will be difficult to prove anything unless you have an independant witness. It is very difficult if not impossible to prove the police are wrong.
If you fail to give the name and address of the person driving the car, at this stage you cannot dispute this as the car has been photographed, you can be fined up to a £1000 as "compensation" for the police for being unable to put points on someone's licence. Normally 20+ mph above posted limits is £60 to £100, depends on the locallity and circumstances.
You should have the option to pay the fine as guilty by post or contest it and ask for the Coutrs to hear your case. Be aware, if you go with the latter and still found guilty, the punishment rises, in some areas substantially.
Plead insanity !
V70 driver

[CTCNetwork]

Hi,

Kind of the british justice system to look after us this way..

If they have a photo and you are in the driviing seat - You are definitely caught.
German speed camera systems take a front and sid photo - just to make sure!

If the have photos, but thy are all from the rear - all they have to go on is the registered keeper.
Excellent so long as 1) the car is actually registered to someone (correctly) 2) The registered keeper was the person driving at that time.
Brings us nicely back to 1) your photo in the car doing the dirty deed.

If that haven't got the picture as per 1) then you have to fill in a form to say "yup - that was me" or "Nope - that was not me - it was Mr X". Either way, if you are honest they gottcha (or Mr X of course)...

However, you are perfectly and legally allowed to answer a question like: "Sorry, I do not want to answer that question on the grounds that I may incriminate myself" It is, afterall, down to the justice system to convict you - beyond a reasonable doubt. Not for you to go "Sob, I'm guilty... Take me away!!"

Back to that form you need to fill in.
As has been suggested elsewhere, you do not fill in the form and sign it. You only add "Please see the attached sheet" no siggy.
On the attached you can say what you like, but, through some twist of law, what you say cannot be taken as evidence to make a conviction because you were not given a caution (by a uniformed officer of the law) about the statement you gave on the said added piece of paper.
SO it is hearesay, not evidence, and not sufficient for a successful conviction..

Me? I just blame my brother all the time... :D

Des. . . ;)

[perussell]

As stated much earlier in this extensive exchange .......... I have a friend who is an ex-traffic police officer. He told me previously that the 'just forget to sign the form' is a well known option to which he responded that they would usually send the night shift round to get the form signed in person , usually around 3 a.m.................
It happens all the time
Provided the photos support the alleged speed I would just sign the form, send it back and take your medicine.
There is an old adage along the lines of 'when you are deep in a hole the best thing to do is stop digging!"

[Rbphot]

Hi, just a thought if you say the second picture is bured, then the speed camera device has failed as photo's should be fully ledgable to be submitted for evidence, that's why they flash twice, the flash ensures the movement is frozen in a split second producing a sharp photo.
As you said you have one sharp and one blured then you could claim the device was faulty and that might get the evidence(photo) removed, therfore no case.

Ray

[LankyTim]

Interesting point made about having the front of the vehicle photographed, so that the driver is captured on film. A lorry driver friend said a solicitor friend of his got a speeder off a charge by saying in court that the driver hadnt given written permission for his photo to be taken. Fair enough, but im sure it cant be true. There are many old wives tales (or old lorry drivers tales) going around and they probably do far more harm than good!

He also went on to say that in another case the solicitor asked the police for the name of who loaded the film in the camera, when it was found that this person hadnt got the correct certificate to say hed been trained to load camera films the case was thrown out. That story I can believe!

[cumbrianmale]

If its a Gatso there should be a full log from the officer who loaded the film then recovered the film and delivered it to the processing unit.

Can you remember the location? go back and measure the distance between the lines from first to second photo. Speed = distance / time. Time between flashes should be 0.5 sec.

[Citizen.Agfa]

that's why they flash twice, the flash ensures the movement is frozen in a split second producing a sharp photo.


Ray

As I recall, the second flash is confirmation that your vehicle was exceeding the speed limit, in other words if the speed was borderline only one flash would be discharged; I'm sure I'm not the only one to have observed speed cameras on, say, the M25 emitting single or double flashes?

Regards, Nick.

[CTCNetwork]

Hi,

If I am not mistaken, the cameras will flash once if they have run out of film.
So, although you may be going too fast (they say!), you are not caught as there is no film left.

I remember hearing about a camera that was set to +10 above the limit in London somewhere (I think the A40/M40 in town) which had completely used up all film in one day!
They had to reset the speed to +30 to reduce the number of photos being taken..

Des. . . ;)

[Craig ii]

Nottingham Police are blitzing speed this week - its a bitter, bitter pill to swallow being pulled up by a T5 - of all cars!

Here's a double-standard for you:

Floored it from a set of lights in the centre of town on Saturday, 30 limit gone in seconds, 40, 50, 60, 70... ran out of road at the next island. To my horror there's a police car right behind me! Pulls up alongside, officer gets out... Nothing. Not pulled over, not flashed, not a sausage...

Total brain switch-off moment luckily escaped.

Cruised on a 4-lane main road at 9.30 Sunday morning, 40 in a 30, no traffic, bright sunshine... "Talivan" hiding in a bus-stop. Grrr...

So I'm awaiting the mail :)

Oh, and even better - when I pop over to the Magistrates to let them scribble on my licence they can draw a line through my previous "conditional offer" - they only expired last month!

And don't worry about SP30 on your insurance, I took 0 no claims and moved from a Ford Ka to a C70 and it set me back all of 500 notes for the year. At age 25.




If the van was parked in a bus stop, then surely it has been parked illegally, thus making the evidence obtained illegally and therefore void, surely?


Edit: They have also made an exception to the right of no self-incrimination with regards to this, so you do hae to fill out the form.

[cumbrianmale]

Edit: They have also made an exception to the right of no self-incrimination with regards to this, so you do hae to fill out the form.

The UK government may think they have an exception but they can't supercede a higher act without it specifically being stated as superceded in the act. ie an ordinary act can't supercede a Parlimentary act. And European acts such as the European Constitution of Human Rights act is a higher act than the road traffic act.

[Craig ii]

Not actually true and a contentious issue you have also raised, implied repeal removes any Parliamentary act, even if it is a private member's bill or a private act, I cannot remembr the case that is authority for that however.
Also, to say that the HRA and ECA are 'higher' is not academically correct, there was a heavily criticised judgement which labelled these acts 'constitutional' acts and AFAIK, thecurrent stance on these is that they can only be altered by explicit reference to the act, byut where is the right of no self-incrimination found, it is a common law invention is it not?

It is also the European Convention of Human Rights, which is not actually directly effective in English law, although the courts and the country are bound by it :)

[Ambiesda]

I Need A Little Bit Of Advise,Got Flashed On The 10th Of The Month And Recieved A Letter Asking Me To Name The Driver?
What Have I Actually Recieved? Is This An NIP?
Whats The Likely Out Come For Doing 66 In A 40? As I Was Distracted By 2 Drunk 26 Year Old Toddlers With An Airhorn In My Ear!!!,Yes Really.
How Can I Fight This To Lessen My Points/Fine?

Have a look at the following site. Use the left hand side bar to access relevant information.

http://www.ukmotorists.com/

Regards

Malky

[perussell]

A piece just published by the Speed Trap Bible web site (very good site) providing a little more guidance on some of the issues raised above - worth reading:

Loophole #1 Section 172 conflicts with PACE

If you were speed trapped but not stopped at the time, you would receive a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NiP) The main loophole that people have been exploiting is the Section 172 loophole. This loophole was exploiting an apparent conflict between the PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) rules where you must be cautioned first and the process of receiving a NiP from a Gatso (or similar scamera) where you dont get cautioned and just receive paperwork through the post. This loophole has for now been closed following a ruling by the High Court in the case of Francis -v- DPP. This is being taken to the European courts but it is unlikely to get a hearing this year.



Loophole #2 Conflicts with European Human Rights Laws

Some people were also attempting to use European human rights legislation to make a case for not being forced to incriminate yourself by filling out a NiP effectively saying that you were breaking the law by speeding. A ruling has also closed this one off, although some Speed Trap Bible members are still getting cases dropped by threatening to use this defence. This is also being taken to the European Court and a ruling is expected on 27th September 2006.



Loophole #3 I cant remember who was driving

This loophole/defence has had much publicity as a number of senior police officers have used it successfully. They argued that they could not remember who was driving and the cases were dropped. From the experience of dealing with vast numbers of email requests for help just writing back and saying you cant remember will not work. You will need to show in great detail why you cant recall who was driving and what steps you have taken to try and work out who was driving. In many cases this will work and the case will be dropped, but in some regions it will not and the Police/CPS will continue to chase you to name the driver. If you continue to show in detail why you cannot be sure of who was driving in many cases they will give up and drop it. In other cases you may end up having to go to court to show all of the reasons and research you have done to try and identify the driver.



Loophole #4 It wasnt me driving at 173mph .

Many of you may have read about this case of a driver being stopped on the M25 after being clocked at 173mph in his Porsche Turbo. After clocking the car at 173mph the Police briefly lost sight of it before the car slowed down and they were able to pull over the driver and took his name, address and credit card details to identify him. When it came to court he was found not guilty on a technicality. In summary the Police couldnt prove that he was the driver as they had lost sight of the car briefly and they had not taken any photo identification at the time they stopped him. This is a very technical loophole/defence and you will need excellent legal assistance to try and use it.