there are many types of speed camera, and not all of them flash
check out HJ's recommended websites and look for the speed camera bible
|
|
|
|
This is another post that'll get moved to the speed camera thread later.
|
I am well aware of the various flavours of fixed speed camera and stick to my line that I was not caught by one of them.
This is not a question about speed cameras so please do not move it to that huge thread where it will be lost forever, I simply want to know where I stand getting hold of the evidence without actually going to court.
There is no photo or any other evidence provided with the letter.
|
|
I'm with Phil, this doesn't belong in the SC thread. Though I'm sure I've read answers here before about asking for the evidence - a thorough search might yield something
|
Though I'm sure I've read answers here before ....
Can you guess which thread you've read them in ?
Sorry, it will move to the Speed Camera thread. Although to help I won't do it until this evening.
|
|
|
|
Is this the declaration of "who was driving" form or the NIP?
Yes you can request the photo if there is one.
But I have to ask, were you bowling along on that road, at about that time, if so you have been nabbed bang to rights.
|
|
|
|
|
DD, I am with the rest of them, this is not a speed camera thread, its about a bloke asking about his specific NIP
|
OK, OK, it can stay here and everyone can post the same repetitive stuff that has been previously posted.
Mark however may have a different view to me though.
Update. He has. See above.
|
DD,
soon as it gets degenerates into the same old blah about cash cows, its not legal, and how do I cheat prosecution then move it by all means.
|
|
I am in a very similar situation and I too would like help with this specifc issue. I have trawled through the speed camera threads and it is hard to pick out the information required.
|
Well sorry to cause so much ruckus but instead of this becoming a debate over where this thread belongs can someone provide a helpful answer to the question?
The letter I have received is the NIP.
Yes I was in the area and probably doing the speed indicated, but believe I have a right to see the evidence or so I would think before accepting the inevitable.
|
|
Why don't you ask the author(s) of said NIP if they can provide evidence? Surely they need to sometimes when there's a dispute over who was driving the car at that time (SWMBO, etc.) ;-)
|
|
|
|
Have you not been asked to state who was driving the car?
|
|
|
Ask for evidence, both of the offence and that they calibrated the equipment. This will both put them on the spot and identify you as an awkward customer, to be put to the bottom of the pile.
Also, you will have to identify yourself as the driver - do this (it's a legal requirement), but do not sign the form (this is not a legal requirement, but renders the form inadmissible as evidence). That should do it.
|
Nice one JBJ, Bloke admits he was probably speeding, on that road, at that time and just wants to find out how he was done,
and you instantly push the thread into "how can we cheat the system mode"
|
Philip P
Write to the address that sent you the NIP/Conditional Offer asking for clarification of the points you want and ask for a reply within 21 days. No better make it less than that 14 days as time has passed since you got the forms and you only have 28 days.
Now I specifically address the following to Midlife Crisis and/or Full Chat:
North Yorks did not and as far as I am aware still have not speed cameras. MC/FC may well serve in a Force which has an abundance of these devices. If so, because what PP raises often appears on this site, could either of you find an answer as to ACPO(Traffic)/Force policy in releasing the evidence and especially photographs. It seems to me that none exists and release on an ad hoc basis which I think is wrong.
I have some empathy with PP as if I was ever in his position I would want to know how and in these days of ever increasing cloned VRM's evidence of the Photograph etc. If it was a Court case then you are supplied with a Statement of Facts outling the evidence.
DVD
|
DVD
On with the job straight away! Pity I did not have this yesterday as I have been working in the same building as the Fixed Penalty Process Unit.
Humberside does not have Gatso fixed sites but has of last week increased its mobile units from 2 to 6 with all the vehicles and dedicated officers to go with it. Extra funding has been provided by the local authority.
I do have some sympathy the author of this thread in that if in the same position I would also like to satisfy myself that it infact was me that had been recorded , particularly with the increase in use of cloned plates. However the other side of the coin is the integrity of the process and because of all the procedures in place it should be taken as read that it is a "fair cop". However the system has proved fallable and I can understand genuine doubts.
The Lancs website gives clear guidelines and alas I have searched the Humberside website with no success. I shall make the necessary inquiries for my own benefit as well a contributors.
Fullchat
|
Fullchat - 6 ???, what happened to the much publicised 4.5 million quid and 64 mobiles??. No wonder I've not seen one yet.
ISTR that one of the local freebies from the council said the funding was from central coffers rather than East Yorks, Hull and North Lincs. ???
Martin
|
|
It seems to me that cloned plates and procedural mix-ups are now so common that unless you remember being flashed by a Gatso you have just got to ask for the evidence. The more people that do this the better so that we can get more traffic cars back on the road and catch the real culprits, tail gating etc, rather than the easiest revenue earning culture we have at the moment.
|
Just one further question on this referring to the Lancs Police link.
In the situation where one does genuinely believe or categorically know that the vehicle is not yours, yet the vehicle details correspond, presumably VRN make and model, Lancs police require written evidence that your vehicle was somewhere else.
What would be considered as suitable written corroborating evidence? Any opinions from the team?
Obviously it would be handy to have, for example, a client statement Mr X visited us on date/time etc but what are the chances of that?
If the only evidence is for example the missus saying he was out digging the garden, or colleagues saying he was in the office, how much credence would that really have?
Just seems to me that the fabled golden thread running through British justice is in danger of getting somewhat tarnished.
|
|
Unfair comment. If we are to be caught, tried and convicted by a machine, we are entitled to know that the machine was working. This is not "cheating the system".
|
>you instantly push the thread into "how can we cheat the system mode"
And you would just pay up, I suppose? If the law is badly framed (and it is, because the ID business was rushed through when it was realised that it contravened the right to silence) it should be tested. That's what courts are for.
|
Nice one JBJ, Bloke admits he was probably speeding, on that road, at that time and just wants to find out how he was done, and you instantly push the thread into "how can we cheat the system mode"
All in the grand British tradition of jousting with officialdom, RF. Acid test of any law is how much respect people have for it, and while no can really argue with the logic behind speed limits the underlying belief that there's something sneaky and underhand about cameras has spawned a whole culture of avoidance.
Whether all speeders are Robin Hood is another matter.
|
Nice one JBJ, Bloke admits he was probably speeding, on that road, at that time and just wants to find out how he was done, and you instantly push the thread into "how can we cheat the system mode"
Cheat the system? Surely the law must act within the law to uphold the law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil - doesn't quite answer your question, but this link is to Lancs police policy on seeing your picture. presumably a similar policy to your locals.
www.lancashire.police.uk/s10.html
|
DVD
Cheers smokie - seems we were working in tandem and you have the faster finger. Adds to my education.If this approach was adopted universally then it would help..
Presume you get the cash back if they find it is not you?????
DVD
|
|
I got photgraphed by a hand held (and legal)camera held by a policeman on a flyover over the M20. Apparently these new hand held camaras are very high quality. I asked for the picture and got a perfect picture of me and my car!
|
|
|
Question for you DVD which stems from smokie's website link.
"How was I detected [speeding]
*. Police officer's expert observation - in or outside of car."
Now forgive me if I am wrong here but I find that hard to believe. The site states the same applies for a red light breach. I accept that - you either did or did not drive through on a red light, but speeding?
Now if I am passing through a 40 at 65mph, it would be obvious that I was speeding to a lot of people but how could I be prosecuted as such? Surely not on the fact that someone "believes" I was speeding?
Sounds like different rules applying to motorists again. A burglar wouldn't end up arrested or jailed because a policeman "thought" he was burgling a house!
Interested in your comments...
|
Dan J.
The offence of speeding, unlike the offence of failing to conform to a Traffic Sign, requires by law evidence of corroboration otherwise proceedings cannot be taken.
My days with follows/VASCAR/Hand Held went like this. Initial evidence that I saw a vehicle going at what appeared to be a speed in excess of the limit. Now comes the corroboration i.e. followed at a constant distance over so many tenths of a mile and saw the speed as recorded by the speedometer/Vascar time and distances gave average speed / Handheld recorded a speed of...
Whilst having no indepth knowledge of Gatso's etc I understand that that initially speed triggers the camera
and the photo with the lines provide the corroboration.
In the very old days, when FiF was a lad and Toad a dot of spawn - and thats going back a bit and still held to be good law, sufficient to get a conviction if two Plods stood side by side on a main road and both formed the opionion that a vehicle was speeding then you were banged to rights. Each officer providing corroboration to the other. We have, thankfully progressed since then and we still don't like it.
DVD
|
Cheers DVD. Makes a big difference having someone "in the know" on here to put us right...
I can quite imagine your job is frequently very challenging!
|
|
|
"sufficient to get a conviction if two Plods stood side by side on a main road and both formed the opionion that a vehicle was speeding then you were banged to rights"
My last but one offence happened exactly like this. I was admittedly over the 100 on the M4 lane 3 and a police car was out of view in lane 1 - until I passed him. When they stopped me after a few miles I thought I was safe, as no measurement could have been taken.
However he offered me a fixed penalty and said the alternative would be a court appearance where it would be their word (he had a coleague in the car) against mine, and who did I think the court would believe?
So I accepted the FP, and, wondering if I'd been bluffed, spoke to a legal friend (I don't have illegal ones!!).After a small amount of research he said that the police were right - the opinion that you were speeding HAS to be corraborated by another officer though, one on his own was not enough. This was about 7 years ago I would estimate, but as I've just this second discovered my licence is missing (!) I can't confirm that!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
They're not my locals actually, I live in Surrey.
I was actually on my honeymoon...
|
|
Oh should have added that included with the NIP was the form to name the driver at the time of the alleged offence...
|
|
|
"I was actually on my honeymoon..."
No wonder you didn't spot them! :-)
|
|
|
|
So if you are innocent according to the website you still have to pay £6 to prove it. No mention of a refund if found innocent.(Essex Police at least provide a picture).
In other cases there may be no photographic evidence at all so they dont have any evidence of your speeding at all (apart from a hand held computer that may have mistaken your number plate or captured a cloned number plate).
There should be legislation that compeles the police to provide photographic evidence. They would then do away with posts such as these.
|
Yes you are entitled to see the evidence. I was stopped by an unmarked car on the M56 2 years ago and accepted that I was speeding. When the court summons arrived 6 months later I requested the video and was told it had been destroyed. The CPS bargained with me that they would go for 3 points & £60 if I went to court. When I got to court the prosecutor said that it was only because I was in court to admit the offence, that they could prosecute me due to the evidence being destroyed.
checkout www.pepipoo.com (I am case study 8 in the case studies), especially the bit about NIPs. Looks like there is a loophole in the law. It is law that you must state who was driving, but it is not law that you must sign the NIP. When it goes to court the NIP will be inadmissable as it has not been signed!
|
|
Whoop, I'm case 9, bot that it's that important!
|
I'm trying to find a website where you can add the location of a new speed/traffic-calming camera that has been installed local to me. It's a particularly nasty one as it is virtually hidden by the roadside undergrowth. Yes, it's painted yellow but you see it at about 5 yards away.
For those that want to know, it is on the Norwich-bound side of the A140 at Stonham Parva. It's about 15-20 yards inside the 40 from 50 limit just before the Old Forge garage, so would have to be doing 40 at the start of the limit.
I do not condone speeding etc, blah, blah, but this is a absolute cash cow if ever I've seen one.
Apologies if this has been asked before..
Graham Sherlock
|
This will get moved to the Speed camera thread Vol X later today.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=11...4
|
|
|
|
I thought you couldn't be done for speeding within a very short distance of a limit reducing.
|
peterb -
Is that like being slightly pregnant?
I think you've been talking to your mates down the pub again.
|
|
|
Ha!
I was recently 'flashed' by a camera mounted on the back of a 100km/h limit sign, coming out of a 120 zone...
Fortunately I was passing somebody at the time, so didn't receive a pic through the post.
We do things a little differently here ...
|
|
|
|
Some police force websites publish their own informations about speed camera locations, and update with where mobile cameras will be during the week.
See for instance www.bbc.co.uk/essex/travel/speed_cameras.shtml or www.bbc.co.uk/essex/travel/speed_cameras.shtml
There is also a database you can update at www.speedcamerasuk.com/
|
Some police force websites publish their own informations about speed camera locations
Indeed. As do some local radio stations.
Bit diificult to twist that into "they are only there to raise money".
|
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/3037753.stm
Vandals who attempted to cut down a £25,000 speed camera in Telford have been condemned as "morons" by a councillor.
Firefighters were called out to Bennetts Bank, Wellington, on Saturday night, after reports of sparks coming from the camera following an attempt to topple it with a power saw.
|
Right!
In respect of DVDs request I have today made the inquiry. The mobile units record a constant video whilst the are positioned on site. For those vehicles that exceed the limit and fall within the process band a still photograph is generated automatically. As a result of that photograph NIPs are generated. If someone wishes to see the photograph and/or video they may do so by presenting themselves at the Fixed Penalty Process Unit. If they are from out of Force the photograph/video can be sent to their nearest station or viewing. A telephone contact appointment is then made to view by the nearest station.
There is no charge to view and whoever is supervising the viewing is not encouraged to enter into any sort of discussion regarding the merits of the case unless of course there has clearly been some form of mistaken identity.
If calibration certificates etc wish to be viewed then its a court case. Quite frankly I like the Lancs idea of a small charge for the picture ( refundable of course depending on the outcome! ) as this seems to be administrativly much easier.
Another point of note is that whilst all this viewing is going on and if it is found to be mistaken identity the NIP clock can have elapsed allowing the true offender to have escaped!
Martin 123 - My mistake , mobile units centrally funded. Still only 6 vehicles though and working shifts including weekends!
Fullchat
|
Thanks FC. Adds to my education.
Seems as I suspected there is no common policy as to viewing the evidence. Something I consider Blunderbox (ACPO Traffic N Wales) should be addressing if he so pro s.c's.
As to NOIP re mistaken ID, surely the Forms would be sent to the Regd Owner to name and shame driver which is good service. If false and true offender traced then police acted with due diligence unless of course they made an upright phallus?
DVD
|
|
|
It's wrong for them to charge for you to see the evidence. In any other prosecution you have the right to see the evidence against you at no charge.
It is a rule of law that any party (including the police) who wishes to rely on evidence at a Court hearing must disclose the content of that evidence, whether written statement, photographic evidence or other, to their opponent. In the case of evidence to be relied upon in respect of alleged breaches of the Road Traffic Offenders Act or Road Traffic Act such evidence must be disclosed not less than 7 days before the date of hearing.
Check out more here:
www.pepipoo.com/Disclosure.htm
|
There seems to be some confusion hear between taking part in the Extended Fixed Penalty procedure and electing to have the matter heard before a court.
The Extended Fixed Penaly Procedure was introduced to allow speedier processing of minor traffic offences thereby freeing up both Police and Court time. The bonus for the offender was generally a smaller fine (no costs!) and a standard 3 points.
The system as it stands at the minute generates an NIP/name the driver form and then the option (depending on the overall speed) of paying a FPT. Thats it pure and simple. U puts your hand up and U get it smacked.
The court system is a much slower process relying on NIPs, summonses and then a court listing and finally an appearence. If you wish to argue the credibility of the evidence then you go to court and you can have all the disclosure you want- statements, photos etc. etc. If the case is proved then you pay probably more than the FPT would have cost (including court costs!)
What you cannot do is have all the benefits of the latter in the former process. That is not an option. What the Police do is entertain certain genuine queries as they understand that the system is fallible and some people perhaps need a little reminder of what they were doing and where they were several days previously. Once they see the photos they go away satisfied that they are 'bang to rights'.This can prevent not guilty pleas and save much time. If it can be proved that the alledged offender was not infact the person on the photograph then it can be speedily remedied. Its a two way street.
As I see it there are 3 types of people. There are those that take their punishment. There are those that that despite being in the wrong will argue that black is white and do anything to defeat the system as it is a game and a battle to be won and finally there are those that are innocent. Unfortunately those in the second group make it extremely difficult for those in the latter. What sticks is that collectively everyone who trys to buck the system causes endless extra work. "Good" I hear some say. But just remember that resources are finite and that ultimately the greater publc are the losers.
Believe you me I am not a speed camera lover!
Fullchat
|
|
|
|
Fullchat - thanks for that - I was wondering about the 'overtime' question of weekends - answered.
I've yet to see one in Leconfield (my abode), but I note the 121 bus now passes through at 30 rather than it's usual xxxx..
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, but when they say they will be on a certain road monitoring, yet they are on a minor road that looks onto the certain road JUST as a 60mph changes to a 30mph zone, and none of the drivers can see the van as it is hidden behind a blind corner by bushes and a house or the crest of the hill (depending on direction), and only appear on random days then I still think its for the money. On the days when they are actually on the road in question fully visible by drivers travelling in both directions well within the 30 mph speed limit then that is fine.
|
I am not sure why my previous post is all the way down here!
In response, I have received a NIP from a trap that was situated on a bend on which the speed limit drops from a 60 mph national speed limit to a 30 mph. The trap is situated of on a single lane track that overlooks the bend but is only visible for about 50 metres from the main road in the direction of the 30 mph to 60 mph change due to the hill crest. It is totally invisible from the main road doing 60 ? 30 mph as the single lane track is forking off to the right as the main road bends left and the trap?s situation is obscured by hedges and a house. It seems that as a money making site this takes some beating as everybody coasts to slow down to the 30 mph limit, so at the trap I have witnessed that most cars go through it in excess of 45 mph.
I must emphasise that the trap is almost immediately, less than 50m after the 30mph limit is in operation and is obscured from view. It is on the A476 Cross Hands to Llanelli road just outside Llannon. The site, in my opinion, is totally unrelated to road safety.
There is often another trap on the same stretch of road but this is actually on the main road, well into the 30 mph speed limit and visible for a good distance either side. As a deterrent and a site that is concerned with road safety, it works well.
I am wondering whether there are guidelines set that must be followed with regard to the siting of mobile speed traps and, if so, where I could view them.
Also, does anybody think I have a case or should I just cough up?
|
"less than 50m after the 30mph limit is in operation"
Ah yes, the old "30 does not start at the sign, but at a distance past the sign" ploy?
(said distance of my choosing, of course)
|
|
|
Not sure I have got a total picture of the layout but let me get this right.
Speed trap was situated in the end of a track off a 30 mph limit?
This is in a place where visibility is obscured by hedge, house, a bend and a brow? Thus making, you say, the trap totally invisible, perhaps rather like a vehicle about to emerge from the said track.
Yet the straight bit of road further down is the real safety issue, and not here where there is a junction and restricted visibility. Excuse me?
Also the presence of checks are known about as they "appear on random days" Double excuse me?
Just think about it will you! Visit the ACPO site and look at the guidelines, if you really must.
Then put your hands up.
Then put brain in gear.
|
No you can easily see vehicles exiting the single lane road as they have about 10 metres before that they would be obscured by the house, the trap is situated about 20 metres up that single lane road not at the end, obscured by the house and hedges. Exiting this road you have excellent visibility of about a kilometre up the 60 mph road and driving along the 60 mph road cars exiting this junction are visible for the same distance, the road is straight! Also, cars exiting the junction are looking straight onto the 30mph section though there is a brow which means they can see about 50-60 metres of that part of the road. The road at this point is very open, only 4 houses, set a good deal back from the road. The junction isn?t a safety issue. If you can find it, it is the A476/B4306 junction just north of Llannon, Carmarthenshire. It is hard to explain.
Yet the other site is situated about half a mile further into the 30 mph road south of (Becca Close) on a steep hill with an almost blind chicane, a housing estate and a staggered crossroads! That is a safety issue!
With reference to the random days part, the local newspapers say that in the next week, cameras will be situated ON said road, though obviously not what day.
Maybe not explained as eloquently as I might but as a revenue earner it certainly works, as a safety tool it doesn?t.
|
I take it you mean here
www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?grid2map?X=25400...3
|
|
That is correct, 60 mph to 30 mph is from NE to SW, camera van is parked up below the 9 on that map. The change in speed limit occurs just a little in front of the arrow. The good site I feel is the one just north of the church. I am not justifying what I did but I just think that the location of the minor road is a money making one rather than a road safety one.
|
|
|
|
|
So how far before the 30mph limit can you see the sign. I take it that it isn't hidden around the corner, and you therefore will have ample time to have slowed up to the correct speed.
|
|
|
|
May I commend to you Sir, FullChat's last posting on this thread, in particlar the para starting "As I see it there are 3 types of people . ."
|
|
thread closed, please see "The Speed Camera Thread XI"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
