The letter you've received asks you to identify the driver. Do that without fail - otherwise you're setting yourself up for a big fine, six points, and endless insurance hassles.

If you want to contest the offence, you'll have to go to court, pay court fees, and pay for your own expert witness to discredit the camera evidence. You have no right to the evidence until you choose to go to court. Assuming you were speeding - that is any speed over 30mph once you had passed the teminal 30 sign - your pragmatic course of action is to accept the fixed penalty or speed awareness course.

Daveyjp is right - go look on pepipoo.

I am not a fan of speed- sorry safety- cameras. They are a blunt instrument but can serve a useful purpose if they are deployed where needed as opposed to where they can collect the most revenue. You will need expert testimony to rebutt this charge and frankly it probably won't be worth it unless you are about to lose your licence. So reluctantly I would pay early for the discount or attend the speed awareness course and move on poorer but wiser.

On the other hand, I live in a quiet village which is 30mph zone. There are lots of oldies and children about so the limit is about right. The limit starts several hundred metres from the main centre but we certainly do get some real 'nuggets' driving through at high speeds, completely oblivious to surroundings. The signs are clearly visible, the limit is neccesary, so any 'nugget' exceeding the limit is doing so deliberately. Now this is where a camera van should be used on occasions to get the message out to slow down through villages, towns, built up areas etc. However the chances of any statutory body actually listening to residents is nil. No resources comes the reply, yet they can fund officers going round schools lecturing. Priorities methinks!

Cheers Concrete

I presume that the camera can only snap you at the distance of the 30 sign, ie. 30meters from camera, cos until i pass that sign i'm in a 60 zone doing the legal speed.

In absolute terms that may be true, but it can hardly stand up as a defence. If you argue that you were doing (say) 42 one metre before the 30 sign, the laws of physics say you would have been doing at least 38 just a couple of metres later. Hoist with your own petard, as they used to say. You can't decelerate fast enough not to get caught.

Criminal courts can only convict on evidence, not assumption - only civil courts work on the balance of probability.