|
Ive every intention of admitting it however there must something fatally wrong as I wasn't doing 50...surely the equipment they use has to be accurate ?
|
Ive every intention of admitting it however there must something fatally wrong as I wasn't doing 50...surely the equipment they use has to be accurate ?
Cottontop,
Respect for your honest and straightforward approach.
As regards the accuracy of the equipment, if you are pleading by letter there is nothing stopping you stressing your guilty plea and then making the point, simply but firmly, that your reading of your speed was a few mph fewer.
It may be other drivers caught by this van have made the same point.
That will not help you directly, but it might filter through to the local plod to check the camera is correct.
|
But it must be accurate! It is calibrated every day before use. It is wasn't then the speeds recorded cannot be used in a prosecution SFAIK. 6 people pleading guilty by letter and saying they were doing less than the speed they were charged with isn't going to make a blind bit of difference IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Around here at that speed you'll get the offer of an improvement course.
|
But only if you haven't attended one in the last 3 years (in Berkshire anyway). ACPO guidelines suggest that prosecution for speeding in a 40 limit would be initiated for a radar speed of 46 or over.
|
I went on one of these "speed awareness" courses about 18 months ago. Despite my initial scepticism it was actually very interesting, informative and dare I say it, enjoyable.
I genuinely learned some useful things despite being an almost perfect driver. ;-)
Edited by shoespy on 09/04/2008 at 21:12
|
|
|
Sounds to me as if PU has it about right... were you on the overrun when your eye fell on the speedometer cottontop? If you're sure you weren't, and they are accusing you of 50 for a speedometer 45 really and truly, I would say you should argue stubbornly, unless your speedometer is one of the very rare ones that don't exaggerate. Even then you would only have been doing 45, so they are in the wrong.
They often are in real life. But you have to be sure, more or less, that you are sort of in the right.
Aye, there's the rub.
Of course you may be able to claim that the camera van was coming towards you at 70 and really you were reversing at 20. That would confuse things a bit, and get in the papers.
|
|
|
Bearing in mind what PU has stated above^^^^ then you looked/checked your speed when you SAW the van. In fact it would appear you were done and dusted before you saw the van.
You have options.
(1) Admit being the driver and send the forms off to receive a Conditional Offer of pay £60 and collect 3 points,( providing no previous 9 points in 3 years will allow) or
(2) Plead not Guilty and see what holes you can make in their disclosure of evidence which they have to make pre hearing.
Bear in mind the offence of speeding is committed 1 mph above the posted limit which in your post you are guilty of?
dvd
|
Thanks to all the posts. There is no way that he camera could of seen the car so far in advance as the stretch of road come over a brow of a hill and I was doing a constant speed.
Its quite disappointing as i'm only one month shy off three years since my only other 3 points !!
|
|
Have you checked your speedo against a GPS for instance ? Has the car got standard wheels on it ?
|
The car (VW Golf Estate N reg) has standard 185/60/14s on them. I also use a SatNav (Navman F20). There is a discrepancy between the two but I'm not wanting to focus on that.
What do people think about completing the NIP and form a letter explaining my views ?
Richard
|
>>>> What do people think about completing the NIP and form a letter explaining my views?
As I said, can't do any harm.
Chances are the machine is spot on, but it may be you've come across a slapdash operator.
It will be no more than that - I don't suppose for one second there is any conspiracy here, but if there is something wrong with the machine/operator, they are not going to know unless somebody tells them.
|
|
|
|
Mobiles are absolute pin fluffy dice to spot, I got done by one, they said 71 in a 60 limit, but I reckon it was 70.
Others are right, by the time you see it , too late.
I would be surprised if they were wrong.
You need to learn from this , as I did.
Check the websites of scamera partnerships before setting out, if they are posted on your journey be careful, they will be around bends, so you cannot spot them.
This is like the Battle of Britain, Scumeras versus the driver, so as they, in the Bof B, looked for the Hun in the Sun, you look for the scum round the bends, and lurking behind trees,obstacles, parked cars, vans, anything in fact to justify their overtime payments.
Or , of course completely spoil their fun ( like my wife does) and drive at the speed limit!
Edited by Pugugly on 09/04/2008 at 21:26
|
Your wasting your time trying to argue at the NOIP/172 stage.
Its Court that has to be used and decsion from the bench.
dvd
|
|
If you are genuinely of the opinion that you're not guilty, get proper advice and plead not guilty.
|
But bear in mind your own admission that you were doing 45.
|
45 indicated on the speedois likely to be about 42 actual.
|
"[NIP said] I was doing 50 in a 40 zone (in Staffordshire) I remember seeing the van and looking at the speedo which showed just over 45."
And your defence is ...?
To defend this, you are going to have to lie. And - more difficult - to show the police equipment was faulty.
Do you want to do that?
|
Cottontop.
I understand your feelings, I've just had my third "36 in a 30" NIP in the last three months. I'm not sure if I will pay up or try to oppose it yet, but my thoughts are .........
From the laws side of things you will "done" for exceeding the speed limit. The amount that you have allegedly gone over is not really relavant, unless excessive.
IMHO your only real defense is to plead not guilty, and to question the whole procedure around the offence. ie:
- Can you have a photograph of the car.
- Is the operator trained.
- Is the equipment calibrated.
- Is it being operated as per the manufacturers instructiuons.
- Are warning signs displayed correctly
- Has the site been tested for EMF effects.
- The site complies with guidelines. etc.
In effect try to prove that there was some parts of the procedure that was not followed to the letter, and the case may be thrown out.
You would have to be prepared to go to court though, as I will if I decide to go down this route.
I hope this helps a bit.
|
- Has the site been tested for EMF effects.
Blimey, that's a new one.
Anything to back it up?
|
|
Ask any good solicitor as to why they may ask Officers to produce certification that they have switched off Airwave radios in their vans (Transmit inhibit) May ring a bell with Orson MLC and others.
|
|
I thought that all mobile camera vans worked by using video tape to capture what the camera is viewing. Then if photographic evidence is needed it is lifted from the video tape.
|
I don't know whether they have to switch off or go to transmit inhibit - I've never worked a van/radar gun. Sounds difficult, especially if it's the trap with a car a mile up the road to stop and ticket.
As to not being caught until the first repeater - wrong. The limit starts at the sign, which is why some forces put traps more or less at the sign. I don't care for that much myself, but there we are.
Lud's comments on cameras and parking - quite agree with him. Outrageous. What about the "I was loading" line. A photo can't disprove that, surely?
|
- Can you have a photograph of the car.
If it was a scamera van then you can request photo's to help identify the driver. Do NOT mention evidence. Most forces will provide two photo's
- Is the operator trained.
Most Highly probable. They are not as daft as you think
- Is the equipment calibrated.
Almost certainly as only yearly required. And tested ecah day pre and post operation
- Is it being operated as per the manufacturers instructiuons.
Most highly probable
- Are warning signs displayed correctly
No actual requirment the prevailing speed limit is the limit
- Has the site been tested for EMF effects.
Why since when did EMF effect a laser beam
- The site complies with guidelines. etc.
Yep they can even park illegally and catch you.
The ACPO are only guidelines.
Like Parked 10ft form the carraigeway. 20 ft up on a bridge is more than 10ft but that is where they sit.
Regards Peter
|
|
This is how it goes. You are driving along may be at 49 and you think you see a scamera van of lots of brake lights in the distance when they spot the van, you take you foot off, one second later you relaise it is a scamera ven and a second later you look at your speedo and you are now doing 45 or so. This sticks in your head. Really you were doing 49 when the laser ping you. Regards Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
