speeding fine

[Tempty]

I've been a bad girl....apparently!!!

received (by normal postal delivery) a notice of intended prosecution.

i was apparently recored by a manned camera driving at a recorded speed of 43mph in a 30mph speed zone.

I do remember driving the along that road at the alleged time, I do know i was in a line of traffic and was traveling at roughly the same speed as them..... and knowing how I drive I seriously doubt i was exceeding the speed limit by that amount......

the letter states that the allegation is supported by photographic/and or video evidence.

I certainly do not remember seeing any officer (or his vehicle) by the roadside at the alleged time..... i thought they were supposed to be visible..... not that it would have mattered if i had seen him....as i really do find it very hard to believe i was actually speeding.......... I just potter about..... i have a very relaxed attitude when driving the car..... it's nothing special....couldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding....... if i put my foot down i wouldn't get anywhere any faster...so i don't bother!

the letter states i have 28 days to fill out the form and accept a conditional offer... this means i pay a fine of £60 and have 3 points added to my license.
If i don't do this then i will receive a summons to court and will have to pay court costs and possibly an increased fine....lovely eh

i really really don't think i would have been speeding..... i'm not saying it's totally impossible... but if i was... i was certainly going no faster then the line of traffic in front of me!


Any ideas....... do i just pay up... (insure the bike quick before i get points added to my license..Grrrr) or can i fight it..... if so how? and is it risky to do so?

[cinders]

Re: speeding fine

Have you asked them for the photograpic evidence which they say they have?

xx

[Tempty]

Re: speeding fine

I haven't done anything yet.... wanted to get advise before i did anything.
hubby did a bit of hunting around on the net and said allot of people are just not answering the letter and that's as far as it goes!!! I'm really not comfortable with that idea though... have a feeling that will come to bite me on the ass in a big way!

[cinders]

Re: speeding fine

right - so far i have found this, this is the one that i think got you....

The latest incarnation of these are called the GATSO MicroRadar. These ******* devices are the size of a small aluminium briefcase, supported on a small tripod about a metre off the ground. They use the newer Ku band of radar, and there's only one radar detector I know of on the market at the moment that can detect Ku. (see radar detectors for more info.)
MiniGATSOs can be poked through holes in bushes, hidden next to unmarked cars etc and are horrendously accurate. It means that the police can set up a speed trap in a matter of moments by having a portable GATSO poking through a gap in the trees or crash barrier, and then sitting just out of sight with the readout waiting for the unsuspecting motorist (picture on right) Alternatively, they can set up a complete automated photo-taking miniGATSO (complete with camera and flash) in a similar way (picture on left). Usually, this lot will work in pairs though. The operating officer will readout the speed to the arresting officer, and about half a mile down the road, this officer (in a luminous yellow smock) will jump out and hope you don't run over him. If you contest the issue, the photos will be developed and you will be prosecuted.

You ned to ask for the photos, you should have the image below.

i also found this

(source: Max Power magazine, August 1996) Tens of thousands of speeding UK motorists may have their convictions quashed after a loophole in the speed camera laws was recently uncovered. Police have been using computers to enhance the photographs in order to make the numberplates more visible, and easily identifiable. However, as only direct pictures from a speed camera are admissable as evidence, anyone convicted with enhanced pictures is entitled to a pardon. Convicted motorists should write to the courts demanding that their cases be reviewed.
Here's a first-hand account from Stefan Schulz, the second motorist in the UK to use this system to destabilise a claim:
About five months ago the joint Camera Detected Offences Unit of the Metropolitan and Surrey Polices (sp?) sent me a notice of intended prosecution about an alleged speeding offence on the variable speed limit section of the M25 near Heathrow. They said they had photographic evidence supporting their allegation.
I asked for the matter to be dealt with in court. It was, at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court, on 21 August 1996.
The CPS withdrew its evidence and I then had no case to answer. Costs were awarded from central funds.
So what happened ? Well, the police's / prosecution's case had more holes than you could shake a Swiss cheese at. For example: (the list is from memory, and therefore not exhaustive)

1. Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as amended by section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 specifies that only evidence produced by the speed camera is admissible. As a matter of standard procedure, the CDO unit produces video prints and in my case even manipulated one, enlarging the rear view of the car only, but not showing any speed information. They were unable or unwilling to provide the negatives produced by the camera. Going from film to video prints to manipulated video prints clearly breaks the continuity of evidence.
2. The speed recording units at the relevant section of the M25 are Serco Speed Enforcement Systems Type 1. It is a condition of their type approval by the Secretary of State for Transport that they be used singly, presumably to eliminate interference between the units. On the gantries above that M25 section they are used in arrays of three or four per gantry.
3. It is a further condition of the type approval that the units be used with certain accessories. No mention of the existence, let alone use of such accessories was made in the written statements of the two police officers being submitted in evidence (and later withdrawn).
4. Police witnesses did not turn up in court, despite my asking for them.
5. The police did not provide positive proof that the recording equipment was linked to the variable speed limit signs so as to ensure that the speed limit triggering the recording equipment and the speed limit displayed on the gantries were the same.
6. The police did not provide positive proof that the equipment was working at all, merely made a statement that 22 1/2 hours after the event an officer went to the equipment to remove a film and that he had "no grounds for believing that the information recorded was inaccurate".
7. The police did not provide any proof of what, if any, precautions had been taken to prevent aircraft or airport radar from interfering with the speed measuring equipement.
8. The police did not provide any proof of calibration of the equipment.


The angle regarding continuity of evidence or rather the lack of it was mentioned in an article by Barbara McMahon in the Evening Standard on 3 May 96.

maybe out of date but worth a try....

Anyone else got anything else to add?

[Guest]

Re: speeding fine

Was the NIP sent via first class post and was it received within 14 days of the alleged offence?

[Tempty]

Re: speeding fine

yes it was sent first class and well within 14 days.... unfortunately

[Guest]

Re: speeding fine

If you are to be prosecuted for this alleged offence then you are at liberty to demand to see the evidence against you and to confirm that the evidence will stand up to scrutiny.

If you are sure that you were not speeding then, given that recently in Kent an officer was suspended for fixing the speeds of passing motorists (MCN 20/03/08) you should ask to see the proof that the police apparently have.

In addition, as you were in a line of traffic, any speed check should have been aborted according to the guidance issued by ACPO and confirmed on p.47 of the document "ACPO Code of Practice for Operational use of Enforcement Equipment"

ACPO guidelines clearly state Radar speedmeters are designed to measure the speed of one vehicle at a time. Should there be more than one vehicle present in the radar field of view, it is possible for the device to detect two different signals, and alternately display different speeds in which case the check must be aborted.

Use the letter below, adapted if necessary for your circumstances.

Chief Constable


Date


Dear Sir

NIP No. XXXXXXX - Alleged breach of speed limit.

I have received the above notice dated (date) received today.

It states that I was driving my vehicle at XX mph on the AXX national trunk road/ (insert road name), which of course would be subject to a speed limit of XX mph.

The notice also threatens that if I do not pay £60 and accept 3 penalty points on my driving licence I will receive a summons for consideration for criminal prosecution. Any ensuing criminal prosecution would presumably require evidence of the speed of XX mph alleged and that may well require information to be supplied from the speedmeter employed at the time.

Whilst I am perfectly willing to pay my dues if I have committed a crime, I have however to ask if the videographic or speedmeter information the police possess would be admissible in Court in the event of the criminal prosecution with which I am threatened. You will accept that it would be a very serious matter if these demands on my licence and purse were made without any competent proof being in place in the form of admissible evidence.

In these circumstances and before I accede to the offer, would you please advise me of the details of the device(s) used to identify my vehicle as travelling at XX mph on that occasion. Additionally I would like a copy or the registration number(s) of the Statutory Instrument(s) which prescribe the device(s) as approved by Parliamentary Order in accordance with Section 20(9) and (10) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as amended [see below].

Given that demanding fines, imposing penalty points and threatening criminal prosecutions of the public without being in possession of admissible evidence would be a serious act of fraud, to say nothing of malfeasance in public office, I look forward to an early reply.

Yours faithfully,




Relevant extracts from Section 20, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as amended by Section 23 of Road Traffic Act 1991:

“ (4) A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless
(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.

(9) In this section “prescribed device” means device of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(10) The powers to make orders under subsections (3) and (9) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

[Amy]

Re: speeding fine

Tempty, get the photographs/proof sent to you. Don't admit to being the driver until you get this proof.

[Kafka]

Re: speeding fine

Tempty

This is the main site that provides advice on how to deal with speed cameras.

Welcome to Safe Speed

On the homepage there are details of a Freephone number to contact a solicitor that specialises in fighting these cases.

There have been a number of cases where the equipment was shown to be giving flawed readings, yet they are still able to bring prosecutions based on the same equipment. On the one occasion I was ever done by a fixed camera in dubious circumstances, the speed claimed was way exaggerated, both from my own judgement and the speedo at that instant, though I did not fight it as I did not have the time or the knowhow then.

You will find lots of info at that site and plenty of advice.