Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • AsaBlade
    • By AsaBlade 5th Sep 17, 3:43 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 2Thanks
    AsaBlade
    Mobile Camera Speeding Offence "Rolling Footage"
    • #1
    • 5th Sep 17, 3:43 PM
    Mobile Camera Speeding Offence "Rolling Footage" 5th Sep 17 at 3:43 PM
    Hi all.

    Any advice is most welcome.

    I have today received a Notice of Intended Prosecution for an alleged speeding offence of travelling at 36mph in a 30mph zone.

    I have reviewed the photographic evidence provided it suggests that I was doing 29mph at the time of the alleged offence. I also have tracking information on the vehicle which suggests that I was doing 29mph too (and certainly at no point did I exceed 30mph).

    I decided to contact the Camera Partnership to confirm the time lapse between the two photos that they provided me with in order to decide whether to challenge the case in court. However, the representative at the Camera Partnership informed me that the evidence wasn't obtained through time lapse shots (as a Gatso camera would at 0.5s or 0.7s intervals), but rather, they said the evidence was of "rolling footage". They went on to say that the rolling footage shows me doing 36mph and then slowing to around 21mph as I passed the speed van.

    My questions are:

    1. Has anyone had any encounters with these types of speed cameras - that use rolling footage rather than time lapse shots?

    2. How do they work to calculate your speed from ONE frame (as was suggested)?

    3. Are they reliable?

    4. Has anyone successfully appealed a NIP that used this type of camera?

    I wouldn't usually go to these lengths to challenge something like this (although this is my 1st alleged speeding offence after 21 years of driving in excess of 40,000 miles a year) but I remember the day as clearly as it were yesterday. I actually had my vehicle on cruise control set at 30mph around 500 yards or so prior to the van being sighted (or the van being able to spot me). I then cancelled the cruise control as I approached the van as traffic was slowing in front of me (hence the speed registering around 21mph as I passed the van).

    Now if I was speeding then hands up - I accept my punishment and take it on the chin. However, my recollection of the event, coupled with the tracking data (which shows me doing 42mph in a 40mph zone a few miles prior and highlights this on my print out) and with the photographic evidence they have supplied makes me really want to challenge the NIP but I'm unsure as to how these types of cameras work.

    I just don't see how it could have registered 36mph when I was set on CC at 30mph.

    NB - The road is dead flat - no chance of vehicle runaway while on CC.

    Any help is greatly appreciated.

    AD.
Page 2
    • marlot
    • By marlot 6th Sep 17, 7:21 AM
    • 3,047 Posts
    • 2,176 Thanks
    marlot
    ...
    As I said, I spoke with the Camera Partnership yesterday (Tuesday) and they have said they will send out the evidence upon what they will be relying upon if it went to court. They said it should be with me by Thursday or Friday so I will update you once I have received this. ...
    Originally posted by AsaBlade
    That's good - lots of partnerships would refuse.
    • kaya
    • By kaya 6th Sep 17, 7:28 AM
    • 2,344 Posts
    • 2,724 Thanks
    kaya
    its not rocket science, if you know you weren't speeding and you have a dashcam that will confirm it why oh why would you even consider rolling over and taking a fine that was unlawful?
    • AsaBlade
    • By AsaBlade 6th Sep 17, 7:57 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    AsaBlade
    its not rocket science, if you know you weren't speeding and you have a dashcam that will confirm it why oh why would you even consider rolling over and taking a fine that was unlawful?
    Originally posted by kaya
    You're correct - we're not dealing with rocket science here and I never said anything about rolling over and accepting a fine that is unlawful, hence the reason why I am looking at the possibility of challenging it. Rather, my reason for posting the thread is because the process, and more importantly, the technology they have used is an unknown quantity to me.

    I wanted to know more about the technology they have used and how the information is interpreted in order to understand how I could establish grounds so it could be challenged. I assumed that my case would fail if I simply turn up and claim "I didn't do it gov".
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 6th Sep 17, 8:04 AM
    • 10,015 Posts
    • 7,001 Thanks
    neilmcl
    You're correct - we're not dealing with rocket science here and I never said anything about rolling over and accepting a fine that is unlawful, hence the reason why I am looking at the possibility of challenging it. Rather, my reason for posting the thread is because the process, and more importantly, the technology they have used is an unknown quantity to me.

    I wanted to know more about the technology they have used and how the information is interpreted in order to understand how I could establish grounds so it could be challenged. I assumed that my case would fail if I simply turn up and claim "I didn't do it gov".
    Originally posted by AsaBlade
    Yes, but you're going to be turning up and stating "I didn't do it gov, and here's the evidence to prove it". Not exactly the same thing is it.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 6th Sep 17, 8:10 AM
    • 15,089 Posts
    • 13,411 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Yes, but you're going to be turning up and stating "I didn't do it gov, and here's the evidence to prove it". Not exactly the same thing is it.
    Originally posted by neilmcl
    Depends entirely on the quality of your evidence. Some uncalibrated tracking data (from what?) and a dashcam video aren't going to be good enough - the prosecution will have type-approval documentation for the equipment, training logs and calibration logs, and various other technical evidence.

    To defeat that, you'll need reports produced by expert witnesses who are willing to stand up and be cross-examined.

    That's going to take a LOT of time, money, and blood pressure, for an uncertain result. Maybe they'll simply offer no evidence on the day. It's unlikely you'll be awarded costs.

    Or you could spend half a day and £90 on some tea and biscuits.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 6th Sep 17, 8:16 AM
    • 2,237 Posts
    • 1,435 Thanks
    Car 54
    You're correct - we're not dealing with rocket science here and I never said anything about rolling over and accepting a fine that is unlawful, hence the reason why I am looking at the possibility of challenging it.
    Originally posted by AsaBlade
    It's not a fine, and it's not unlawful. It's simply the offer of the option to pay a fixed amount and avoid the hassle and expense (and risk) of a court hearing.

    There is no option of "challenging" it: you either accept the offer, or wait for the court process to begin.
    • missile
    • By missile 6th Sep 17, 8:23 AM
    • 8,853 Posts
    • 4,279 Thanks
    missile
    Good luck, I hope you are successful in your defence.
    "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
    Ride hard or stay home
    • AsaBlade
    • By AsaBlade 6th Sep 17, 9:05 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    AsaBlade
    It's not a fine, and it's not unlawful. It's simply the offer of the option to pay a fixed amount and avoid the hassle and expense (and risk) of a court hearing.

    There is no option of "challenging" it: you either accept the offer, or wait for the court process to begin.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    I think you're getting too concerned with the terminology being used. When I am referring to "challenging it" I am referring to the possibility of "challenging" the prosecution's case that will be brought against me in court. The "option" of which arises "if" I decide not to attend the Road Safety Course.
    • deaston
    • By deaston 6th Sep 17, 9:07 AM
    • 452 Posts
    • 235 Thanks
    deaston
    I wanted to know more about the technology they have used and how the information is interpreted in order to understand how I could establish grounds so it could be challenged. I assumed that my case would fail if I simply turn up and claim "I didn't do it gov".
    Originally posted by AsaBlade
    I agree with someone further up - you have evidence that proves you weren't speeding, so defend it.

    If they could question the reading of your dashcam, could you do some tests to confirm the calibration? For example get someone to film you going at 30mph and show the dashcam registering 30mph (or more likely 28/29mph) along that same stretch of road? Could you measure the distance between a couple of points and then use them to confirm the speed you were going on the original footage?

    Also, for them to register you going at 36mph, your speedo would be reading more like 38/39mph, which is something you'd remember and not a disparity your cruise would cause - my cruise will go to 32mph at most when set to 30.

    Fight it - the legal system is there to ensure justice. Just taking the speed awareness course even though you were already aware of your speed makes no sense.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 6th Sep 17, 9:15 AM
    • 238 Posts
    • 116 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    I agree with someone further up - you have evidence that proves you weren't speeding, so defend it.

    If they could question the reading of your dashcam, could you do some tests to confirm the calibration? For example get someone to film you going at 30mph and show the dashcam registering 30mph (or more likely 28/29mph) along that same stretch of road? Could you measure the distance between a couple of points and then use them to confirm the speed you were going on the original footage?

    Also, for them to register you going at 36mph, your speedo would be reading more like 38/39mph, which is something you'd remember and not a disparity your cruise would cause - my cruise will go to 32mph at most when set to 30.

    Fight it - the legal system is there to ensure justice. Just taking the speed awareness course even though you were already aware of your speed makes no sense.
    Originally posted by deaston
    You do realise that to get someone with the qualifications to prove the speed between two points was less than 30 mph will cost thousands, don't you?

    Thought not.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 6th Sep 17, 9:15 AM
    • 1,373 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    I agree with someone further up - you have evidence that proves you weren't speeding, so defend it.

    If they could question the reading of your dashcam, could you do some tests to confirm the calibration? For example get someone to film you going at 30mph and show the dashcam registering 30mph (or more likely 28/29mph) along that same stretch of road? Could you measure the distance between a couple of points and then use them to confirm the speed you were going on the original footage?

    Also, for them to register you going at 36mph, your speedo would be reading more like 38/39mph, which is something you'd remember and not a disparity your cruise would cause - my cruise will go to 32mph at most when set to 30.

    Fight it - the legal system is there to ensure justice. Just taking the speed awareness course even though you were already aware of your speed makes no sense.
    Originally posted by deaston
    It's easy to say this when it is not your money you are risking.

    The other side will call expert witnesses and the OP will need expert witnesses of his own. It will be an expensive day out and if the OP does get found not guilty, he will not get all his costs back.

    I do think there is merit on going to pepipoo on this - AntonyMMM is a regular on there and is a motoring solicitor so take into account what he says.

    If I could settle this with a simple SAC, I would. The risks are high and there is no reward as even found not guilty will see the OP out of pocket.

    Unfair? Sure, but legal and to change this people need to get more involved in political process rather than simply whinge that the system works against them.
    • AsaBlade
    • By AsaBlade 6th Sep 17, 9:21 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    AsaBlade
    Depends entirely on the quality of your evidence. Some uncalibrated tracking data (from what?) and a dashcam video aren't going to be good enough - the prosecution will have type-approval documentation for the equipment, training logs and calibration logs, and various other technical evidence.

    To defeat that, you'll need reports produced by expert witnesses who are willing to stand up and be cross-examined.

    That's going to take a LOT of time, money, and blood pressure, for an uncertain result. Maybe they'll simply offer no evidence on the day. It's unlikely you'll be awarded costs.

    Or you could spend half a day and £90 on some tea and biscuits.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Exactly the underlying reason behind why I am wanting to find out about the technology first and foremeost.

    I know there will be a high burden of proof upon me, firstly to establish why their equipment was faulty/misinterpreted/misused/innacurate etc, but secondly, as to then why my evidence (a tracker, a Dash Cam and my recollection) is admissible and "out trumps" their evidence.

    As it would be a criminal trial the level of proof needs to be "beyond any reasonable doubt". On top of this, the trial would sit in front of a Magistrate (no disrespect to a magistrates) but unless they are an expert in dash cam and tracking technology (which I very much doubt it) then they're immediate position will be to sit with the "superior" technology and the expert witnesses.

    All of this is a bit of a digression from my original post which was aimed at trying to understand the technology more; how it works, how it's used and how the data it provides is then analysed and interpreted. Because, ultimately, if I am to mount any form of a defence that would be accept this is where it would stem from.

    Once I've received the further evidence from the Camera Partnership I'll post back.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 6th Sep 17, 9:25 AM
    • 1,373 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    To add, OP, see what the Safety Partnership send - I'll be pleasantly surprised if what they send is what they intend to rely on in court. Review what they send first, but your best chance of fighting this without cost to yourself might be to show them what you have and see if they cave in. They may decide not to proceed, they may just say see you in court. There is also a risk they could withdraw SAC and fixed penalty offers and just say see you in court if you handle this in a bull in a china shop way.

    I would supply it in a way that says you're curious that they have found you speeding but your dash cam thinks otherwise.

    The difficulty is that their equipment is calibrated, yours isn't. And by calibrated, I mean accepted legally as such. You can change settings on your dashcam to change the date for example - mine came with a defaukt date and time.

    Choose your battles. This one isn't unwinnable, but if winning leaves you out of pocket, is it worth the fight? That's up to you, but there are quite a few stories on Pepipoo where people have turned down an SAC and ended up much much worse off.
    • deaston
    • By deaston 6th Sep 17, 9:28 AM
    • 452 Posts
    • 235 Thanks
    deaston
    It's easy to say this when it is not your money you are risking.

    The other side will call expert witnesses and the OP will need expert witnesses of his own. It will be an expensive day out and if the OP does get found not guilty, he will not get all his costs back.

    I do think there is merit on going to pepipoo on this - AntonyMMM is a regular on there and is a motoring solicitor so take into account what he says.

    If I could settle this with a simple SAC, I would. The risks are high and there is no reward as even found not guilty will see the OP out of pocket.

    Unfair? Sure, but legal and to change this people need to get more involved in political process rather than simply whinge that the system works against them.
    Originally posted by Mercdriver
    In that case, reading all this makes me feel sorry for the OP. Like me, it sounds like he sticks to the limit and probably gets tailgated and overtaken constantly, and he still gets accused of speeding and points on his licence. May as well just break the limit.

    I guess I assumed the legal system was there to uphold the law - not make it difficult for someone who is innocent to prove themselves as such, especially when the OP has such clear evidence.

    If it was me, I'd fight it regardless of cost.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 6th Sep 17, 9:30 AM
    • 238 Posts
    • 116 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    Exactly the underlying reason behind why I am wanting to find out about the technology first and foremeost.

    I know there will be a high burden of proof upon me, firstly to establish why their equipment was faulty/misinterpreted/misused/innacurate etc, but secondly, as to then why my evidence (a tracker, a Dash Cam and my recollection) is admissible and "out trumps" their evidence.

    As it would be a criminal trial the level of proof needs to be "beyond any reasonable doubt". On top of this, the trial would sit in front of a Magistrate (no disrespect to a magistrates) but unless they are an expert in dash cam and tracking technology (which I very much doubt it) then they're immediate position will be to sit with the "superior" technology and the expert witnesses.

    All of this is a bit of a digression from my original post which was aimed at trying to understand the technology more; how it works, how it's used and how the data it provides is then analysed and interpreted. Because, ultimately, if I am to mount any form of a defence that would be accept this is where it would stem from.

    Once I've received the further evidence from the Camera Partnership I'll post back.
    Originally posted by AsaBlade
    You misunderstand, you only need to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution evidence.
    • deaston
    • By deaston 6th Sep 17, 9:31 AM
    • 452 Posts
    • 235 Thanks
    deaston

    The difficulty is that their equipment is calibrated, yours isn't. And by calibrated, I mean accepted legally as such. You can change settings on your dashcam to change the date for example - mine came with a defaukt date and time.
    Originally posted by Mercdriver
    Although the OP's footage would surely show the speed camera van and vehicles before and after the OP would match those filmed by the speed camera, so there'd be no question that the footage was the same day.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 6th Sep 17, 9:36 AM
    • 1,373 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    In that case, reading all this makes me feel sorry for the OP. Like me, it sounds like he sticks to the limit and probably gets tailgated and overtaken constantly, and he still gets accused of speeding and points on his licence. May as well just break the limit.

    I guess I assumed the legal system was there to uphold the law - not make it difficult for someone who is innocent to prove themselves as such, especially when the OP has such clear evidence.

    If it was me, I'd fight it regardless of cost.
    Originally posted by deaston
    The way speeding cases are prosecuted is reactionary to people's attempts to exploit loopholes. That's why it is a little messy. I think it needs to be looked at and overhauled personally, but I can't see this happening as it serves its purpose 99% of the time, and it isn't enough of a hot potato politically as people haven't been whipped up to mass hysteria like some have been by immigration.

    Politicians won't change things unless a) it clearly isn't working for a large proportion of people and mostly b) it threatens their existence as a governing party.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 6th Sep 17, 9:37 AM
    • 15,089 Posts
    • 13,411 Thanks
    AdrianC
    I guess I assumed the legal system was there to uphold the law - not make it difficult for someone who is innocent to prove themselves as such, especially when the OP has such clear evidence.
    Originally posted by deaston
    But does he?

    The prosecution have video taken by a trained operator using calibrated equipment, specifically designed and approved to produce legally-acceptable evidence. That video will show the distance from the operator of the approaching vehicle, and a time stamp. Distance/time = speed.

    The OP has a gut feel and a cheap Chinese dashcam.

    What are the costs of accepting it versus protesting it?
    Accept it - £90 and half a day that only needs to be declared to one insurer.

    Protest it and lose - three points plus a fine, court costs - total probably £200+.
    Protest it and have the case dropped - time in gathering evidence.
    Protest it and win - a lot of time, a lot of stress, and a lot of and money in expert testimony, with costs unlikely to be awarded.

    May I refer you back to the very first post I made in the thread?
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5705774#2
    Do the words "pyrrhic victory" mean anything?
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 6th Sep 17, 10:08 AM
    • 238 Posts
    • 116 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    Although the OP's footage would surely show the speed camera van and vehicles before and after the OP would match those filmed by the speed camera, so there'd be no question that the footage was the same day.
    Originally posted by deaston
    Use you knowledge then. Tell him about the rules of disclosure and how he can get the evidence from the police to prove that.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 6th Sep 17, 10:23 AM
    • 3,203 Posts
    • 3,242 Thanks
    DoaM
    IF the SCP send you the video of the incident AND it shows the cross-hairs AND this shows the target varying THEN you might have a chance of challenging it and winning. *

    If not then take the SAC and be done with it. No points and minimal hassle. Fair? No, but it's the pragmatic approach.

    * I recall a fairly recent media article or forum thread where someone was accused of speeding but was able to prove human error on the part of the camera operator. I can't find it right now though.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,566Posts Today

8,536Users online

Martin's Twitter