Speeding Fines

Neil_B

27col wrote: »

No I am not getting it. But you are beginning to get a bit tiresome.
Maybe I am judgemental, but if more people were the same, there might be less people thinking that they can get away with stuff they know to be wrong. CBRH may not have admitted the speeding, but he did not deny it either. I shall not be posting any more on the subject as it has become a bit boring. Have a nice life.

Awww, shame. A healthy exchange of views is useful to many readrers of a forum! As long as it stays polite (and i sincerely apologise for an earlier, minor, off the cuff insult).

I actually think that in most speeding cases you would be correct and to follow the process to best possible result and pay the lowest possible fine.

My point was that, in some, the fact that you were speeding does not make you guilty of speeding. There are a number of possibilties that may show that not to be the case (as mine - and incidentally tens of thousands of others at that location).
I simply meant that to assume that exceeding the speed limit made you guilty of speeding is not true. Just for starters, was, when required, the speed limit signposted?

27col

I couldn't resist coming back. Apology accepted, no hard feelings. Life would be boring if we all thought the same.

greenface

Neil_B wrote: »

Awww, shame. A healthy exchange of views is useful to many readrers of a forum! As long as it stays polite (and i sincerely apologise for an earlier, minor, off the cuff insult).

I actually think that in most speeding cases you would be correct and to follow the process to best possible result and pay the lowest possible fine.

My point was that, in some, the fact that you were speeding does not make you guilty of speeding. There are a number of possibilties that may show that not to be the case (as mine - and incidentally tens of thousands of others at that location).
I simply meant that to assume that exceeding the speed limit made you guilty of speeding is not true. Just for starters, was, when required, the speed limit signposted?

where can you go 81mph in this country

bargepole

greenface wrote: »

where can you go 81mph in this country

You obviously haven't been on the M6 Toll very often, drive down there at 81 mph and you'll be overtaken by just about every other car.

kingy_1974

Worked for me, got a letter back saying on this occasion they were not going to pursue the NIP. Result!!!!!



Dear Sir/Madam.

I am writing to you in response to the enclosed Notice of Intended Prosecution. Firstly I have returned the completed form to you as not to impede your investigations or to come over as being obstructive. As stated in Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) I have given you all the information you require, but I have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

The alleged offence took place on XXXXXXXXX at XXXXam, I was indeed the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXX but dispute the speed recorded by your Speed Camera. My director and myself were returning from Leeds Bradford airport, a journey I have made hundreds of times so I am very cautious of the multitude of cameras that are situated down Oliver Hill and into Leeds. I have never been flashed for speeding prior to this incident on these journeys. When I noticed the flash in my rear-view mirror I automatically checked my indicated speed, which I may add was nowhere near the alleged speed of 36 mph. Obviously I thought the flash was for another motorist, imagine my surprise to find the Intended Prosecution Notice on my door step several days later.

With the recent press and proven inaccuracies of the old fashioned Speed Cameras, especially when the weather becomes colder the tolerance can be as much as 25% out and not the +/- 2mph tolerance required by law and calibration purposes. These proven findings as we all know have led to the cameras being withdrawn and abandoned by many Police Authorities and Community Camera Partnerships.

I utilised your online evidence checker to confirm that the vehicle and time of the alleged offence was correct and I am not disputing the fact that I was the driver and at that location at the alleged time of the offence. When checking the online calibration documentation and certificates for the camera there was nothing to be displayed. Which leads me to think the camera had not been calibrated within the appropriate time scales as required, especially when the indicated speed of my vehicle was less than the alleged 36mph. You can check with your ISP/Web provider and cross reference my IP address, the time of me accessing your site and the content of the site displayed if you so wish. The site was accessed at approx xxxxam on xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. From this log you will be able to see that the evidence to support this alleged offence was not available to be displayed.

Follow up phone calls to your Department have also proved fruitless in being able to give evidence to support the validity of your claims.

To this end, I may wish to formally challenge your Notice of Intended Prosecution. Before decided to challenge as is my right I respectfully ask for you to provide, by post, the following documentation to support your claim and satisfy me.

• Copy of the original calibration log for the camera on Oliver Hill, to prove it had been calibrated within tolerances.
• Copy of your officers shift log, including his qualifications and training. To prove he is qualified and trained to service/calibrate these camera. Also his shift log will highlight any concerns or comments made about the camera.
• Copy of the certificates of calibration for any equipment used to calibrate the camera. Whether this be a calibration certificate of a certified vehicle proving the tolerance of the speed camera being checked.
• Copy of any shift notes from the officer driving the car that was used for calibration purposes.
• A copy of your SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) as to the calibration, service and use of speed camera.
• A copy of the Internet access log pertaining to the time I accessed your website to prove the documentation was not available to be viewed.

Again I am not being obstructive but I am concerned that something is not right as to the speed indicated of 36mph. Also the fact that no online documentation, certificates or calibration logs were available as evidence online.

Once I have received the above and I am convinced that your camera was working correctly, your SOP’s have been followed to the letter, calibration was conducted correctly and that the documentation is in place and correct, I will accept your Notice of Intended Prosecution.

Again this is my right and I may wish to formally challenge this alleged offence.
I look forward to hearing from you and/or receiving the above noted documentation as to the validity of the alleged offence.

Yours faithfully


Good luck to all of you. Speed cameras are there only to generate revenue, create too much work for them and it's not cost effective.

peter_the_piper

I'm very surprised to see this, NIP's are usually never given up on, especially with a first poster. Sorry to Kingy if its possibly maligning him but I just don't believe it.

HO87

Well kingy, the letter may indeed have worked for you.

You do indeed have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. However, as no one is entitled to access to any prosecution evidence ahead of them having elected for the matter to go to court and they have entered a "not guilty" plea then the type of request you made will simply be rebuffed with a "you're not entitled" letter. Frankly, were one to make the requests you outline after you'd entered a "not guilty" plea (and you couldn't make them before that) the prosecution are likely to submit that unless a skeleton defence was submitted demonstrating that the requests made were both relevant and reasonable the documents requested would not be supplied - and any half switched-on LA would almost certainly reject any such application on the same basis. Fishing expeditions - which is what you suggest - long since died a death.

The much-vaunted appeal against conviction on the basis that Gatso circuitry became defective in below freezing conditions simply never materialised. In any event this had nothing whatsoever to do with the somewhat wider withdrawal of these cameras which was far more closely linked to the reorganisation of safety camera partnerships (most disappeared) and morphed into casualty reduction partnerships (a different beast altogether). This in turn had led to a withdrawal of funding for the servicing of static cameras which the police, understandably, were not prepared to pick up as had been initially suggested.

Oh, and why resurrect a thread which is very nearly three years old?

rdwarr

Neil_B wrote: »

here ya go. Get ya head round this. ME 68mph in a 50 zone - NIP - challenged - cancelled. Not worth it? How can you possibly know anyones' particular circumstances?

I don't care if you got off or not. 68 in a 50 makes you a useless driver.

SHIPSHAPE

kingy_1974 wrote: »

Good luck to all of you. Speed cameras are there only to generate revenue, create too much work for them and it's not cost effective.

I disagree.

Any driver who gets caught at a speed camera is a bit of a dope who shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car in the first place.

If they can't avoid that I doubt they could avoid a child running onto the road without any warning.

Get off the roads.

halibut2209

Why has this been bumped after nearly 3 years?