Speed Camera Notice (Peculiarities??)

darbooka

Chatta, you are wrong.
If the senders of the penalty notice had put on the envelope only my name and the name of the road without a house number, building name or postcode there is virtually no chance that the penalty notice would be delivered. By the same token, where the road in question is an enourmously long road, even if it were possible that the car owner might have been on the road on the day, the issue is whether the owner was driving by the particular camera at the time in question. NOT whether he/she was anywhere whatsovever on the road. For example, what if two people drive the car daily, both using the same road at different times - how would you know which was where the camera was. Even a satellite image is unlikely to provide the full length of such a long road, so it should be necessary for the prosecuting authority to stipulate where exactly the evidence was collected and where the driver presumably/allegedly was speeding in order for the driver and the court to be able to determine if the prosecuting authority may be accurate in its allegation or just trying to be skint on its efforts and expenses while trying to maximize revenues at the expense of due process.

dmg24

Darbooka,

Were you on the road at the time in question? If so, pay up.

If you're not sure, then ask the police for more evidence (the photograph and the exact location of the camera). Then decide whether it was you. If it was not you, was it your car? If so, who was driving it?

The police have done absolutely nothing wrong. Any concerns you have as to peculiarities on the speed camera notice will be ill founded. Remember the police have legal departments too, and so the legality of the standard notices would have been checked when they were first produced.

I read somewhere that there was a case successfully contended by the recipient of a similar notice who said the notice is improper because it is signed 'on behalf of the chief of police' and the police were not able to prove that the chief was aware or that it was genuinely on his behalf. Anyone heard about this?

I have not heard of this case, and would be very surprised if it were true. There may have been a case where this point was raised, but it is unlikely it was won on this point. If somebody can prove me wrong on this point I would be happy to know of the case.

pboae

dmg24 wrote:

Were you on that particular road at that time? Is it your number plate? If so, then accept that you were caught speeding and pay up!

By that logic, if you drove from London to Edinburgh up the A1 and they sent you a ticket saying you'd be caught somewhere on that road, you should just pay up without questioning it. Even though there are numerous different speed limits, and you'd been driving on it for over 7 hours.

I think I'd want more proof too.

dmg24

By that logic, if you drove from London to Edinburgh up the A1 and they sent you a ticket saying you'd be caught somewhere on that road, you should just pay up without questioning it. Even though there are numerous different speed limits, and you'd been driving on it for over 7 hours.

Of course you would question where the camera was on a road that long.

The OP is sensible enough to judge whether he needs to get further evidence or not.

Your comment is just silly and of no help to the OP or anyone else.

dieseldog

Our company had a speeding ticket and were asked to identify the driver however it was possible that the transit was being driven by anyone of 7 drivers, so we asked for photo of the vehicle to see who was driving. They sent a photo of the back of the transit van,our MD replied it was impossible to say who was driving at the time, they fined us £750.the fact is we dont know who was driving,but judging by the fine they didnt believe us.

Bossyboots

Do people really let others drive their car so often that they do not know who is driving on any particular day? My OH takes my car on pain on death. He is the only other person ever to drive it and I always know where he is going. Therefore it doesn't take much working out who was driving the car on any particular day. The only time we wouldn't have known for sure was when we took it in turns to drive to Scotland but given time we could have worked it out if necessary. Are we unique in not letting others drive our cars? (I'm not getting at anyone, I am genuinely intrigued by the argument of not knowing who was driving).

Numberplate cloning is a reality. If there is any doubt at all that your car would have been on a road when you get a speeding ticket, then you should ask for the photograph. Our neighbouring borough does actually send them out with the NIP but it seems from the replies here that that might be an exceptional practice.

As has been pointed out, you don't have to incriminate yourself by refusing the name the driver. In our area, not doing so leads to successful prosecution for perverting the course of the justice.

Bossyboots

dieseldog wrote:

Our company had a speeding ticket and were asked to identify the driver however it was possible that the transit was being driven by anyone of 7 drivers, so we asked for photo of the vehicle to see who was driving. They sent a photo of the back of the transit van,our MD replied it was impossible to say who was driving at the time, they fined us £750.the fact is we dont know who was driving,but judging by the fine they didnt believe us.

Aren't there procedures in place to make sure drivers are logged out with the vehicle. I would have thought this would be imperative. What would happen if one of them had a serious accident and drove off?

pboae

dmg24 wrote:

Of course you would question where the camera was on a road that long.

The OP is sensible enough to judge whether he needs to get further evidence or not.

Your comment is just silly and of no help to the OP or anyone else.

The OP made the judgement in his first post
"the Notice only indicates the name of the very long major road" which is why they were asking how to get more evidence. Yet without knowing which road it was, how long it was, or how long he was driving for you advised to pay up.

If I had taken that advise when it happened to me, I'd have had points and a fine for something I didn't do.

Mark7799

Is there any reason why the OP can't/won't ask for photographic evidence? Surely this would go along way to resolving the matter?

NAR

taxiphil wrote:

Absolutely wrong. You don't have to prove your innocence. The Crown has to prove your guilt. That's how British justice works.

There is absolutely nothing in the law to say that the Registered Keeper is automatically the person driving the vehicle unless they can prove otherwise. If this was the case, it would have led to thousands of cases of wrongful convictions!

It is a perfectly acceptable and valid defence to say that you don't know who was driving at the time. If they think you're lying they'd have to PROVE you were lying - you're not simply guilty by default!

I wish people wouldn't post rubbish like this, which is very misleading especially in such serious circumstances.
John Terry was fined £100 yesterday for such an offence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5265272.stm