Wrong information on speedingticket

muckybutt

Another vote for PEPIPOO here - ask the bods on there as they are very much more clued up on what exactly to do.

matttye

Richard53 wrote: »

I would be very pessimistic about your chances of success. The last time I was caught 'speeding', the time of the 'offence' was wrong by about 20 minutes. I could prove that at the time of the 'offence' I was in a meeting about five miles away. I saw the camera van as I passed it, but for various reasons I know I was well within the limit. I genuinely believed, and do to this day, that there was a mistake. In court, I was respectful, polite and reasonable. The young copper who operated the device later admitted to me that he thought I would get off as I had convinced him at least that the evidence was unreliable.


The result was a slap-down from the elderly magistrates, a doubling of the fine and costs added on top. It was an expensive way to find out how naïve I had been.


If your husband knows he was speeding, then he should take it on the chin, regardless of any errors in the paperwork. If he wasn't, he should view it as a kind of road tax on the unlucky. The speed awareness courses are quite interesting, or so I have been told. Personally, I have changed the way I drive, and I haven't been caught since. Read that how you will.

There's zero point in disputing a speeding ticket unless you can prove: -

(A) it wasn't possible for you to be in the location you were caught speeding at anywhere near that time;
(B) there was a fault with the speed monitoring equipment (this would require expert evidence to be paid for out of your own pocket as there's no legal aid for speeding offences);
(C) it's not possible for your vehicle to travel at the supposed speed it was caught travelling. This could demonstrate a fault with the speed monitoring equipment. This again would require expert evidence.

jimjames

matttye wrote: »

There's zero point in disputing a speeding ticket unless you can prove: -

(A) it wasn't possible for you to be in the location you were caught speeding at anywhere near that time;
(B) there was a fault with the speed monitoring equipment (this would require expert evidence to be paid for out of your own pocket as there's no legal aid for speeding offences);
(C) it's not possible for your vehicle to travel at the supposed speed it was caught travelling. This could demonstrate a fault with the speed monitoring equipment. This again would require expert evidence.

Latest news I heard on radio today relates to streetlights being turned off locally overnight to save electricity and save money.

According to a barrister lack of streetlights could mean that speed limits no longer apply. Interesting side effect of a policy introduced for other reasons and could give drivers a way out.

http://www.courier.co.uk/time-streetlights-Kent-mean-speed-limits-apply/story-22782999-detail/story.html

bod1467

That may be true if there are no other speed limit indications.

Richard53

Yes, I failed on all of these counts.

matttye wrote: »

There's zero point in disputing a speeding ticket unless you can prove: -

(A) it wasn't possible for you to be in the location you were caught speeding at anywhere near that time;

No argument I passed the location, but not at the time stated. Problem was, to prove that I would had to have called a variety of people present at the meeting to confirm it (covered their loss of earnings, travel costs etc) and it didn't pass the common sense test.

matttye wrote: »

(B) there was a fault with the speed monitoring equipment (this would require expert evidence to be paid for out of your own pocket as there's no legal aid for speeding offences);

Magistrate: do you have a degree in electronics?
Me: No, ma'am.
Magistrate: Have you had the equipment examined by an expert in electronics?
Me: No, ma'am.
Magistrate: Then you can't expect us to take anything you say seriously.

matttye wrote: »

(C) it's not possible for your vehicle to travel at the supposed speed it was caught travelling. This could demonstrate a fault with the speed monitoring equipment. This again would require expert evidence.

It was a 4.6 Range Rover in a 30 limit. That defence was never a runner.


As I said, I was totally naïve and believed that the court would listen to arguments and give me credit for being an upright citizen with a clean sheet. I won't make that mistake again.


My advice to the OP was not to bother defending it, on the basis of my own unfortunate experience. I wasn't trying to get off on a technicality; I genuinely believed there had been a mistake. The OP might find it harder than I did, even so.

Ectophile

jimjames wrote: »

Latest news I heard on radio today relates to streetlights being turned off locally overnight to save electricity and save money.

According to a barrister lack of streetlights could mean that speed limits no longer apply. Interesting side effect of a policy introduced for other reasons and could give drivers a way out.

http://www.courier.co.uk/time-streetlights-Kent-mean-speed-limits-apply/story-22782999-detail/story.html

It sounds like even the barrister is hedging their bets on that one. After all, it isn't legal to go over 30MPH in a built-up area during the day just because the street lights aren't on.

I wouldn't take anything less than the ruling of a high court judge before I start following that suggestion.