Speeding Summons?

Car_54

facade wrote: »

Especially when the OP has a speedcamera photograph of the clone, which is clearly different to the original, along with evidence that her car was parked up at work miles away at the time the picture was taken.

1. Not clearly different. According to the OP, there are two small differences, which could easily have been created since the photo was taken.

2. I don't recall the OP saying either that it was parked miles away, or that she had evidence.

What she did say was "I know it wasn't me driving it as it was in the middle afternoon on a weekday and I am sure ...".

As evidence, that's not too convincing.

RS2000.

Car_54 wrote: »

1. Not clearly different. According to the OP, there are two small differences, which could easily have been created since the photo was taken.

2. I don't recall the OP saying either that it was parked miles away, or that she had evidence.

What she did say was "I know it wasn't me driving it as it was in the middle afternoon on a weekday and I am sure ...".

As evidence, that's not too convincing.

But probably enough to cast reasonable doubt.

Happychappy

There is no evidence of a cloned vehicle ? Unless I'm missing something !

Car_54

Happychappy wrote: »

There is no evidence of a cloned vehicle ? Unless I'm missing something !

You haven't missed anything.

The charge the OP is likely to face is failure to furnish driver details (section 172). The law provides a defence if she can show that she could not, with reasonable diligence, identify the driver.

So far, we have seen no evidence of any diligence at all - e.g. searches of diaries, work rosters, phone or credit card records, lists of who might have keys and/or was insured, etc.

The courts tend to be sceptical about these vague defences, which is why failure to furnish is penalised more heavily than the underlying offence. In this case, the original offence would probably have attracted the offer of a course, but the OP is now on the way to six points and hefty costs.

RS2000.

Car_54 wrote: »

You haven't missed anything.

The charge the OP is likely to face is failure to furnish driver details (section 172). The law provides a defence if she can show that she could not, with reasonable diligence, identify the driver.

So far, we have seen no evidence of any diligence at all - e.g. searches of diaries, work rosters, phone or credit card records, lists of who might have keys and/or was insured, etc.

The courts tend to be sceptical about these vague defences, which is why failure to furnish is penalised more heavily than the underlying offence. In this case, the original offence would probably have attracted the offer of a course, but the OP is now on the way to six points and hefty costs.

She potentially has a good defence, it's not her car!

Why don't you try adding something useful instead of repeating rubbish from another forum?

Happychappy

What do you mean by it's not her car !

So far no evidence that she/he wasn't the driver, just can't be sure, putting forward a defence of it wasn't me, needs a little more than my car couldn't possibly accelerate in time, or I'm sure I wasn't on holiday, but nobody coming forward to say, "I remember florrie was doing her poll dancing act at that exact time at the local Derby and Jones club 50 miles away and her car was in the car park, I watched her in amazement"

Just to say, not me gov, don't know who it was, isn't potentially a good defence, or any defence and certainly doesn't meet S172, it needs a bit more, and "No Comment" also won't stick.

RS2000.

Happychappy wrote: »

What do you mean by it's not her car !

So far no evidence that she/he wasn't the driver, just can't be sure, putting forward a defence of it wasn't me, needs a little more than my car couldn't possibly accelerate in time, or I'm sure I wasn't on holiday, but nobody coming forward to say, "I remember florrie was doing her poll dancing act at that exact time at the local Derby and Jones club 50 miles away and her car was in the car park, I watched her in amazement"

Just to say, not me gov, don't know who it was, isn't potentially a good defence, or any defence and certainly doesn't meet S172, it needs a bit more, and "No Comment" also won't stick.

Simple, she's seen the photos and states it's not her car.

It's up to her to convince the court now, looking at her previous posts it won't be a problem as she already knows the people involved in every urban myth going when it comes to motoring. Hubby is also an expert too.

forgotmyname

Are the photo's that detailed that you can make out a rusty screw on a numberplate?

facade

You can scan them onto your PC and enhance them to increase the detail.

On NCIS I've seen them read the registration number of a car from the reflection in someones corneas on a 320x240 security camera image

forgotmyname

If that was a Fuji camera then it wouldnt surprise me, I had a 2mp one and the image quality was far superior to a Kodak 4mp one.

I wonder if i speed past my local camera will it spot the dust cap i lost a few weeks ago?