PCN Notice Greenford / otter road yellow box

Edwood_Woodwood

wealdroam wrote: »

I'll leave you to it.
As you can't carry on a decent discussion, there is no point in continuing.

Thank God for that.

I don't know why you didn't bail out earlier!

Edwood_Woodwood

Car_54 wrote: »

Really? That will come as news to the thousands convicted of speeding and red light offences on the basis of still images.

As a retired driving instructor then at least you appear to have some credibility.

I suspect you are aware that, almost certainly imo, that an image of the car's reg has been captured by a separate ANPR camera.

We then obviously have the video footage of the alleged transgression from another separate camera.

(It therefore is the ANPR camera that has id'd the car, not the video footage, as that doesn't. Which obviously explains how the Notice was delivered to the OP)

The problem for the council, and you, is attempting to validate the use of two separate cameras for one contravention.

In this instance, anything can be contrived in this manner.

All the video footage shows is that a black/dark coloured car, possibly a BMW, is zoomed in on, without being able to id the plate.

The OP was asking for advice, he had not even appealed at date of posting.

Even if he were asked on this thread, the best he can come up with is that it looks like his car and the alleged contravention appears to fit in with his time of travel.

That's very different to being certain it is him which is the result of a fairly poor footage of video being supplied.


On the evidence that has been supplied on this thread then I believe any appeal would be allowed just on this point.

This is beside the point that a contravention did not even occur imo.

almillar

Edwood:

Yeah, right!

Well I't not going ot post my member number, but yes I am, I have passed the test, and indeed trained others to pass it.
I know what a dual carriageway is, I don't follow vans closely into box junctions, and most importantly, I dont' think I'm a perfect driver, and I listen to criticism.

Sorry if I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but I still don't think you've answered my question. Do you accept that this incident didn't happen on a dual carriageway? Do you accept my definition of a dual carriageway? On that point, you are certainly wrong, and if you don't accept that, it really weakens your other arguments.

And please stop reporting other posts as abusive, some of your posts have been more abusive.

Edwood_Woodwood

almillar wrote: »

Edwood:


1 Well I't not going ot post my member number, but yes I am, I have passed the test, and indeed trained others to pass it.


2 And please stop reporting other posts as abusive, some of your posts have been more abusive.

1 Don't believe you, sorry.

2 If I feel I am subject to abusive posts I shall continue to report them, as per forum rules, sorry.

almillar

1 Don't believe you, sorry.

It's true, but fair enough. Not as tall as the tales you insist are true.

2 If I feel I am subject to abusive posts I shall continue to report them, as per forum rules, sorry.

Fair enough, but you're putting out worse than you're reporting so it's hypocritical.

3. I didn't only make 2 points, you have again chosen to ignore one. Will you finally accept you had a dual carriageway wrong or do you only hear and read what you want to, which may have got you into this mess with your reading of the Highway Code and law.

dannyrst

almillar wrote: »

It's true, but fair enough. Not as tall as the tales you insist are true.


Fair enough, but you're putting out worse than you're reporting so it's hypocritical.

3. I didn't only make 2 points, you have again chosen to ignore one. Will you finally accept you had a dual carriageway wrong or do you only hear and read what you want to, which may have got you into this mess with your reading of the Highway Code and law.

He changes his argument every time he realises he is wrong.

He started with the fact that the car could move lanes (which it clearly couldn't due to the other car blocking it). Argued that for a few posts then changed to argue that the fine is unenforceable because the box isn't correct. He picks and chooses what to read and reply to.

He really should consider (if he isn't already) pursuing a career in politics. Those tactics guarantee success in that world.