Mobile Camera Speeding Offence "Rolling Footage"

kaya

its not rocket science, if you know you weren't speeding and you have a dashcam that will confirm it why oh why would you even consider rolling over and taking a fine that was unlawful?

AsaBlade

kaya wrote: »

its not rocket science, if you know you weren't speeding and you have a dashcam that will confirm it why oh why would you even consider rolling over and taking a fine that was unlawful?

You're correct - we're not dealing with rocket science here and I never said anything about rolling over and accepting a fine that is unlawful, hence the reason why I am looking at the possibility of challenging it. Rather, my reason for posting the thread is because the process, and more importantly, the technology they have used is an unknown quantity to me.

I wanted to know more about the technology they have used and how the information is interpreted in order to understand how I could establish grounds so it could be challenged. I assumed that my case would fail if I simply turn up and claim "I didn't do it gov".

neilmcl

AsaBlade wrote: »

You're correct - we're not dealing with rocket science here and I never said anything about rolling over and accepting a fine that is unlawful, hence the reason why I am looking at the possibility of challenging it. Rather, my reason for posting the thread is because the process, and more importantly, the technology they have used is an unknown quantity to me.

I wanted to know more about the technology they have used and how the information is interpreted in order to understand how I could establish grounds so it could be challenged. I assumed that my case would fail if I simply turn up and claim "I didn't do it gov".

Yes, but you're going to be turning up and stating "I didn't do it gov, and here's the evidence to prove it". Not exactly the same thing is it.

AdrianC

neilmcl wrote: »

Yes, but you're going to be turning up and stating "I didn't do it gov, and here's the evidence to prove it". Not exactly the same thing is it.

Depends entirely on the quality of your evidence. Some uncalibrated tracking data (from what?) and a dashcam video aren't going to be good enough - the prosecution will have type-approval documentation for the equipment, training logs and calibration logs, and various other technical evidence.

To defeat that, you'll need reports produced by expert witnesses who are willing to stand up and be cross-examined.

That's going to take a LOT of time, money, and blood pressure, for an uncertain result. Maybe they'll simply offer no evidence on the day. It's unlikely you'll be awarded costs.

Or you could spend half a day and £90 on some tea and biscuits.

Car_54

AsaBlade wrote: »

You're correct - we're not dealing with rocket science here and I never said anything about rolling over and accepting a fine that is unlawful, hence the reason why I am looking at the possibility of challenging it.

It's not a fine, and it's not unlawful. It's simply the offer of the option to pay a fixed amount and avoid the hassle and expense (and risk) of a court hearing.

There is no option of "challenging" it: you either accept the offer, or wait for the court process to begin.

missile

Good luck, I hope you are successful in your defence.

AsaBlade

[quote=[Deleted User];73085817]It's not a fine, and it's not unlawful. It's simply the offer of the option to pay a fixed amount and avoid the hassle and expense (and risk) of a court hearing.

There is no option of "challenging" it: you either accept the offer, or wait for the court process to begin.[/QUOTE]

I think you're getting too concerned with the terminology being used. When I am referring to "challenging it" I am referring to the possibility of "challenging" the prosecution's case that will be brought against me in court. The "option" of which arises "if" I decide not to attend the Road Safety Course.

deaston

AsaBlade wrote: »

I wanted to know more about the technology they have used and how the information is interpreted in order to understand how I could establish grounds so it could be challenged. I assumed that my case would fail if I simply turn up and claim "I didn't do it gov".

I agree with someone further up - you have evidence that proves you weren't speeding, so defend it.

If they could question the reading of your dashcam, could you do some tests to confirm the calibration? For example get someone to film you going at 30mph and show the dashcam registering 30mph (or more likely 28/29mph) along that same stretch of road? Could you measure the distance between a couple of points and then use them to confirm the speed you were going on the original footage?

Also, for them to register you going at 36mph, your speedo would be reading more like 38/39mph, which is something you'd remember and not a disparity your cruise would cause - my cruise will go to 32mph at most when set to 30.

Fight it - the legal system is there to ensure justice. Just taking the speed awareness course even though you were already aware of your speed makes no sense.

Warwick_Hunt

deaston wrote: »

I agree with someone further up - you have evidence that proves you weren't speeding, so defend it.

If they could question the reading of your dashcam, could you do some tests to confirm the calibration? For example get someone to film you going at 30mph and show the dashcam registering 30mph (or more likely 28/29mph) along that same stretch of road? Could you measure the distance between a couple of points and then use them to confirm the speed you were going on the original footage?

Also, for them to register you going at 36mph, your speedo would be reading more like 38/39mph, which is something you'd remember and not a disparity your cruise would cause - my cruise will go to 32mph at most when set to 30.

Fight it - the legal system is there to ensure justice. Just taking the speed awareness course even though you were already aware of your speed makes no sense.

You do realise that to get someone with the qualifications to prove the speed between two points was less than 30 mph will cost thousands, don't you?

Thought not.

Mercdriver

deaston wrote: »

I agree with someone further up - you have evidence that proves you weren't speeding, so defend it.

If they could question the reading of your dashcam, could you do some tests to confirm the calibration? For example get someone to film you going at 30mph and show the dashcam registering 30mph (or more likely 28/29mph) along that same stretch of road? Could you measure the distance between a couple of points and then use them to confirm the speed you were going on the original footage?

Also, for them to register you going at 36mph, your speedo would be reading more like 38/39mph, which is something you'd remember and not a disparity your cruise would cause - my cruise will go to 32mph at most when set to 30.

Fight it - the legal system is there to ensure justice. Just taking the speed awareness course even though you were already aware of your speed makes no sense.

It's easy to say this when it is not your money you are risking.

The other side will call expert witnesses and the OP will need expert witnesses of his own. It will be an expensive day out and if the OP does get found not guilty, he will not get all his costs back.

I do think there is merit on going to pepipoo on this - AntonyMMM is a regular on there and is a motoring solicitor so take into account what he says.

If I could settle this with a simple SAC, I would. The risks are high and there is no reward as even found not guilty will see the OP out of pocket.

Unfair? Sure, but legal and to change this people need to get more involved in political process rather than simply whinge that the system works against them.