Speeding Ticket

Danceyy

Blank as Now moved to a seperate forum

Shaun_of_the_Dead

Danceyy wrote: »

I have received a speeding ticket for 42 in a 30.

I travel this way to work every single day and I know there are camera vans down there weekly. Therefore I pay close attention to my speed to make sure I don’t go over.

In the image there is a tree and it’s leaves blocking the photo. I don’t believe I was speeding.

Would you fight this?

What do you intend as your defence? You'll need more than you don't believe you were speeding.

EssexExile

You need an expert witness who can state that the tree had affected the speed reading. The experts will be along later & will probably say that, depending what sort of camera it was, the photo is not part of the speed recording process.

Aretnap

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

What do you intend as your defence? You'll need more than you don't believe you were speeding.

Yes, but what about 'I don't believe I was speeding, and there's a tree in the picture'?

(In seriousness you are presumably not claiming that it was the tree that was traveling at 42mph, so what relevance do you think it has?)

Danceyy

I have been sent two photos.

1st picture has the speed of -42mph in the corner, but in this photo there is a tree fully obscuring the back of my car.

2nd picture has no speed reading but you can clearly see my car.

Why isn’t there a speed reading on the 2nd picture?

What other defence can I have than I don’t speed?

I’m asking for advice, not for someone to reply like I’m stupid, I haven’t experienced this before.

facade

Go to pepipoo dot com, register with an email that isn't hotmail, and ask in the speeding and other criminal offences forum.


42 is most likely going to get a course, which costs you a day off work and about £100.


Otherwise, fighting it on a technicality like somehow the moving leaves affect the reading will cost you thousands if you don't win.


Are you absolutely sure that you were below 30mph? They only need show you were above 30 to prosecute. Did you think that area was a 40 limit?

Rolandtheroadie

Aretnap wrote: »

(In seriousness you are presumably not claiming that it was the tree that was traveling at 42mph, so what relevance do you think it has?)

Not 100% on the science behind it all, and I'm sure I'll be shot down by some of the more helpful members, but suspect this happened to me before.

The pictures I was sent had one with a + on my vehicle (motorbike, so quite narrow), and a second picture where the + seemed to be on a blurred (in the picture) branch of a bush at the side of the road, not my bike.

I'd assumed speed was calculated by a returning signal from the object being targeted. If that object had changed, wouldn't the speed as well? Signal returned quicker, speed registered as higher?

facade

Speed cameras are totally and utterly infallible :rotfl:
They measure the distance to the target repeatedly over about 1/3 of a second, and calculate the speed from how quickly the distance changes.


They will disregard a nonsense reading like if the distance suddenly jumps from car to tree.


The photo they send may show the distance to target and the speed, -42 means moving away at 42 mph. The photo is a still from video footage, it need not be the actual measurement (although they will have that)


As speed cameras are recognised to be totally and utterly infallible, if it goes to court you need to produce an expert to explain why your reading is wrong (which costs money) meanwhile the prosecution will produce an unbelievably expensive expert who will explain why it is right.


As speed cameras are recognised to be totally and utterly infallible these technical defences rarely work, and the fees for the experts just get added to your costs.




A successful defence is to show that the speed is that of a different vehicle, e.g. you were being overtaken, there have been cases on pepipoo where this has happened, and a bemused request to the SCP to recheck their camera footage has resulted in the case being cancelled.


There may be some mileage in saying that the tree obscured the camera view of the car- ask at pepipoo.


(Despite my cynicism about the camera, I'm inclined to think the OP was doing 42, most likely in what he believed was a 40 limit but wasn't)

Car_54

Danceyy wrote: »

I have been sent two photos.

1st picture has the speed of -42mph in the corner, but in this photo there is a tree fully obscuring the back of my car.

2nd picture has no speed reading but you can clearly see my car.

Why isn’t there a speed reading on the 2nd picture?

What other defence can I have than I don’t speed?

I’m asking for advice, not for someone to reply like I’m stupid, I haven’t experienced this before.

Any photos at this stage are provided as a courtesy, usually to help you identify the driver. They are not necessarily the images which will be used in evidence.

owen_money

Danceyy wrote: »

What other defence can I have than I don’t speed?

Well you've convinced me and if I was the magistrate I'd let you off

AdrianC

Danceyy wrote: »

I don’t believe I was speeding.

Danceyy wrote: »

What other defence can I have than I don’t speed?

They have photos that say otherwise.

There's two photos at a set time apart, and the speed can be calculated from the distance between the car in them. Basic maths.

42mph = 18.7m per second
30mph = 13.9m per second

So there's several options here:
1. It's not your car
2. It's not you driving
3. There's a technical fault with the equipment
4. You're mistaken.
...and that's about all of them.

So - which do you think is the correct option?
If you think 4 is impossible, then you can opt to take it to court.

Remember, if you choose to take this to court, you will need to show there is reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. And if you're found guilty in court, the penalty will be stiffer than if you'd taken a fixed penalty, let alone an afternoon of tea and biccies.

Ever heard of William of Ockham? He was the 13th century monk who came up with "Ockham's Razor". In its most basic form, it says "The simplest solution is most likely the right one." It's not been proved wrong in nearly 800 years.