Speeding Ticket

DevonshireGent

Hi all. I'm 99% certain the answer to this question is no and I'm just being daft for even considering it, however I was driving home recently keeping to the speed limit, but as I was passing a speed camera some utter wally went racing passed triggering the speed camera to go off. My daft question is this; as I'm confident my car will have been in-shot might I potentially end up getting fined or anything? Like I say I wasn't speeding so I'm 99% sure the answers no, hopefully the machines are smart enough to identify which car was actually speeding, but I just wanted to check for my own peace of mind.

user1977

No, they don't just issue tickets to everyone who's also in shot. The cameras take two pics so they can identify what speed everyone was doing. 

clearancer

This happened to me back in 2010 (35 in a 30). I took it as far as I could, ended up in court with a solicitor (friend). Could not get the police to show me video/photography evidence. It was frustrating and I ended up with points and fine. 

Ant555

I dont suppose you have a dash cam - if yes, then maybe save the footage just in case.

DB1904

clearancer said:

This happened to me back in 2010 (35 in a 30). I took it as far as I could, ended up in court with a solicitor (friend). Could not get the police to show me video/photography evidence. It was frustrating and I ended up with points and fine. 

So there was evidence you were speeding?

ontheroad1970

clearancer said:

This happened to me back in 2010 (35 in a 30). I took it as far as I could, ended up in court with a solicitor (friend). Could not get the police to show me video/photography evidence. It was frustrating and I ended up with points and fine. 

Why did your solicitor friend not ask for the footage?  You would have been entitled to it in the event of a court based not guilty plea.  That's if you were caught by a camera rather than just by a policeman using a speed gun without video footage being taken.

TooManyPoints

You would have been entitled to it in the event of a court based not guilty plea.  

That's only a limited entirlement:

1. It assumes such material actually exists. Most speeding offences do not rely on photographs to measure the alleged speed. A photo is usually only necessary to identify the vehicle. 

2. The prosecution are only obliged to serve the evidence they intend to use to secure a conviction and any "unused material" they have which will either undermine their case or assist that of the defence.

If there was no dispute as to the identity of the vehicle the prosecution would be unlikely to rely on photographs for their case and if the photograph(s) did not actually provide proof of the speed they would be unlikely to undermine the prosecution or assist the defence.

The biggest problem with this principle is that it is the prosecution who make the decision on what material is to be released and what is not. This leaves the defendant at a disadvantage because (1) he cannot tell whether the material will be of use to him or not unless he sees it, and (2) he's not allowed to see it unless the prosecution agrees. All he will have is a schedule of unused material. He must persuade the court to order the release of such material and he must explain why he wants it. See point (1) above for an explanation of the difficulties this may present. 

An approved device, operated in the correct manner is assumed to be reliable unless the contrary can be proved. This means that for a speeding prosecution to succeed all the prosecution has to do is to prove who was driving, and then prove that the speed was measured by an approved device operated in the correct manner. If they do that, the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove that the measurement cannot be relied upon. Note that he has to prove it, not simply cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Saying "This might have happened", "That could have happened" or (in this case) "The device could have measured the speed of the vehicle in the next lane and not mine" will not do. He has to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the prosecution's evidence cannot be relied upon. So far as proving a device is faulty goes, it is largely impossible without expert help. The defendant will have to pay for this and even if he is acquitted it is unlikely that he will recover those costs. If he is convicted he will be ordered to pay prosecution costs, which may include those of any experts they have to engage to counter the defendant's contentions. Here's a chap who learned a rather harsh lesson when trying to prove he was right: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

ontheroad1970

TooManyPoints said:

You would have been entitled to it in the event of a court based not guilty plea.  

That's only a limited entirlement:

1. It assumes such material actually exists. Most speeding offences do not rely on photographs to measure the alleged speed. A photo is usually only necessary to identify the vehicle. 

2. The prosecution are only obliged to serve the evidence they intend to use to secure a conviction and any "unused material" they have which will either undermine their case or assist that of the defence.

If there was no dispute as to the identity of the vehicle the prosecution would be unlikely to rely on photographs for their case and if the photograph(s) did not actually provide proof of the speed they would be unlikely to undermine the prosecution or assist the defence.

The biggest problem with this principle is that it is the prosecution who make the decision on what material is to be released and what is not. This leaves the defendant at a disadvantage because (1) he cannot tell whether the material will be of use to him or not unless he sees it, and (2) he's not allowed to see it unless the prosecution agrees. All he will have is a schedule of unused material. He must persuade the court to order the release of such material and he must explain why he wants it. See point (1) above for an explanation of the difficulties this may present. 

An approved device, operated in the correct manner is assumed to be reliable unless the contrary can be proved. This means that for a speeding prosecution to succeed all the prosecution has to do is to prove who was driving, and then prove that the speed was measured by an approved device operated in the correct manner. If they do that, the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove that the measurement cannot be relied upon. Note that he has to prove it, not simply cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Saying "This might have happened", "That could have happened" or (in this case) "The device could have measured the speed of the vehicle in the next lane and not mine" will not do. He has to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the prosecution's evidence cannot be relied upon. So far as proving a device is faulty goes, it is largely impossible without expert help. The defendant will have to pay for this and even if he is acquitted it is unlikely that he will recover those costs. If he is convicted he will be ordered to pay prosecution costs, which may include those of any experts they have to engage to counter the defendant's contentions. Here's a chap who learned a rather harsh lesson when trying to prove he was right: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

I did make the point of 1 in my post.  If there was footage available, I would be surprised if it were not presented or made available, as it can prove or disprove guilt.  

DevonshireGent

Thanks for the replies all. Just thought I should post an quick update to say it's been over a month now and no ticket or anything's arrived, so looks like all is fine, I needn't have worried.