Speeding ticket from test drive

MarkPstranger

jimjames said:

MarkPstranger said:

Thanks for all the answers here. I don’t know if I went precisely past the camera at the start of my test drive as the picture sent by the police shows somewhere near the route so that’s possible. 

The photographic evidence form the police is the back of the car and that’s not clear where it is and there’s no picture of the driver.

The reason I don’t believe it was me is that the offence took place 30 mins after I started the test drive according to the dealership documents and it shows me returning the vehicle at exactly the time of the offence. However I am categorically sure that the end of my route was nowhere near the camera location.
I’ve sent the forms to say I wasn’t driving now twice to the police but they twice came back to me saying that the dealership asserts I am driving.

If the picture shows the vehicle at the start of the test drive could it also be the same location at the end of the test drive? Was anyone else booked for a test drive directly after you? If there wasn't anyone else for an hour or so afterwards and car was shown to be sat in car park then it wouldn't really help your case.

If you have an Android phone (possibly iPhone too) then Google maps can show your timeline. When I checked mine for yesterday it accurately shows the time I left the house to go to DIY shop, when I got back and when I went out again. Worth looking to see what data is shown for the day of the test drive.

Thanks, I did look for location data at the time but there wasn’t anything on my phone I could use. The route I took was a circuit so there’s no way the start and end overlapped and the camera was about 3 mins into the route per google maps. 

I am 100% certain I was not even in sight of the camera at the end of the drive and recall exactly where I was as it was pulled over, near the dealership, checking out the in-car entertainment system.

It seems from the police/dealer that there is no other evidence but from the evidence and my recollection of events (which closely match) I could not have been driving at the time.

Ath_Wat

MarkPstranger said:

jimjames said:

MarkPstranger said:

Thanks for all the answers here. I don’t know if I went precisely past the camera at the start of my test drive as the picture sent by the police shows somewhere near the route so that’s possible. 

The photographic evidence form the police is the back of the car and that’s not clear where it is and there’s no picture of the driver.

The reason I don’t believe it was me is that the offence took place 30 mins after I started the test drive according to the dealership documents and it shows me returning the vehicle at exactly the time of the offence. However I am categorically sure that the end of my route was nowhere near the camera location.
I’ve sent the forms to say I wasn’t driving now twice to the police but they twice came back to me saying that the dealership asserts I am driving.

If the picture shows the vehicle at the start of the test drive could it also be the same location at the end of the test drive? Was anyone else booked for a test drive directly after you? If there wasn't anyone else for an hour or so afterwards and car was shown to be sat in car park then it wouldn't really help your case.

If you have an Android phone (possibly iPhone too) then Google maps can show your timeline. When I checked mine for yesterday it accurately shows the time I left the house to go to DIY shop, when I got back and when I went out again. Worth looking to see what data is shown for the day of the test drive.

Thanks, I did look for location data at the time but there wasn’t anything on my phone I could use. The route I took was a circuit so there’s no way the start and end overlapped and the camera was about 3 mins into the route per google maps. 

I am 100% certain I was not even in sight of the camera at the end of the drive and recall exactly where I was as it was pulled over, near the dealership, checking out the in-car entertainment system.

It seems from the police/dealer that there is no other evidence but from the evidence and my recollection of events (which closely match) I could not have been driving at the time.

Again, if you think at the alleged time of the offence you were pulled over nowhere near the camera, then the offence could not have occurred at that time even with someone else driving, as you were in the car.

Therefore someone has their timings wrong.  The timings you are going by are impossible if there is a photo of the car speeding at that time.

What evidence are you relying on to say that at the time of the photo you were pulled over?  Is it just what the dealership wrote down in a  book?  How far out does that have to be to allow for you being the driver at the time of the offence?

Ath_Wat

As I understand it you believe you had the car for example from 3pm to 3:30pm.  The speeding offence is at eg 3:28pm.  Your contention is that although you were in the car at this time and in the driving seat, you had arrived back at the dealership and were looking at the stereo?  Is this correct?

Ath_Wat

MalMonroe said:

You said this -

"The reason I don’t believe it was me is that the offence took place 30 mins after I started the test drive according to the dealership documents and it shows me returning the vehicle at exactly the time of the offence. However I am categorically sure that the end of my route was nowhere near the camera location.

I’ve sent the forms to say I wasn’t driving now twice to the police but they twice came back to me saying that the dealership asserts I am driving."

And I find it very disconcerting indeed that the police appear to have taken the dealer's word as being the correct version of events. Why is that? 

You also say,  " . . . sent the form I signed to do the test drive showing me as the driver.  But that isn't conclusive proof. It's proof only that you took that car out between those times for a test drive, and signed a form. 

And then - "there’s no picture of the driver." 

So in theory anybody could have been driving the car - even someone from the dealership. Somebody has to prove something definitively here and if the police cannot prove conclusively that you were driving that car at that particular place at that particular time, then surely there cannot be a case to answer? 

Even if the dealership has CCTV and that car is seen leaving and entering at specific times, that doesn't prove that you were the person speeding. Unless they have footage of you actually speeding, everything else is just conjecture.

If I were you I'd definitely contact a solicitor, see if you can have one of those free first appointments that many of them offer and discuss this with them. I'd be prepared to go to court because the police 'evidence' appears to be very flimsy but a solicitor can advise you more.

If it does go to court, then the police will have to prove that you were the driver at the time of the alleged offence. But it seems to me from what you have said that there is no positive proof. 

Except that  he doesn't contest that he was driving, or at least in the driving seat of the car at the time of the offence.  He contests that he was near the  speed camera.

The dealership have said he had the car at the time of the alleged offence and he agrees.  The evidence of the camera shows that the car was speeding during this time.

That's not a flimsy case.

user1977

And no doubt there is convincing evidence available that the speed camera's clock is properly calibrated, which I would expect would outweigh whatever scribbles are in the dealership's notes and the OP's even hazier recollection of timing.

facade

Take this to pepipoo.

The possibilities seem to me-

1) The number plate has been miss-read. Unlikely as the OP has seen the photo and it has been disputed already, so you'd think they'd check.

2) The number plate has been cloned.  Possible. Rather an unfortunate co-incidence if it has, and usually they don't clone an in-trade vehicle as it might get stopped.

3) The op was speeding and the camera clock is wrong. Odd that the camera clock would be wrong by half an hour though.

4) A subsequent driver was speeding and the camera clock is slow by 1 hour due to the GMT/BST thing. Possible.

The OP admits they were the driver at the stated time, but is adamant that the vehicle was not at the specified location at that time, however, there is a timestamped photograph to prove otherwise. 

iwb100

Was it a new car with trade plates? I suspect the only way it wasn’t OP driving is if somehow two cars were out at the same time and the dealers have somehow misrecorded who was driving which plate. But this only really works if it was trade plates and exact same model. And just seems unlikely….otherwise it’s likely just small timing errors on the camera or the OP…

Ath_Wat

facade said:

Take this to pepipoo.

The possibilities seem to me-

1) The number plate has been miss-read. Unlikely as the OP has seen the photo and it has been disputed already, so you'd think they'd check.

2) The number plate has been cloned.  Possible. Rather an unfortunate co-incidence if it has, and usually they don't clone an in-trade vehicle as it might get stopped.

3) The op was speeding and the camera clock is wrong. Odd that the camera clock would be wrong by half an hour though.

4) A subsequent driver was speeding and the camera clock is slow by 1 hour due to the GMT/BST thing. Possible.

The OP admits they were the driver at the stated time, but is adamant that the vehicle was not at the specified location at that time, however, there is a timestamped photograph to prove otherwise. 

Why have you discounted "The camera is correct and the OP is mistaken about the time they passed the camera"?  it's quite possible to be honestly mistaken about such things.

facade

Ath_Wat said:

facade said:

Take this to pepipoo.

The possibilities seem to me-

1) The number plate has been miss-read. Unlikely as the OP has seen the photo and it has been disputed already, so you'd think they'd check.

2) The number plate has been cloned.  Possible. Rather an unfortunate co-incidence if it has, and usually they don't clone an in-trade vehicle as it might get stopped.

3) The op was speeding and the camera clock is wrong. Odd that the camera clock would be wrong by half an hour though.

4) A subsequent driver was speeding and the camera clock is slow by 1 hour due to the GMT/BST thing. Possible.

The OP admits they were the driver at the stated time, but is adamant that the vehicle was not at the specified location at that time, however, there is a timestamped photograph to prove otherwise. 

Why have you discounted "The camera is correct and the OP is mistaken about the time they passed the camera"?  it's quite possible to be honestly mistaken about such things.

I took what the OP said as fact- they only passed the camera once at the start of the testdrive, half an hour before the camera photo and were parked up at the time on the photo.

I also didn't consider that the garage has two identical demonstrators, both were out at the same time and the garage mixed up which one the OP had (or the OP got in the wrong one) as iwb100 posted.

Ath_Wat

facade said:

Ath_Wat said:

facade said:

Take this to pepipoo.

The possibilities seem to me-

1) The number plate has been miss-read. Unlikely as the OP has seen the photo and it has been disputed already, so you'd think they'd check.

2) The number plate has been cloned.  Possible. Rather an unfortunate co-incidence if it has, and usually they don't clone an in-trade vehicle as it might get stopped.

3) The op was speeding and the camera clock is wrong. Odd that the camera clock would be wrong by half an hour though.

4) A subsequent driver was speeding and the camera clock is slow by 1 hour due to the GMT/BST thing. Possible.

The OP admits they were the driver at the stated time, but is adamant that the vehicle was not at the specified location at that time, however, there is a timestamped photograph to prove otherwise. 

Why have you discounted "The camera is correct and the OP is mistaken about the time they passed the camera"?  it's quite possible to be honestly mistaken about such things.

I took what the OP said as fact- they only passed the camera once at the start of the testdrive, half an hour before the camera photo and were parked up at the time on the photo.

I also didn't consider that the garage has two identical demonstrators, both were out at the same time and the garage mixed up which one the OP had (or the OP got in the wrong one) as iwb100 posted.

Well that's the thing isn't it; he hasn't told us why he believes that.  The best approximation we've had is because that's the time written in the garage records for him returning the car.  If a five minute error in that would give him time to  ave been passing the camera at the time of the photo, it becomes far and away the simplest explanation.

If he has any better evidence as to his perception of the timings, things change.