Challenge speeding offence

Yorkshirebloke68

was sent an nip and asked for the evidence , which also included the calibration certificate.  The evidence provided contains irrefutable proof I wasn't speed as it may say 55mph to 58 but the images time stamps show i travelled 150m in 7 seconds which is 48mph. Their own calibration certificate states accuracy to 1000m and measurement from 1st to 2nd is 150m so I asked the police to drop it due to their provided evidence clears me. They wont and sent a quite blunt arrogant reply saying we know its right. This is causing me anxiety and they know the process is the punishment too. But how can they claim im speeding when their own time/ distance is 48mph . They have been given evidence that clears me.?

LightFlare

That’s showing you were doing 58 and then 150m later were doing 55.

Your average may have been less but at 2 distinct points you were in excess.

Its not an average speed camera

what was the posted limit as a course may have been offered if you were eligible

*edit - a course may not be offered now since the offence was over 4 months ago - unless the date format is in USA format

Car_54

A speedmeter does not calculate average speed over a period of seconds: rather it measures your speed (effectively) instantaneously. If you were exceeding the limit even momentarily you have committed an offence, and your average speed is totally irrelevant. 

The device is type approved, and you have been shown that it is calibrated. Its accuracy will be accepted by a court unless you can prove that it malfunctioned. Your average speed calculation does not do that.

matt_drummer

For the speeds shown to be accurate and your average speed to only be 48mph you would have had to have slowed down dramatically, presumably when you saw the speed camera, and then speed up again once you thought your were clear (whilst approaching the sharp right hand bend!)

Is that what happened, it is the only explanation if the speed camera is correct?

Keep_pedalling

You have already been given all the advice needed over on the FTLA forum, you are not going to get the answer you are looking for here.

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/police-evidence-is-my-defence-and-they-still-insist-to-prosecute-process-is-the-/

You must reply to the NIP naming the driver, failure to do so will leave you with 6 points a large fine and massively increased insurance premiums for the next few years. 

If you still think you have a case then refuse the speeding course or fixed penalty and have your day in court, but be prepared to still get the 3 points, but with a much bigger fine plus costs.

facade

The camera measures your speed in a few milliseconds, so the speeds on the photos are near enough your instantaneous speeds at those two points. (The trick here is that those photos are to show you that they have your vehicle- "help identify the driver" as they say, not to evidence the speeding, the actual evidence comes out when you plead not guilty and get the evidence pack)

The times are from a clock that only displays whole seconds, so the times to the nearest millisecond could have been 11:10:33.000  and 11:10:26.999 which is only 6.001 seconds between frames, rather than 7 seconds.

Similarly, the distances are given to 0.5m (so you can add 0.5m to the distance travelled), they haven’t even got the cross hairs on the target in the first shot, so the displayed measurement isn't directly linked to the video.

Bottom line, they will have evidence from a device, proven to have sufficient accuracy, that your vehicle was travelling in excess of the threshold for enforcement (technically they only need prove that you were exceeding the limit by 1MPH to stop you trying for dismissal under de-minimis- if the limit is 50 and they tried prosecution at 50.5 de minimis might have a chance, and you could question the absolute accuracy of the measurements) and will be more than happy to show that evidence should you wish to enter a not guilty plea before Court, and then to produce a very expensive expert at the hearing (that you will pay for when you lose) to refute your calculations if they are your sole defence.

Best to accept a course if offered, and even the 3 points if not unless you have 9 already. 

By all means take this to ftla dot uk  for better advice- the cross hairs not being on the vehicle in the first frame seem odd to me, but the verge can't have been doing 58 MPH!

Keep_pedalling

One more point, the time stamps don’t have any decimal places so the time to travel 150m would have been between somewhere between 6 and 8 seconds giving between 42 and 56 mph average speed, so do not offer you the evidence you think it does,all is shows is your speed was decreasing after you were clocked at 58mph. 

This is not an average speed trap you were clocking at 58mph and unless you can produce expert witness evidence that the equipment was faulty you don’t have a hope in hell of dodging this one.

matt_drummer

Keep_pedalling said:

One more point, the time stamps don’t have any decimal places so the time to travel 150m would have been between somewhere between 6 and 8 seconds giving between 42 and 56 mph average speed, so do not offer you the evidence you think it does,all is shows is your speed was decreasing after you were clocked at 58mph. 

This is not an average speed trap you were clocking at 58mph and unless you can produce expert witness evidence that the equipment was faulty you don’t have a hope in hell of dodging this one.

Not that it really matters, speed was actually increasing, the `first' picture is actually the second

Yorkshirebloke68

The 1st photo says 55mph the 2nd 58mph ( a field) how can speed up, not brake and cover 150m which they say their calibration certificate is accurate too? Its physically impossible.  Also the main picture is a field and the secondary was actually the 1st photo. They have sent me more than enough evidence to clear me or at least cause doubt as something has to be incorrect.  

Mildly_Miffed

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

...so I asked the police to drop it due to their provided evidence clears me. They wont and sent a quite blunt arrogant reply saying we know its right.

The police cannot and will not "drop it".

I presume you have officially accepted you were driving in response to the request to identify the driver.

Have you been offered a course or 3pt fixed penalty?
If so, then you have a choice - you can accept that, and in doing so admit your guilt, or you can refuse them and request a court date.

You then produce your evidence to the court. The court may or may not accept that it casts reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.

"accuracy to 1000m" means that the camera is certified as accurate for vehicles between 0m away from it and 1000m away from it. You were 204m from it in the first shot and 350m from it in the second. Both of those are less than 1000m.

The process is not "part of the punishment". In fact, you're being offered a much quicker and easier way to deal with the accusation than for just about any other crime you may commit. If you want to claim you did not commit the crime, then you need to opt for that normal criminal justice route.

But, as has been explained to you...
11.10.26 to 11.10.33 covers a period that could be between 6.01 seconds and 7.99 seconds.
11.10.26.999 to 11.10.33.000 versus 11.10.26.000 to 11.10.33.999

6.01 seconds to travel 150m would be 56mph average between the two shots. That would fit with the photos.
You are assuming precisely 7.00 seconds, giving 48mph.
7.99 seconds to travel 150m would give 42mph.

The timestamp is not evidentiary proof of your speed, it is just there to identify when the photos were taken.
The speed readings are evidentiary proof or your speed.

By all means, you can refuse the fixed penalty or course, and opt for court. You do not have sufficient evidence in your interpretation of those photos to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution evidence. You will lose, and it will cost you more than accepting that you drove past a speed camera above the speed limit. Your speedo would almost certainly have been reading north of 60mph at the time.

Can I take a further guess? Is it an NSL road, and you forgot that your van was subject to a lower NSL than a car?

MEM62

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

The 1st photo says 55mph the 2nd 58mph ( a field) how can speed up, not brake and cover 150m which they say their calibration certificate is accurate too? Its physically impossible.  Also the main picture is a field and the secondary was actually the 1st photo. They have sent me more than enough evidence to clear me or at least cause doubt as something has to be incorrect.  

If you are so sure that you are right, then it is your prerogative to ignore all the opinions voiced here and have your day in court.  Please do come back and let us know how it went.