Challenge speeding offence

QrizB

facade said:

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

matt_drummer said:

Were you actually speeding?

Are you adamant they are wrong because you were not speeding or is it that they are correct but you want to demonstrate that they cannot prove it?

Definitely not speeding,  I dont speed. 

What was the speed limit for a Goods Vehicle (or were you driving a sub 3.05 tonne motor home?) on that road, and what speed were you definitely doing?

The second photo looks very much like the rear doors of a second-gen Renault Trafic / Vauxhall Vivaro /Nissan Primastar.

Rather like this one (photo from AutoTrader):

Yorkshirebloke68

Also the calibration certificate states checks up to 150m ( i know it can do 100m) but calibration distance is incremental from 25 to 150.. my first photo starts at 204m and then 354m . How can grass produce a 58mph speed ? Im thinking i may have be overtaking a 40mph vehicle which would take about 7 seconds and they swayed ( slippaged) the camera as it gets me clear saying 55mph on to the grass photo showing 58mph? How can grass be 58mph?) So if their whole video ( requested) shows shaky and poor target acquisition and the stats too? just do not remove doubt? 

Mildly_Miffed

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

Also the calibration certificate states checks up to 150m ( i know it can do 100m) but calibration distance is incremental from 25 to 150.. my first photo starts at 204m and then 354m . How can grass produce a 58mph speed ? Im thinking i may have be overtaking a 40mph vehicle which would take about 7 seconds and they swayed ( slippaged) the camera as it gets me clear saying 55mph on to the grass photo showing 58mph? How can grass be 58mph?) So if their whole video ( requested) shows shaky and poor target acquisition and the stats too? just do not remove doubt? 

The entire video will be entered as evidence into court, in accordance with the normal rules of evidential disclosure. It is not needed for the purposes of helping identify the driver, which is why those stills have been provided.

photome

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

Also the calibration certificate states checks up to 150m ( i know it can do 100m) but calibration distance is incremental from 25 to 150.. my first photo starts at 204m and then 354m . How can grass produce a 58mph speed ? Im thinking i may have be overtaking a 40mph vehicle which would take about 7 seconds and they swayed ( slippaged) the camera as it gets me clear saying 55mph on to the grass photo showing 58mph? How can grass be 58mph?) So if their whole video ( requested) shows shaky and poor target acquisition and the stats too? just do not remove doubt? 

Were you driving a van and what speed were you doing

ps I am also a veteran ( no idea why that is relevant)  and have just completed a speed awareness course , it was interesting

Yorkshirebloke68

40mph then may have ? Overtaken a slow vehicle accelerate for 7 seconds sounds feasible up to 48mph.  Presume the camera guy switches view and be very interesting to see that. From experience even on bipod shoots, switching target is a huge swing before you take a shot on ranges.  I strongly believe I was travelling at 40 because of a vehicle in front,  on a 60mph road ( yes 50mph for my van , even though the exact same van declared as a camper can do 60mph!) So i was not driving erratic or speeding and then they send this very questionable evidence which demands answers.  The police refuse to help at all and just say go to court and if you dare question it  we've got massive fines and points and that affects my job prospects and gives extra fines on my premiums for years. Its a huge penalty for a technicality if they refuse to doubt the speed details.  3 factors.  The 1st pic taken at 203m is 53m further than calibration certificate states and 354m too ( of grass,) the increase in speed is impossible due to their time distance travelled.  How csn their own evidence contradict it?

TooManyPoints

The entire video will be entered as evidence into court,...

Only (assuming it exists) if he police intend to rely on it to secure a conviction Otherwise it should be listed on the schedule of "unused material" and the defendant will have to persuade the court to order its release. To do that he will have to show that he believes it will either support his defence or undermine the prosecution's case.

The bottom line on this is that the device is assumed to be working correctly unless the contrary can be shown. The operator will testify that it was operated in the prescribed manner. So to secure an acquittal the OP will have to show that one or both of those claims cannot be relied on.

It is clear from some of things he has stated that he is under a number of fundamental misunderstandings regarding the way speed cameras work and the way they are operated. If he is to provide a court with the doubt they must have so as to acquit him he will almost certainly require expert advice and representation. He will have to pay for that, with much of that payment being unrecoverable even if he succeeds . Presenting to a court what he has related here will not work.

It is not clear why this matter has only recently exercised his mind - well over four months from the date of the offence - as he hasn't chosen to share that with us. But it doesn't really matter. Unless he can persuade the police to discontinue action (and I see no reason why they should) he will be prosecuted in court.

The only decision he will have to make is which way to plead. This chap was equally adamant he was innocent:

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

Mildly_Miffed

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

40mph then may have ? Overtaken a slow vehicle accelerate for 7 seconds sounds feasible up to 48mph.  Presume the camera guy switches view and be very interesting to see that. From experience even on bipod shoots, switching target is a huge swing before you take a shot on ranges.  I strongly believe I was travelling at 40 because of a vehicle in front,  on a 60mph road ( yes 50mph for my van , even though the exact same van declared as a camper can do 60mph!) So i was not driving erratic or speeding and then they send this very questionable evidence which demands answers.  The police refuse to help at all and just say go to court and if you dare question it  we've got massive fines and points and that affects my job prospects and gives extra fines on my premiums for years. Its a huge penalty for a technicality if they refuse to doubt the speed details.  3 factors.  The 1st pic taken at 203m is 53m further than calibration certificate states and 354m too ( of grass,) the increase in speed is impossible due to their time distance travelled.  How csn their own evidence contradict it?

It has been your choice to risk a "massive" penalty and points.
You could have opted for a speed awareness course.
You could have opted for a £100/3pt fixed penalty.
You have chosen not to. That leaves you with a court date.
Since you've stated that you "never" exceed the speed limit (except for this time), and thus presumably have a clean licence and have not done a course in the last three years, there are no overwhelming reasons why they would not have been offered to you.

You are still wilfully refusing to understand the calibration you have been provided with, despite the repeated explanations.

The stills extracted from the video were taken with your vehicle 204m and 354m away from the camera. Those stills show instantaneous speeds of 55 and 58mph in a 50mph limit for your vehicle.
The camera was calibrated at 150m, but that calibration is accurate to 1000m. You were filmed well within the range it is certified to.
The timestamps in the stills are not evidential - and those two stills could have been taken near-as-dammit 8 seconds apart, giving an average consistent with the instantaneous speeds.

If you want to cast reasonable doubt on the evidence, you will need to do a lot better than pointing at two stills and shouting "STANDS TO REASON DUNNIT! I USED TO BE IN THE ARMY!"

I stand by my earlier suggestion that either you thought you were safe at what would have been an indicated speed of a bit over 60 in an NSL, or you simply didn't realise your van had a lower limit and thought you were around the applicable limit.

Okell

The irony...

Car_54

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

where do I state stands to reason dunnit etc,  you arrogant !!!!!!. Your cherry picking all the easy options to admit guilt,  just to cave in to peer pressure and a system which is psychologically designed to ' don't dare question " ignoring that there are credible contradictions and no explanation given when politely asking for help. Sarcasm & Arrogance is a vile trait that no one asked for. At the end of the day its money and points i, and any reasonable person would question with such glaringly obvious contradictions.. this forum is meant to offer valid advice not sone jumped up self righteous tw4t's ignorant opinion.  So !!!!!! if you just come on here to gloat and act smug.

You have been offered valid advice, but you seem unable to accept it.

It is obviously your prerogative  to ignore advice, but one wonders why you asked for it in the first place.

TooManyPoints

ignoring that there are credible contradictions and no explanation given when politely asking for help.

I beg to differ.

You have been given ample explanations for your confusion - explanations which will be provided to the court if you should defend the charge on the basis you describe.

The difficulty is that you gave consistently dismissed those explanations and instead maintain you are right. 

this forum is meant to offer valid advice

My advice (which is reasonably valid because I know a little bit about these things) is to minimise the damage by pleading guilty. Your alternative is to plead not guilty and defend the charge on the basis you describe. It is my belief you will not succeed with that. 

So it’s your call and ranting at people on here with whom you disagree will not alter that. 

Just out of interest, is there any reason why his has only just attracted your attention? Have you only just learned of the allegation? I ask because it may influence the way you are treated in the event you decide to plead guilty. I can advise you about that if you are interested.

But if you're only going to rant and rave , throwing insults, you need not bother.