Challenge speeding offence

LightFlare

As already mentioned - the Police are under NO obligation to share anything untill court (if they wish)

The options are:

1) accept the allegation and pay whatever is due
2) challenge the allegation in court

The OP has chosen 2 (we assume, since they have not given any details on what they received, when they received it or how they responded)

They have been quite thoroughly advised on how their defence might play out - either way

Seems a lot of fuss, hassle and stress (self inflicted) even now over what could have originally been an awareness course

ThorOdinson

HHarry said:

paul_c123 said:

Okell said:

The most likely explanation of the photos the police have sent you is that they are to assist you in "identifying the driver", and they do not necessarily form any part of the evidence that they will rely on when (or if) they prosecute you. 

From the first picture, and I may be wrong, I believe it is "wheat".

Let's face it, its a pretty terrible pic to send out in the circumstances. They could have selected 2 much better ones.

 I have to agree.  One picture of 58mph wheat and one at 55mph which is below the ‘usual’ threshold for prosecution.

It shows what a joke these things are. Measuring wheat at 58MPH.

The OP is screwed through, the court won't care. Unless he has multiple meters (speedo, GPS records) showing he wasn't speeding, there is basically no chance of challenging this.

TadleyBaggie

ThorOdinson said:

It shows what a joke these things are. Measuring wheat at 58MPH.

But it almost certainly didn't, I'd bet when the 58MPH speed was detected that the vehicle was properly targeted. The 58MPH would then stay on the screen and for whatever reason the camera is no longer targeting the vehicle. So just because the still they sent says 58MPH, that doesn't necessarily mean at that precise point in time that was the speed.

Without seeing the actual full video of the event, nothing is certain but I'd bet it would show a valid ping.

LightFlare

ThorOdinson said:

HHarry said:

paul_c123 said:

Okell said:

The most likely explanation of the photos the police have sent you is that they are to assist you in "identifying the driver", and they do not necessarily form any part of the evidence that they will rely on when (or if) they prosecute you. 

From the first picture, and I may be wrong, I believe it is "wheat".

Let's face it, its a pretty terrible pic to send out in the circumstances. They could have selected 2 much better ones.

 I have to agree.  One picture of 58mph wheat and one at 55mph which is below the ‘usual’ threshold for prosecution.

It shows what a joke these things are. Measuring wheat at 58MPH.

The OP is screwed through, the court won't care. Unless he has multiple meters (speedo, GPS records) showing he wasn't speeding, there is basically no chance of challenging this.

I agree the OP is possibly “screwed”

I disagree- the court WILL care if the OP decides to defend the case and present expert witnesses to refute any evidence the Police wish to offer.

As mentioned many times in this thread - those two stills are not the full extent of evidence they will hold and are merely released as a courtesy (usually following a request to identify the driver)

Shame the still is showing wheat as a few people seem insistent at clutching at straw 

They and the OP may actually be correct - but this needs to be challenged and won in court.
Its hard to determine anything clearly since the OP has failed on multiple occasions to engage and provide clear and coherent information and answers - when people are actually trying to help 

Goudy

WellKnownSid said:

The biggest issue is - whether innocent or guilty - the OP is suffering heavily from confirmation bias. This is causing them to go down a rabbit hole that’ll pretty much guarantee a successful prosecution.

I don’t know anything about the military but in civilian life such as aviation a lot of time and money is put into situational awareness and objective decision making to avoid falling into such traps.

I suggested something similar back on page three of this thread and actually got a "thanks" from the OP for it.

Reading the posts and filling in a few things with my own imagination, I started to form an opinion that I think others might have also formed. That the way this defence is expressed without taking onboard whatever advise being offered might be an indication of this being "Custer's last stand".

I mean the punishment might not be a simple case of being offered a speed awareness course and taking a fine and a few points probably has bigger implications. 

The images are of a van, so it's possible that any successful prosecution just might have some serious job or work implications particularly is the OP is teetering on the edge in regards to points already, so the SAC isn't available and the points push them into a ban.

So there could be a reason that the option of grasping at any straw, no matter how weak, is an option they feel worth taking and they just want that decision reinforced. 

But I will repeat what others and I have already written.
Yes, there is some ambiguity with the two images with time and distance that the police have shared with you, but they have only shared these with your for identification purposes.

You need to prepare a defence for what they will use for prosecution and these two things aren't the same thing.

 

Mildly_Miffed

Goudy said:

I mean the punishment might not be a simple case of being offered a speed awareness course and taking a fine and a few points probably has bigger implications. 

The images are of a van, so it's possible that any successful prosecution just might have some serious job or work implications particularly is the OP is teetering on the edge in regards to points already, so the SAC isn't available and the points push them into a ban.

The OP assured us on p3 that they never exceed the speed limit, so we can assume they have not done an SAC in the past three years. The speed is well within the threshold for one being offered, and North Yorkshire run them. Therefore it is more than likely one was offered, but the OP has refused it. It is possible they are already on 9pts for other offences - or 3 within 2yrs of their first test pass - but that would just be a stronger argument for taking the course.

The van is clearly a private vehicle, as the OP stated on p2 they're unemployed but seeking driving jobs. There are plenty of jobs around that do not insist upon a clean licence.

Since we are not getting answers to questions, just continued denial of reality, we are forced to guess and extrapolate from those statements and few answers given.

Actions have consequences. Always have, always will.

Goudy

They also stated they weren't speeding, but the images suggest otherwise.

Mildly_Miffed

Goudy said:

They also stated they weren't speeding, but the images suggest otherwise.

Oh, indeed.

But I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on that, in that they were within the normal car NSL rather than the lower limit for their van.

This may also explain much of their outrage at having been caught.

Yorkshirebloke68

I have found 3 pillars of doubt which I wont list on here,(to give any snooping police a heads up) but just to say after a weekend of hyperfixation (adhd trait) I truly appreciate the university style of referencing up to masters level when you ever make a statement. The advice given on the topic is mostly opinions and some very arsey opinionated types too which offer nothing but 'told ya so,' trolling type comments or 'shoulda took the course' just admit it, your gonna be laughed at etc  etc..useless unhelpful and irrelevant to actual FACTS that I have methodically now detailed and cross referenced with links, stats, operating procedural failings, missing protocols and error recognition failures too.  This is NOT an attempt to 'get off' it never has been purely about trying to get off with a crime, but their own evidence fails from the off and when asked for help I was simply told 'we know 58mph is right ' which lead to me having a some what ruined weekend all because I will not admit to something, I genuinely do not have irrefutable proof of doing. Being pressured with massive fines, extra costs etc is also a mitigating factor to challenge as how many people cave in due to the harshly worded threats of 'if you waste our time at court we will impose much harsher penalties?  When all i was asking for was absolute proof as the bits provided are contradictory and now upon a much deeper look also has more than ever questions and 'doubts' that this was done correctly. The CPS will be given the letter and files asap .. 

paul_c123

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

............. something, I genuinely do not have irrefutable proof of doing. ............. all i was asking for was absolute proof ..........

As has been explained already, what they've sent you so far is NOT the evidence the prosecution take to court to present their case with. They're just stills from the video captured at the time. Speed cameras work by using the doppler effect of a pulse of laser beams (LIDAR) or radar. But that bundle of evidence hasn't been given to you yet. There is a process, where they will review the evidence then make a decision whether to press ahead with court action.