Mobile Camera Speeding Offence "Rolling Footage"

To add, OP, see what the Safety Partnership send - I'll be pleasantly surprised if what they send is what they intend to rely on in court. Review what they send first, but your best chance of fighting this without cost to yourself might be to show them what you have and see if they cave in. They may decide not to proceed, they may just say see you in court. There is also a risk they could withdraw SAC and fixed penalty offers and just say see you in court if you handle this in a bull in a china shop way.

I would supply it in a way that says you're curious that they have found you speeding but your dash cam thinks otherwise.

The difficulty is that their equipment is calibrated, yours isn't. And by calibrated, I mean accepted legally as such. You can change settings on your dashcam to change the date for example - mine came with a defaukt date and time.

Choose your battles. This one isn't unwinnable, but if winning leaves you out of pocket, is it worth the fight? That's up to you, but there are quite a few stories on Pepipoo where people have turned down an SAC and ended up much much worse off.

AsaBlade wrote: »

Exactly the underlying reason behind why I am wanting to find out about the technology first and foremeost.

I know there will be a high burden of proof upon me, firstly to establish why their equipment was faulty/misinterpreted/misused/innacurate etc, but secondly, as to then why my evidence (a tracker, a Dash Cam and my recollection) is admissible and "out trumps" their evidence.

As it would be a criminal trial the level of proof needs to be "beyond any reasonable doubt". On top of this, the trial would sit in front of a Magistrate (no disrespect to a magistrates) but unless they are an expert in dash cam and tracking technology (which I very much doubt it) then they're immediate position will be to sit with the "superior" technology and the expert witnesses.

All of this is a bit of a digression from my original post which was aimed at trying to understand the technology more; how it works, how it's used and how the data it provides is then analysed and interpreted. Because, ultimately, if I am to mount any form of a defence that would be accept this is where it would stem from.

Once I've received the further evidence from the Camera Partnership I'll post back.

You misunderstand, you only need to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution evidence.

deaston wrote: »

In that case, reading all this makes me feel sorry for the OP. Like me, it sounds like he sticks to the limit and probably gets tailgated and overtaken constantly, and he still gets accused of speeding and points on his licence. May as well just break the limit.

I guess I assumed the legal system was there to uphold the law - not make it difficult for someone who is innocent to prove themselves as such, especially when the OP has such clear evidence.

If it was me, I'd fight it regardless of cost.

The way speeding cases are prosecuted is reactionary to people's attempts to exploit loopholes. That's why it is a little messy. I think it needs to be looked at and overhauled personally, but I can't see this happening as it serves its purpose 99% of the time, and it isn't enough of a hot potato politically as people haven't been whipped up to mass hysteria like some have been by immigration.

Politicians won't change things unless a) it clearly isn't working for a large proportion of people and mostly b) it threatens their existence as a governing party.

deaston wrote: »

Although the OP's footage would surely show the speed camera van and vehicles before and after the OP would match those filmed by the speed camera, so there'd be no question that the footage was the same day.

Use you knowledge then. Tell him about the rules of disclosure and how he can get the evidence from the police to prove that.

Mercdriver wrote: »

To add, OP, see what the Safety Partnership send - I'll be pleasantly surprised if what they send is what they intend to rely on in court. Review what they send first, but your best chance of fighting this without cost to yourself might be to show them what you have and see if they cave in. They may decide not to proceed, they may just say see you in court. There is also a risk they could withdraw SAC and fixed penalty offers and just say see you in court if you handle this in a bull in a china shop way.

I would supply it in a way that says you're curious that they have found you speeding but your dash cam thinks otherwise.

The difficulty is that their equipment is calibrated, yours isn't. And by calibrated, I mean accepted legally as such. You can change settings on your dashcam to change the date for example - mine came with a defaukt date and time.

Choose your battles. This one isn't unwinnable, but if winning leaves you out of pocket, is it worth the fight? That's up to you, but there are quite a few stories on Pepipoo where people have turned down an SAC and ended up much much worse off.

I think this is sensible advice. If you are so confident about your evidence, try to share it with them in the way suggested. If your evidence is persuasive and conclusive they may drop it to avoid embarrassment in court. But I'd have to say, I think it's more likely that you are mistaken in some way and that you actually were speeding.


I'd second the advice of mercdriver and other posters to post over on Pepipoo. I've read many speeding posts on there and I don't think I can recall one where somebody has successfully challenged one of these devices in court. And if the prosecution bring in expert witnesses to support the technology, I understand you could be talking about four figures in costs (not including your own costs).


I'm not sure whether understanding the technology helps you. Presumably you've been pinged by a laser device at a range of up to 1000m (I know you say 500m, but are you sure?) and it has calculated your speed virtually instantaneously. The court will presume the device is accurate. Can you cast reasonable doubt on that? Will your uncalibrated dashcam footage be enough to do so? How can you prove its accuracy?


If you really want to understand the technology get over to Pepipoo where you can discuss things like "cosine slippage" (I think).


I'd get over to Pepipoo anyway, if I were you.