had a nip doing 36mph in a 30 from a mobile van which i saw from a very very long way away and made sure was not speeding from moment saw it. truly cant say i was nt doing 36 at the moment i first saw it which would of been at least half a mile away but banged on brakes and proceeded at 25.

this could cost me my job.so any advise please would be appreciated.married 2 kids etc would be a disaster.

have to say at the the time i was nt worried and am quite shocked at being done always seems to be 36mph.

I saw a picture on facebook recently that a friend of a friend put up of them being caught by a laser speed gun. If I remember rightly the range was something like 993m

im still mad as a wasp about this one and feel i wasnt speeding is there any chance of them being wrong and me prooving it

yes or no

A very small chance, do you have the funds to pay for it you fight it are found guilty?

sorry dont understand you. funds to pay for what exactly ,lawyers or extra fine. what are the concequencies of fighting this ticket.

If you fight it on some technical defence that the van measured your speed incorrectly, the prosecution will cal an expert witness to explain why it did not. If you lose, which is likely you will have to pay prosecution costs, including the expert. £620 is the set CPS figure for even a simple trial, but if no expert or other witness is called the prosecutor may ask for less. If you use a solicitor you will have to pay that fee, unless you win when you will get a contribution towards it.

Have you replied to the NIP? If not, write back asking for any available photographs to assist in identifying the driver, making no mention of proof or evidence which you are not entitled to at this stage. Most forces will send these or direct you to a website. Then you should be able to and confirm it was you. If you wash off the details and post it up here following the directions in the FAQs, people will be able to tell you if it is a clean ping.

This does not stop the time running on the 28 days you have to respond. Failing to identify the driver is a much more serious offence than speeding, so do not risk that.

This post has been edited by Logician: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 - 00:42

Whilst 'requesting avail photos to assist in ID of driver' is reasonable request before returning s172, the Police are not required to respond in time for s172 return, or at all, and they know most pics will be unable to ID driver.
However, NIPs are sent to the DVLA registered DK, who may not have been driver at the time, so a request for avail photos 'to ID vehicle committing the alleged offence' should be provided to RK, if avail, at earliest opportunity. eg cloned VRN on wrong vehicle. The effect is the same, should demonstrate clean ping, speed, distance and poss location. Hand held radar may not have photo capture.
For an alleged speed of 36 your speedo would prob indicate close to 40 but not less than 32. Any recorded speed above posted speed limit is enforceable but most drivers try to drive to the SL + 10% + 2mph tolerance allowed.
Yeah mistakes happen but your foot is on the pedal!

Corrected for you, Speedo's may over read by upto 10% they MAY NOT under read.

so basically they re always right and the alleged offender needs deep pockets to prove otherwise,time to join the the great unwashed in this stupid country and let them start giving me money.

for christ sake the punishment for shoplifting is less harsh and certainly less harmfull.

GO on i will answer that...shoplifting does not have the potential to kill,speeding in a few does.

Basically since according to your first post you cannot say you were not speeding when you first spotted the van, it is overwhelmingly likely that you were doing the speed alleged.

So how would a camera op form the opinion of reasonable grounds of suspected speeding, if he couldn't see the car, either?

This post has been edited by Mattexmo: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 - 09:19

The equipment has a zoom lense so he can see vehicles at distance. It is the car driver than probably not stop the camera van at 760m. Do try and keep up. Pete D

Colin Montgomerie was cleared of speeding on appeal in similar circumstances. Observing the vehicle through a zoom lens makes it more difficult to form an opinion due to foreshortening of the field of view. SO if the occifer used the lens to see the vehicle 900 odd metres away then it is arguable that he could not properly form any opinion.

Why? If he has experience looking at cars at that distance through the lens why would he not be able to form an opinion?

The OP believes he saw the van from 1/2 a mile away. This does not mean it was 1/2 a mile away when he was pinged.

My local pub is 200 yards from my house and I often walk there in a couple of minutes. Strangely when I leave I can see my house but it is a mile away and takes 1/2 an hour to walk there. Perception, a curious thing.

this is hat im on about seems to be a one sided bias with the the suspect having to proove his innocence.silly me i thought this was britain where you could rest assured they had to prove you were guilty.




sorry but you talk absolute bo11ox. you sir have been brainwashed .

not your fault but you are slightly biased towards the authorities.im so glad thats not me.

Agreed that they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were speeding. That is why you can reject any offer of a course or fixed penalty and plead not guilty in court. They will then submit in evidence that a trained person using an approved device measured your speed as 36mph along with any photographic and/or video evidence to support this. If you can cast sufficient doubt on the quality of the evidence, then you may be acquitted. May have tried, very few have succeeded

unless you have loads of dough,in which case if you do a good lawyer will come up with something

Not always - even Mr Loophole himself doesn't win all his cases. If there is something wrong with the evidence that is presented, then a decent motoring specialist lawyer should spot it. The question is how confident are you actually that you weren't speeding? There are many who come here convinced they were under the limit and you can't even say that you weren't doing the speed alleged.

I understand that you are narked off because you "got caught", but the advice you have been given still stands. If you fancy your chances in court go for it or else accept the FPN (or course) that will likely be offered and be a bit more mindful of the speed limits. We would all love to find some sort of technicality that will "get you off" but these are simply very few and far between nowadays. Short of requesting photos and hoping taht you can find something wrong with them, the only avenue I can see is to look at the Traffic Order that defines the speed limit (if one exists) for any discrepancies between it and the road layout at the time.

If you think you were spotted just inside the 30 limit, it might be worth taking exact measurements in case they pinged you in the higher limit

its not a case of being caught or not,whats narking me is the difficulty in prooving innocence compared with the ease of which tickets are dished out.it seems to me a very easy thing to do ,giving tickets that is and a very difficult thing to even attempt to prove innocence.

as for not knowing if i was speeding or not , its just a truthfull answer genuinly dont know but as stated was shocked when nip dropped through the door.