Speeding NIP when I wasnt !, What should I do? Options

[promethian]

Hi,

I received a NIP from 1st Nov stating I was doing 61MPH in my Van on a single carriageway.

Now I know for sure 100%, and my wife does too as she was sitting beside me, that I was only doing approx 50 mph.

I asked for the pictures and have just written Norfolk constabulary the following letter.


Norfolk Constabulary Safety Camera Enforcement Office.
Thank you for providing the Images for Offence Reference

The reason I requested them is because I am adamant that I was not travelling at the speed the equipment has recorded me at that time.



I saw the Safety Camera well before the image was taken at 13:57:00.

In fact, the car in front of me that can be seen in the image of 13:57:00, overtook me on the shaded area as I rounded the corner at the top of the hill, about 5/10 seconds or more before the image was taken.

I looked at my speedo, when I saw the Safety Van, and I was travelling at approx 50mph, so was unperturbed about my speed.

As you can see, by the time the1st image was taken, the car that overtook me at the top of the hill, is least 50-100 Metres in front of my van.



In my view the driver in front of me was travelling in excess of 60mph. I do not know if his speed was recorded by the van?

Is it possible that the signal has been reflected by the vehicle in front of me?

Or the low sunlight reflection of at that time of day?

Something is wrong?



My wife who was a passenger in the van at the time also saw the Safety camera Van at the top of the hill, and noted the speed of the vehicle in front. She too cannot believe we have been given a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

I notice that there is no speed or distance on the second image where my registration plate can be clearly seen.

I know the area very well and where the safety camera van was parked.



If the first Image was taken at 13:57:00 at 932 metres.(932m Taken from the image)

the second one at say 150-250 metres before the position of the safety van. (I have been to the site and measured it by pacing from the road markings where my van is pictured in the second image to the position the camera van sits, and estimate the distance at approx 200 meters.)

In this instance I will use the figure 150 metres from the distance of my van in the second image to the safety van.

Therefore In 34 seconds I covered 782 metres. (932-150 =782)

782 metres = (782 x(5/8) = 0.48875 miles

I covered that distance in 34 seconds = (34/3600)= 0.0094444 hours

Therefore speed to travel 0.48875 in 0.0094444 hours = 51.75 MPH approx.

If the distance of second image to Camera is 200metres then my av speed would have been 48.4 MPH approx



To get the figure of 61 mph I would have to travel from the first picture to the exact spot of the safety van which is (932 meters) 0.5825 miles in (34 secs) 0.009444.

0.5825/0.009444= 61.7 MPH

As you can see I did not, as the second picture proves I was well in front of the camera van 34 seconds later.

I hope this letter will highlight my concerns. Please can someone review the information from the camera on that day. Thankyou.



WHAT DO YOU THINK GUYS??????????

This post has been edited by promethian: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 - 23:09

[Advertisement]

[promethian]

I'll wait and see if I get any reply to my letter, you never know.

I'll post back on this thread if I do.....

I can only explain my case as it happened, if this the way the dice has rolled then I'll just have accept and get over it.... worse things happen at sea etc
Thanks for putting me in the picture...even if its not what I want to hear.


nite

This post has been edited by promethian: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 - 23:24

[desktop_demon]

While it is certainly true that the courts will tend to support a conviction based on this evidence - I would not wish to be so certain. The beam width at 900 m is about 2.7 m so a fair proportion of the beam would strike the road in front of the van. The effect of even the slightest hand shake in moving the laser beam at over 900 m is significant.

As "smeggy" has already stated from his personal experiments with a LTI2020 a sloping surface (inclined beam strike plane) can give a false speed reading. More so if the beam is moving.

So while I agree the likely interpretation of the evidence by the court, I personally would refrain from giving it too much weight in the circumstances.

Maybe the OP would like to read this report click here it may shine some light on the subject!

[promethian]

Hi.

I I have an important question re Re LtTI 20 20 Mobile Van Set Up Speed Cameras.

Scenario.

Operator ping's a vehicle, and distance speed info is displayed on screen etc.

Operator moves cross-hairs to another vehicle.

questions.........

1.] Is the information regarding the previous ping still on screen before he ping's second vehicle.

2. ] Am I correct in believing that the video is running all the time during this procedure?

3. ] Is the clock running all the time on the screen?

Thanks in advanced for answers

This post has been edited by promethian: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 - 16:25

[BaggieBoy]

Shortly (1 second IIRC) after the "ping" on the first vehicle, the device will remove the speed and display "Timeout". So there should be no possibility of a picture of the second car with the first car's speed being displayed.

2) Yes

3) Yes

Presumably related to this thread?

[promethian]

Yes.... I've been trying to figure out how they could have got an incorrect speed.

I thought about this possibility today and decided to pose these questions.

If the photo is taken from a video recording, and not the ping... it should be possible to do. ?


By the way... I sent back my NIP form and have yet to receive any response.

How long does it take for the next form to arrive?

[southpaw82]

One case, one thread.

[promethian]

I Still haven't received a FPN after 3 weeks after sending back the NIP..... how long does it usually take?

[Gan]

Could they take the OP's letter to mean that he will reject any offer of a course or FPN and wishes the matter to go to court ?

[Monster 900]

While it is certainly true that the courts will tend to support a conviction based on this evidence - I would not wish to be so certain. The beam width at 900 m is about 2.7 m so a fair proportion of the beam would strike the road in front of the van. The effect of even the slightest hand shake in moving the laser beam at over 900 m is significant.

As "smeggy" has already stated from his personal experiments with a LTI2020 a sloping surface (inclined beam strike plane) can give a false speed reading. More so if the beam is moving.

So while I agree the likely interpretation of the evidence by the court, I personally would refrain from giving it too much weight in the circumstances.

Maybe the OP would like to read this report click here it may shine some light on the subject!

Whilst it is well known that the LTI 20:20 can and does give false results, it is a high risk strategy to challenge the accuracy in court.

Because the device is 'type approved' there is a presumption that the reading is always correct. It is then up to the defendant to prove that, in his particular case, the machine was in error. Often, the prosecution will bring in a very expensive expert witnesses to give evidence that that the machine has indeed given the correct reading. The magistrates are usually suitably convinced, the defendant is convicted and has several thousand pounds of witness costs added to the modest fine and court costs.

The system is highly weighted to ensure that, in most cases, it is better for the innocent defendant to plead guilty rather than fight.

Although this may seem quite cynical it is as well to understand the risks before one embarks on a course of action.

This post has been edited by Monster 900: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 - 11:16

[promethian]

Just a little more info on this one.

When I rang up and queried the first time and queried the offence.... They offered to send me the photos, which is what happened.

When I received the photos I rang the office again and spoke to a lady. I said that I def wasn't speeding and something must be wrong, she said to me... initially that I had the chance to go to court to challenge the summons.... When I said, what's the likelihood of successfully challenging the picture evidence in court and said again there was no way I was speeding, she said, write a letter to her office to get it reviewed.... which is what I did.

No FPN so far...but no comms either

Is it possible they have reviewed it and seen there is a problem?

Maybe they think, I have a good chance of successfully challenging it, and don't want it to go to court?

This post has been edited by promethian: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 - 16:09

[sgtdixie]

Just a little more info on this one.

When I rang up and queried the first time and queried the offence.... They offered to send me the photos, which is what happened.

When I received the photos I rang the office again and spoke to a lady. I said that I def wasn't speeding and something must be wrong, she said to me... initially that I had the chance to go to court to challenge the summons.... When I said, what's the likelihood of successfully challenging the picture evidence in court and said again there was no way I was speeding, she said, write a letter to her office to get it reviewed.... which is what I did.

No FPN so far...but no comms either

Is it possible they have reviewed it and seen there is a problem?

Maybe they think I have a good chance of me successfully challenging it, and don't want it to go to court?

If they are going to discontinue they will/should write and tell you. I think it unlikely as if all it takes to get a camera job dropped is saying you weren't speeding then the whole system might as well just fold (come to think of it )

I think it is entirely possible they have taken your reply as a not guilty (which to be fair it is) and may be proceeding by summons.

It is equally possible that having reviewed the tape they may still offer you a course or COFP.

[promethian]

I don't agree, with the comments written here that they have taken my letter as a plea of not guilty.

A letter requesting a review of evidence BEFORE I have been officially charged, is NOT a plea of not quilty in anyone's language and find it hard that to think that some here think it is.

A NIP is of course a Notice of Intended Prosecution, therefore at this stage I have not been prosecuted but advised that I may be prosecuted.

It is impossible to plead guilty/not guilty unless you have been charged.

This post has been edited by promethian: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 - 17:29

[southpaw82]

Nevertheless, they are entitled to assume that you won't accept an FPN and so go straight to summons.

[promethian]

I thought the law was black and white and assumptions were not allowed.

Well if you are right I will disagree with that assumed assumption, because I have yet to receive any written or verbal to my name, as My name was not on the NIP

I have of course sent back the NIP with My details, in a separate letter nearly 4 weeks ago.

The Saftey Camera Address where I sent letter, and NIP return Addresses are completely different.

This post has been edited by promethian: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 - 18:56

[southpaw82]

Whatever. You seem to have a habit of seeing things how you want them to be. I've advised you a to the reality of what can happen. I do know better than you. I hope it works out for you but you need to stop deluding yourself that all is rosy.

[promethian]

OK maybe I'm deluded, (thats a bit strong to be frank!), Maybe things are not so Rosy... but I still definetly wasn't speeding, and know I wasn't, so determined, is one of the things I definitely am.

I will however post back when something happens.

Laterzzzzzzz

This post has been edited by promethian: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 - 21:50

[JSB1]

Shortly (1 second IIRC) after the "ping" on the first vehicle, the device will remove the speed and display "Timeout". So there should be no possibility of a picture of the second car with the first car's speed being displayed.

There's a long-focus lens on the camera; the two vehicles are a long way away and the road is angled so that, in angular terms, they are almost on top of each other. Think how short a cricket pitch appears as a result of compression (foreshortening is entirely a consequence of the high distance between camera and the objects compared to the inter-object distance). I agree from its apparent size that here the nearer, allegedly overtaking/faster vehicle, is much nearer than the van.

Assuming that the camera is manually tilted to align the next victim's registration plate with the cross-hairs, the object distances, road angle and the foreshortening, only a small angular movement (several degrees) may be involved in the tilting.

This could typically take less than a second.

So unless there's a specific, automated mechanism to prevent this happening - not just delay-related - it seems possible that the 61mph speed that is displayed refers to that of the preceding vehicle.

fwiw, I find the OP credible. But I'm not a court, and the operators of the camera are no doubt "experts" who would make sure such a thing didn't happen - right?

This post has been edited by JSB1: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 - 22:45

[southpaw82]

The OP is indeed credible. However, what is in question is whether the reading is wrong or the OP is mistaken in his belief that he wasn't speeding.

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 18:28

[blocco]

I don't agree, with the comments written here that they have taken my letter as a plea of not guilty.

A letter requesting a review of evidence BEFORE I have been officially charged, is NOT a plea of not quilty in anyone's language and find it hard that to think that some here think it is.

A NIP is of course a Notice of Intended Prosecution, therefore at this stage I have not been prosecuted but advised that I may be prosecuted.

It is impossible to plead guilty/not guilty unless you have been charged.

If you start querying the notice then the police can and possibly have taken that as you are not likely to accept a FPN; to save wasting time they may well summons you. They run the prosecution not you.

If you are in some doubt about whether you or the car in front has had its speed measured then work out the distance between the bend and the position you saw the van parked. If the bend is about 930-950m away then the laser has measured your speed, if the dip in the road is about 930-950m then it has measured the car.

If you have averaged less than 61mph after the 1/3rd of a second it took to measure your speed and you have averaged it over 34s then that is of no significance because you could have stopped from a speed of more than 100mph in less time than 34s.

If the distance to where your van is works out correctly you need to start to realise that you were doing 61mph. Too late for the FPN I think.

[promethian]

OK to further re-iterate why I am so sure I was not speeding.


1. The Camera Van was parked in the same place it is always parked, every Tuesday, and has been for at least the last 3 years or more.

I travel this road 2 days a week, and have been for the past 5 years. Funnily enough one day is a Tuesday when the Camera Van is generally parked at the bottom of the hill. I see it so often, I generally strike a pose as I go round the corner at the bottom of the hill.

2.
I saw Van well before He pinged me.... why.... SEE ABOVE.... I knew it would be there...it was.... I was doing 50 MPH.... I Know that without a shadow of a doubt. My Missus was sitting beside me also knows. She said "The Camera Vans There" I saw that Van from 1200 meters away, with its yellow/black stripes on the back door, and if anyone doesn't believe me then I will wager anyone £100 to come with me on a Tuesday and play spot the Camera Van from the Top of the hill. I will win every time.

3. I am not mistaken about the speed I was doing.... the same as I was not mistaken for the previous 50 or more times I have passed the same Camera Van in the same spot, on the same road at the same time of day over the past 3 years. If I was so unsure of the speed I was travelling then I would have amassed, a serious amount of points on my license by now, as I estimate I pass one of these Vans 4/5 times a week, in various locations around the county. They are allways in the same locations at the same times of the week.
In fact they have recently invested in some new Vans which are all white, with a high roof, and the Camera set-up if in windows above the rear door openings.

4. The reason I am so sure about this day, is that the car in front of me overtook me on the chevroned section at the top of the hill travelling in excess of 20MPH faster than me. As he overtook me, I looked round the bend to the bottom of the Hill, and thought... he's getting a ticket. These type of incidents tend to stick in your mind.

I'm afraid so many responses to my posts sound like Fanboys for Laser cameras..... No system is infallible or perfect and the Titanic still sunk after hitting the Iceberg.

I live in rural area, I always drive round at 50MPH because I can get a good 40 MPG from my Van, and its my business and my bottom line that takes a hit.

If I have foregone the FPN route by sending the letter, then so be it, I will await the summons and have my day in court.

(anyone know how long a summons takes to arrive????)

This post has been edited by promethian: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 20:43