[NIP Wizard] Rabbit258 |
[NIP Wizard] Rabbit258 |
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 20:45
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 9 Jan 2020 Member No.: 107,348 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - January 2020 Date of the NIP: - 4 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 5 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A472 Main Rd Maesycymmer (East of B4252 Junc) Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - How many current points do you have? - 0 Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - Turned left at lights onto road where alleged offence was caught. Photos seem to register a speed of 48mph as I come around the corner, subsequent photo shows 25mph. NIP Wizard Responses These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation: Have you received a NIP? - Yes Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes Were you driving? - Yes Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - Wales NIP Wizard Recommendation Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:45:04 +0000 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 20:45
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 20:48
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 759 Joined: 16 Jun 2010 From: sw11 Member No.: 38,303 |
48mph around a corner seems high - do you doubt the alleged speed?
-------------------- PePiPoo will likely close in October due to issues beyond the control of any contributor to this forum.
You are encouraged to seek advice at https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/ where the vast majority of the experts here have moved over to already. |
|
|
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 21:04
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 9 Jan 2020 Member No.: 107,348 |
48mph around a corner seems high - do you doubt the alleged speed? Apologies, to clarify, I turned left at the lights then the road continues onwards to a right bend, it was coming out the bend that the camera (sitting ahead of me and the bend) clocked me. 48 is possible around that bend. This is the photo, my vehicle is the silver Astra at the back. This post has been edited by Rabbit258: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 21:08 |
|
|
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 21:24
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
If that's the 'money shot', it's pretty poor. It looks like something out of a 'guess which car was pinged' competition.
N.B laser speed meters typically have a nominal beam divergence of ~3 miliradians - which means that it would be about 3 feet across at a distance of 960 feet. Cross hairs are generally superimposed onto the video and do not necessarily correlate precisely with the beam itself (notwithstanding the divergence). -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 21:39
Post
#5
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 9 Jan 2020 Member No.: 107,348 |
If that's the 'money shot', it's pretty poor. It looks like something out of a 'guess which car was pinged' competition. N.B laser speed meters typically have a nominal beam divergence of ~3 miliradians - which means that it would be about 3 feet across at a distance of 960 feet. Cross hairs are generally superimposed onto the video and do not necessarily correlate precisely with the beam itself (notwithstanding the divergence). Thanks for the reply Andy, my thoughts too re the car guesswork! The second image provided (and crops of that image) taken 17 seconds and 811 feet later shows my vehicle licence plate very clearly, indicating a speed of 25mph. 811 feet in 17 seconds equates to 32.5mph. Is this photo contestable? Is it likely that there is a video showing deceleration possibly tracking my vehicle as it travels? Evidence does suggest speed greater than 30mph, however is the starting measure of 48mph valid? |
|
|
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 22:16
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
The problem is that if you challenge the accuracy or operation of an approved device, there is a likelihood that the prosecution will trot out a very expensive expert witness who will tell the court that everything is tickety boo.
I am not familiar with that particular device, but most such devices are linked to a video camera and overlay the live time and calculated distance and speed on the video. If it is likely that you were doing approximately the speed indicated (48), it is very likely that a prosecution expert would charge a lot of money to prove to the court that you were. N.B. The distance displayed will not be 'live', so it is not generally possible to accurately calculate an average speed from 2 random stills. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 23:16
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 759 Joined: 16 Jun 2010 From: sw11 Member No.: 38,303 |
Can we see the other image (obscure the plate if you feel more comfortable) - that first show seems unclear to me?
-------------------- PePiPoo will likely close in October due to issues beyond the control of any contributor to this forum.
You are encouraged to seek advice at https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/ where the vast majority of the experts here have moved over to already. |
|
|
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 23:49
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
The police have an image from an approved device which they seem prepared to rely on, so they are very unlikely to be prepared to accept your speed was 42mph or less and offer you a course. Any speed from 31 to 50mph should result in the offer of a fixed penalty (£100 + 3 points) and that is the zone you are in, so doing nothing will have that result. If you go to court and succeed in discrediting the camera evidence so that the court has no idea what speed you were doing, you will be fond not guilty, but as Andy points out, that will not be easy. If you are found guilty in court, you are likely to get at least 5 points, probably 6, and an income related fine plus costs which have a guideline of £620 and could be much more if the prosecution call an expert witness.
Your choice, but with a very poor but not obviously completely defective image as you have the best course seems to be to accept the likely offer of a fixed penalty unless you really believe you were not speeding and want to make a stand on a point of principle. -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 10:17
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
The prosecution would also most likely rely on case law, in which, although the crosshairs may not have been ideally aligned with the car, any inaccuracy with the measuring device would not be such as to be 17MPH over the actual speed.
I believe the case was Blair v DPP. I will have to scavenge around to find the case. It may be mentioned on one of my earlier topics 10 years ago. However, in that case the cross hairs were aligned on the car, but not on the number plate. In all honesty that is a very poor laser shot. Also note that the overlay of the cross hairs and text are slanted and not correctly aligned with the video. This post has been edited by Mayhem007: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 10:20 -------------------- STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING
Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about. |
|
|
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 10:42
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 759 Joined: 16 Jun 2010 From: sw11 Member No.: 38,303 |
The question is which vehicle was targetted in that shot? We know the crosshairs are only indicative of the 'shot' and superimposed onto the video (from which this is a framegrab) - given how out of alignment this appears to be, is there a case to argue that the evidence isn't satisfactory? The truth will most likely be in the video, but as Logician states, its a big gamble to refuse the FPN and take the matter further.
-------------------- PePiPoo will likely close in October due to issues beyond the control of any contributor to this forum.
You are encouraged to seek advice at https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/ where the vast majority of the experts here have moved over to already. |
|
|
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 19:56
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 10 Jan 2020 Member No.: 107,361 |
The cross hairs on the picture are not on the correct part of the vehicle. They are down the side of the vehicle which can lead to "slip" This offence should have been binned as soon as it was reviewed. If there is doubt in the Magistrates mind then it will often be thrown out. This is a very poor attempt to target a vehicle with a Laser Witness. I am shocked that any Road Safety Partnership/Police force would ever send out an NIP for such footage!
This post has been edited by SJC: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 19:59 |
|
|
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 20:19
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
The cross hairs on the picture are not on the correct part of the vehicle. They are down the side of the vehicle which can lead to "slip" This offence should have been binned as soon as it was reviewed. If there is doubt in the Magistrates mind then it will often be thrown out. This is a very poor attempt to target a vehicle with a Laser Witness. I am shocked that any Road Safety Partnership/Police force would ever send out an NIP for such footage! If you are who I think you are, I might need to revisit my view on prosecution expert witnesses. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 11:02
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
The cross hairs on the picture are not on the correct part of the vehicle. They are down the side of the vehicle which can lead to "slip" This offence should have been binned as soon as it was reviewed. If there is doubt in the Magistrates mind then it will often be thrown out. This is a very poor attempt to target a vehicle with a Laser Witness. I am shocked that any Road Safety Partnership/Police force would ever send out an NIP for such footage! Given the poor operation of the equipment, one brings into doubt the competence of the person using the equipment and possible lack of training. -------------------- STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING
Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about. |
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 12:18
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 10 Jan 2020 Member No.: 107,361 |
The cross hairs on the picture are not on the correct part of the vehicle. They are down the side of the vehicle which can lead to "slip" This offence should have been binned as soon as it was reviewed. If there is doubt in the Magistrates mind then it will often be thrown out. This is a very poor attempt to target a vehicle with a Laser Witness. I am shocked that any Road Safety Partnership/Police force would ever send out an NIP for such footage! If you are who I think you are, I might need to revisit my view on prosecution expert witnesses. Who do you think I am? Better footage than this has been binned at the first opportunity. |
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 15:20
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 10 Jan 2020 Member No.: 107,361 |
The cross hairs on the picture are not on the correct part of the vehicle. They are down the side of the vehicle which can lead to "slip" This offence should have been binned as soon as it was reviewed. If there is doubt in the Magistrates mind then it will often be thrown out. This is a very poor attempt to target a vehicle with a Laser Witness. I am shocked that any Road Safety Partnership/Police force would ever send out an NIP for such footage! Given the poor operation of the equipment, one brings into doubt the competence of the person using the equipment and possible lack of training. I wouldn't say it's a training issue. Footage like this is taken all the time, but 99.99% of the time its not even considered as suitable for anything other than the recycle bin. If the speed remained the same for a while and a clear view opened up and the cross hairs were placed on the number plate, then that's an entirely different matter. |
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 21:31
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
Perhaps Rabbit258 should enlist the help of some acknowledged expert like Road Safety Support Ltd to point out to the court the defects apparent in the picture provided.
-------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 11:17
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
Well eventually found a copy of Bray V Bristol Crown Court. If the OP was intending to defend the case, this may be a judgement used against him.
[attachment=69006:01_R__on..._Bristol.doc] -------------------- STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING
Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:22 |