Windscreen Camera Options

[Eardefender]

Hi,

I have been informed that I was caught speeding, 35mph in 30mph zone; this by roadside camera van.

However I have a windscreen video camera that records my GPS position and speed; on reviewing the history I have noted that when passing the van I was indicating 30mph and just past the van my speed crept up to an indicated 32mph. Note I have copied the section of video which shows this onto my computer.

Is there any chance of fighting this or should I just accept and pay out?
Note that the 'offence' iwas in North Lincolnshire.

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

It's not the speed you passed the camera van that matters.

They have a usual range of up to 1km although captures are usually a lot lower than this. You may have been caught before you were aware.

...unless you are saying you did not exceed the limit at all during the possible capture range.

The usual advice is to ask for a photo to assist in the identification of the driver - they will usually supply the money shot.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 11:35

[BaggieBoy]

Which way was the back of the van facing?

[cp8759]

However I have a windscreen video camera that records my GPS position and speed; on reviewing the history I have noted that when passing the van I was indicating 30mph and just past the van my speed crept up to an indicated 32mph. Note I have copied the section of video which shows this onto my computer.

You'll get the best advice if you upload the video to a website like youtube or vimeo and post a link here, make sure to include the video for the whole stretch of road that's in sight of the camera van.

[peterguk]

The prosecution will challenge your defence, so you'll most likely need an expert witness which could cost you £2K+. Are you prepared to front up 000s of £s?

Taking the SAC (assuming you qualify) would be the sensible course of action.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 17:33

[notmeatloaf]

The prosecution will challenge your defence, so you'll most likely need an expert witness which could cost you £2K+. Are you prepared to front up 000s of £s?

Taking the SAC (assuming you qualify) would be the sensible course of action.

Pointless post without even seeing the video.

If the video does show an approach at or below the speed limit the police may choose to use discretion and drop the prosecution before it gets anywhere near court.

[peterguk]

The prosecution will challenge your defence, so you'll most likely need an expert witness which could cost you £2K+. Are you prepared to front up 000s of £s?

Taking the SAC (assuming you qualify) would be the sensible course of action.

Pointless post without even seeing the video.

If the video does show an approach at or below the speed limit the police may choose to use discretion and drop the prosecution before it gets anywhere near court.

Presumably only if the police's own video shows an approach speed at or below the limit.

[notmeatloaf]

Presumably only if the police's own video shows an approach speed at or below the limit.

So the OP is in a stronger position than if he has no video if the video is convincing.

[cp8759]

The prosecution will challenge your defence, so you'll most likely need an expert witness which could cost you £2K+. Are you prepared to front up 000s of £s?

Taking the SAC (assuming you qualify) would be the sensible course of action.

We've recently had one chap being accused of doing 110 when his dashcam shows he was doing at most 72/73, he's not going to need any money to spend on experts. The prosecution might or might not challenge the defence, if the video show a prosecution has no hope of success, the police are far more likely to simply drop the case.

[Ocelot]

OP - do you still have the footage of the preceding moments prior to your encounter with the van? You may find that your speed was 35 before you even saw the van.

If the footage shows you were not approaching that speed, there may be grounds for a challenge.

[peterguk]

The prosecution will challenge your defence, so you'll most likely need an expert witness which could cost you £2K+. Are you prepared to front up 000s of £s?

Taking the SAC (assuming you qualify) would be the sensible course of action.

We've recently had one chap being accused of doing 110 when his dashcam shows he was doing at most 72/73, he's not going to need any money to spend on experts. The prosecution might or might not challenge the defence, if the video show a prosecution has no hope of success, the police are far more likely to simply drop the case.

So if police video shows exceeding the limit, they'll drop it just because another video from a non-descript non-approved disagrees?

[notmeatloaf]

The prosecution will challenge your defence, so you'll most likely need an expert witness which could cost you £2K+. Are you prepared to front up 000s of £s?

Taking the SAC (assuming you qualify) would be the sensible course of action.

We've recently had one chap being accused of doing 110 when his dashcam shows he was doing at most 72/73, he's not going to need any money to spend on experts. The prosecution might or might not challenge the defence, if the video show a prosecution has no hope of success, the police are far more likely to simply drop the case.

So if police video shows exceeding the limit, they'll drop it just because another video from a non-descript non-approved disagrees?

Bloody hell Peter you're hard work today.

Even the police admit that laser guns sometimes make incorrect readings for a variety of reasons. No technology is infallible.

Does it occur to you that if they are shown a video of the OP apparently doing the speed limit they might not just say "Oh sod this 0.01% of our tickets, let's drop it before it gets publicity in court" rather than "Sodding hell we simply must have this £30 from the SAC at any costs!!!".

Just because they took you to court doesn't mean they take everyone to court.

[cp8759]

So if police video shows exceeding the limit, they'll drop it just because another video from a non-descript non-approved disagrees?

I'm saying that without seeing the video, it's impossible to give proper advice, and it is premature to tell the OP to take a SAC without even seeing what evidence he has first. He might be banged to rights, he might be demonstrably innocent.

[kernow2015]

Depending on the van location, it can read up to somewhere like a kilometer away, and if you have video that would show you hadn't that wou;d be worth a shot.
The van sees you a short while before you spot them and slam on the brakes thinking you've got away with it.

[Eardefender]

Thanks for the reply's.

The van was at the opposite side of the road facing me as I passed.

Has anyone tried to use video evidence at a court appearance in front of a magistrate? if so any advice would be appreciated.

[cp8759]

Has anyone tried to use video evidence at a court appearance in front of a magistrate? if so any advice would be appreciated.

Video evidence is used all the time, both by the police / the CPS and by defendants, this has been the case for years, I dare say decades now. But we cannot give you any meaningful advice if you don't show us this video.

[notmeatloaf]

It is in your interests to try and get the police to drop it before it goes to court.

Firstly because pleading not guilty is risking a lot of money if you don't win.

Secondly because you would potentially have to pay for an expert witness to review your video as the CPS are unlikely to accept it without question.

Thirdly because if the video later shows you driving at 32mph there is nothing to stop the CPS trying to pursue you for that. One of the most high profile cases on here was where the defendant showed that the speed camera was faulty but the CPS then tried to pursue him for the 31mph the secondary measurement showed. In your case of course you are trying to prove your camera is accurate rather than faulty.

Fourthly because unless you keep the dashcam footage on the dashcam you already have a copy of the evidence, not the actual evidence itself.

The police have MUCH more discretion than the courts to say "no further action".

[The Rookie]

Thanks for the reply's.

The van was at the opposite side of the road facing me as I passed.

So he could get you up to 1km away (within line of site) as you drove away, 1km at 35mph will take you over a minute, any chance you did 35 in that time? Review the video and decide if its even worth posting......

[cp8759]

It is in your interests to try and get the police to drop it before it goes to court.

Firstly because pleading not guilty is risking a lot of money if you don't win.

I agree 100%.

Secondly because you would potentially have to pay for an expert witness to review your video as the CPS are unlikely to accept it without question.

Possibly, depending on the video. It may be that the video is self-explanatory and the police drop it, it might be that the CPS want to pay for their expert witness to discredit it (in which case the OP might want to instruct his own expert). Or a trial might take place without an expert, and the magistrates might draw their own conclusions from the evidence as presented.

Thirdly because if the video later shows you driving at 32mph there is nothing to stop the CPS trying to pursue you for that. One of the most high profile cases on here was where the defendant showed that the speed camera was faulty but the CPS then tried to pursue him for the 31mph the secondary measurement showed. In your case of course you are trying to prove your camera is accurate rather than faulty.

Do you have details of that case please? I think that could be fought on two grounds, 1) De-minimis, 2) abuse of process (due to being contrary to published prosecution policy)
In any event the Supreme Court has recently suggested the appropriate penalty for 31 in a 30 would be an absolute discharge.

Furthermore the dashcam footage cannot be used to convict the OP of speeding as it does not have Home Office Device Type approval, to secure a conviction the CPS would need to persuade the court that the speed reading taken from the van is accurate. The dashcam footage might or might not discredit the camera van reading, but if the camera van reading is shown to be unreliable, the court would have to acquit. This applies even if the footage shows the OP accelerated to 40 in a 30 once the van was out of sight.

Fourthly because unless you keep the dashcam footage on the dashcam you already have a copy of the evidence, not the actual evidence itself.

It's the medium which the evidence was recorded on that counts, in most cases this would be a micro sd card rather than the camera itself, in which case I would take the micro sd card out of the camera and put it somewhere really safe where it will not be lost.

On the other hand the OP seems reluctant to post the video, which makes me wonder whether it actually supports his case, or the Crown's.

[notmeatloaf]

Do you have details of that case please? I think that could be fought on two grounds, 1) De-minimis, 2) abuse of process (due to being contrary to published prosecution policy)
In any event the Supreme Court has recently suggested the appropriate penalty for 31 in a 30 would be an absolute discharge.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=318935

I'm not saying it would succeed, just that the CPS have history of throwing the kitchen sink at technicality cases hence why it is better for the OP if they can avoid court.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 17:47