PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

possible mistaken identity - laser speed camera and NIP
mike5100
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 22:36
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,319



I have been sent an NIP for 72mph in a 60mph (received 7 days after the supposed offence). It’s unlikely I was doing that speed, but possible.
Contacted the Northumbria Safer Roads Initiative and they kindly sent me two photographs.
The first shows my bike with me riding it and the crosshairs on the rear tyre and no speed or distance recorded in the top right corner.
The second photo shows my bike too, but it is not the one targeted by the cross hairs. This is a different bike about 70 meters further on. There are also two cars in this second photo. The top right corner shows minus 72mph and 515m
I understand I need to return the form saying that I was the driver of the bike they are asking about, and intend to send an accompanying letter explaining that it isn’t the bike targeted as speeding.
However, my question is – are they likely to have other photos some of which may show my bike as speeding? In other words, could this just be an error from the girl on the desk attaching a second erroneous picture instead of one relating to me. (the owner of the bike with the cross hairs on it has not had an NIP and we are at day 15 and he is the registered keeper).
Thanks
Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 22:36
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 06:02
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,829
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Could it just be an error in the photo sent, yes.

You can point it out, that may have a number of effects
1/ They may drop it
2/ They may send a revised photo to reassure you that you were in fact speeding
3/ They may carry on regardless (offer of a course is eligible or a fixed penalty)
4/ They may take it as a sign you intend to defend and progress straight to court regardless.

While I think 4 is less likely than the others (which I think are about even odds), it’s not impossible so you need to consider your position carefully.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 06:49
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,945
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Were you travelling together at the same speed?

They will have a video of the whole session and you just have a couple of snaps.

QUOTE (mike5100 @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 23:36) *
...could this just be an error from the girl on the desk attaching a second erroneous picture instead of one relating to me.

Perhaps it was a man who made a mistake? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike5100
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 07:44
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,319



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 07:49) *
Were you travelling together at the same speed?

They will have a video of the whole session and you just have a couple of snaps.

QUOTE (mike5100 @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 23:36) *
...could this just be an error from the girl on the desk attaching a second erroneous picture instead of one relating to me.

Perhaps it was a man who made a mistake? rolleyes.gif

It appears from the photo that we were travelling close together, but the broken white lines are compressed almost to dots due to the foreshortening at 515m and in fact I was 70 or 80 meters behind him. He drives faster than I do.
Do you think it's best to do the contact in the formal way with the return of the form and an accompanying letter or might it be better to give her a call (She's called Kelly - the girl who sent the photos smile.gif )
If they review the video and believe they have the wrong rider (or that we were both speeding) does that allow them to send him an NIP (it's now 15 days and he hasn't had one)
Finally there was talk a few years ago about every rider in a group of riders being bookable if just one of them was caught speeding. Are they allowed to do that?
Thanks
Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 07:54
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,829
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (mike5100 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 08:44) *
Do you think it's best to do the contact in the formal way with the return of the form and an accompanying letter or might it be better to give her a call

I would attach a letter to the reply naming the rider.

QUOTE (mike5100 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 08:44) *
If they review the video and believe they have the wrong rider (or that we were both speeding) does that allow them to send him an NIP (it's now 15 days and he hasn't had one)

They can send a NIP (notice) but it would have no legal significance and they couldn't prosecute (assuming he's the registered keeper and that a NIP hasn't already been sent to the actual RK)

QUOTE (mike5100 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 08:44) *
Finally there was talk a few years ago about every rider in a group of riders being bookable if just one of them was caught speeding. Are they allowed to do that?

They would have to convince the court, beyond reasonable doubt, that the vehicle in question (for each rider) was exceeding the speed limit, there is no concept of 'allowed' (or otherwise) in that respect as each case will hinge on its own individual facts. Can it be done, Yes, is it a given, no.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 07:55


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BertB
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 09:00
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 208
Joined: 14 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,087



There was a case on here last year that you might want to read through. It was also an alleged case of mistaken bike/rider.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122834

QUOTE (mike5100 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 08:44) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 07:49) *

QUOTE (mike5100 @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 23:36) *
...could this just be an error from the girl on the desk attaching a second erroneous picture instead of one relating to me.

Perhaps it was a man who made a mistake? rolleyes.gif
Do you think it's best to do the contact in the formal way with the return of the form and an accompanying letter or might it be better to give her a call (She's called Kelly - the girl who sent the photos smile.gif )


Kelly Jones of the Stereophonics will be outraged laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike5100
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 09:41
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,319



QUOTE (BertB @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:00) *
There was a case on here last year that you might want to read through. It was also an alleged case of mistaken bike/rider.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122834

QUOTE (mike5100 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 08:44) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 07:49) *

QUOTE (mike5100 @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 23:36) *
...could this just be an error from the girl on the desk attaching a second erroneous picture instead of one relating to me.

Perhaps it was a man who made a mistake? rolleyes.gif
Do you think it's best to do the contact in the formal way with the return of the form and an accompanying letter or might it be better to give her a call (She's called Kelly - the girl who sent the photos smile.gif )


Kelly Jones of the Stereophonics will be outraged laugh.gif

biggrin.gif Yes then there's Kelly's heroes, so I guess Kelly could be a bloke.
I had found that thread and that's what prompted the question about calling them for an informal chat. It seemed to work for the other guy but there's probably some downsides to this approach?
They wouldn't need extra photos of my bike from me. Their own photo of my numberplate taken 11 seconds earlier and not showing any speed infringement, clearly shows my bike with a square box on the rear rack. The later photograph with the -72mph shows both bikes - the other one has a more rounded rear box and it is this bike that has the cross hairs on it.
Mike


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 08:54) *
QUOTE (mike5100 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 08:44) *
Finally there was talk a few years ago about every rider in a group of riders being bookable if just one of them was caught speeding. Are they allowed to do that?

They would have to convince the court, beyond reasonable doubt, that the vehicle in question (for each rider) was exceeding the speed limit, there is no concept of 'allowed' (or otherwise) in that respect as each case will hinge on its own individual facts. Can it be done, Yes, is it a given, no.

If the other rider was doing 72mph it's likely that I was doing about 65mph - he rides faster than me - I think that 65 is probably below the limit that they would normally prosecute but it's above the speed limit so could they prosecute anyway?
Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:06
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,829
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (mike5100 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:41) *
If the other rider was doing 72mph it's likely that I was doing about 65mph - he rides faster than me - I think that 65 is probably below the limit that they would normally prosecute but it's above the speed limit so could they prosecute anyway?
Mike

Could they, yes, would they, not normally. However if they start a prosecution for 72 and you 'prove' (to the courts satisfaction) you were actually doing 65 then you would be penalised for that offence.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:14
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,945
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Unless they 'admit' an obvious error then the matter will progress to court (and courses/fixed penalty lost) if you want to 'challenge'.

Errors in processing footage are not uncommon but I see see no downsides in an informal query to see if they'll double check whatever the gender.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:15


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ian505050
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 14:24
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 8 Sep 2015
Member No.: 79,277



Hi mike5100,

It was myself that was the motorcyclist in the other topic linked above.

I contacted North Yorkshire Police for an informal discussion over the phone as i never revived a response to any of my formal letters or emails and the time was running out for me to sign and return the NIP.

I signed and returned the NIP with a cover letter stating that i was the driver of the motorcycle registration and although i was unable to provide any evidence i was not speeding there must have been an error at their end as i was recorded doing something like 72mph when in fact i knew i was doing 40mph (i rode past sarcastically at 40mph)

This letter was ignored so i called them as its a lot more difficult to ignore real person at the end of the phone. I also recorded my phone call.

When on the phone i believe the operator watched the footage and had access to multiple images and in must have become apparent i was telling the truth. The police then sent me an official letter confirming the NIP was issued due to an Admin Error.

Your case seems like your motorcycles were closer together and your speed is closer to the speed limit which might make it more difficult to prove or provide enough doubt that you may not have actually been speeding. If you are able to identify the other rider you may well end up dropping them in it. I was unable to identify the other rider in my case as he was just a random motorcycle about 500 yards in front of me (i guess he got off without a ticket)



Can you upload any images you have of the alleged offence and a copy of your NIP with the REF number and your personal details blanked out?

This post has been edited by ian505050: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 14:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike5100
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 18:42
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,319



Ian - I certainly don't want to drop the other rider in trouble, but from what I can gather on here, he's in the clear as they have not issued an NIP to him. He is the registered keeper, has been for about 8 months and has lived at his current address for 20 years. His name appears on his V5 as the RK.
I think I will give Kelly a call and ask her to review the video.
Is it possible that they targeted me just before targeting the other rider at 515m. I guess they might have done but I'm pretty sure I will not have been doing 72mph. They certainly targeted me 11 seconds earlier and no speed is shown in the photo - that could be because I hadn't hit their threshold, or it could be that they didn't get a good reflection.
I will report back.
Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike5100
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 11:35
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,319



Called Kelly this morning. She agreed that there were discrepancies in the two photographs. Went away to check (perhaps to see if there were other photos). Came back to say the number plate (of the speeding bike) must have been misread therefore she was 'cancelling it out of our system'. She agreed to confirm by letter and (when asked) said I do not need to send in the S172.
Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 11:50
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,945
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Good news!


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 12:47
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,829
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Result.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 23rd July 2019 - 05:53
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.