[NIP Wizard] 47 in 40. Can mobile speed reading be challenged? |
[NIP Wizard] 47 in 40. Can mobile speed reading be challenged? |
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 10:21
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Member No.: 37,214 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - April 2018 Date of the NIP: - 2 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 3 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - West Yorkshire Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First 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 - I regularly drive on this section of road and am aware that mobile vans are often present, so I always keep to the limit on this road. Indeed, I had driven twice on the same section of road earlier in the day. I have seen the photo on WYP's website and, although the images of the car and the driver are of poor quality, I would have been driving at around that time. However, I do not for one minute believe the indicated speed. As I am well aware that it's a favourite haunt of mobile camera operators, I do watch my speed here and unless there is something seriously wrong with my speedo, I am certain that this reading is false. As the filming was clearly done from across the road and the view is oblique, the reading clearly has not been made perpendicular to the car. WYP's website also displays the calibration certificate for the camera. It was last calibrated on 11 May 2017, with the certificate stating that the next calibration is due on 10 May 2018. I thought these cameras had to be calibrated every day? It beggars belief that something that was last calibrated almost a year ago is assumed to still be accurate without any further checks. I know it's very hard to challenge a mobile speed reading these days but this really does annoy me, especially as the reading coincidentally just happens to be at the start of the ACPO threshold. It just feels to me like somebody was trying to get their quota up. 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? - England 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: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:21:43 +0000 This post has been edited by merlinthecat: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 07:28 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 10:21
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 15:06
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Member No.: 37,214 |
The annual calibration isn’t really, mostly it’s a check and the device is within limits and no actual calibration is needed. Calibration - "to determine, check, or rectify the graduation of (any instrument giving quantitative measurements)." If the checking shows no problem, then it has been calibrated. Yes I know, but many posters seem to think it’s an ‘active’ calibration with tweaks to settings, there also seems an opinion that they are accurate for 365 days and then wildly inaccurate on day 366...... And yet we are constantly reminded that an MOT certificate only indicates the condition of the car on the day of the test and shouldn't be seen as an indication of the car's roadworthiness for the rest of the year. Again, it's not an argument that would stand much of a chance in court but there does seem to be a double standard here. |
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 15:34
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,611 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
And yet we are constantly reminded that an MOT certificate only indicates the condition of the car on the day of the test and shouldn't be seen as an indication of the car's roadworthiness for the rest of the year. Again, it's not an argument that would stand much of a chance in court but there does seem to be a double standard here. The laser speed meters are tested every day they’re used. If you inspected your car each time it was used you’d probably not fall foul of the construction and use requirements either. Can’t see the double standard myself. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 15:53
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Member No.: 37,214 |
And yet we are constantly reminded that an MOT certificate only indicates the condition of the car on the day of the test and shouldn't be seen as an indication of the car's roadworthiness for the rest of the year. Again, it's not an argument that would stand much of a chance in court but there does seem to be a double standard here. The laser speed meters are tested every day they’re used. If you inspected your car each time it was used you’d probably not fall foul of the construction and use requirements either. Can’t see the double standard myself. There is no evidence that any such tests have been carried out. All the police are prepared to show is a document that says the camera was checked nearly a year ago. The MOT comparison is entirely valid. I know there's no mileage in challenging the results, at least not without being prepared to spend a lot more money in court (and my pockets aren't deep enough for that). I also realise that people on the website don't want to give false hope, given the bitter experiences of past court challenges. I remember Dr Clark's critique of the LTI 20-20 and other laser guns very well (I even had a copy of his dossier on it for some time back in the mid-2000s) and the court challenges. Unfortunately, the judge chose to believe the testimony of the LTI salesman, Frank Garrard, who had no qualifications at all in relevant fields, over actual experts. So now we're in the position of police accusing people of this offence purely "because we say so" without any realistic prospect of challenging it. I thought the situation would be like that at the time of starting the thread - I was just hoping that there was something I'd overlooked. Evidently there isn't, so there isn't much else to discuss now. Seeya. This post has been edited by merlinthecat: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 16:01 |
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 16:02
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
And yet we are constantly reminded that an MOT certificate only indicates the condition of the car on the day of the test and shouldn't be seen as an indication of the car's roadworthiness for the rest of the year. Again, it's not an argument that would stand much of a chance in court but there does seem to be a double standard here. The laser speed meters are tested every day they’re used. If you inspected your car each time it was used you’d probably not fall foul of the construction and use requirements either. Can’t see the double standard myself. There is no evidence that any such tests have been carried out. There almost certainly will be, if you challenge it in court. The operator will confirm that the prescribed tests were carried out, on oath. |
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 16:31
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
The daily test involves checking the range measurement over a known distance, since the calculation carried out to measure speed depends on the time taken by the laser pulses, the test checks that the instrument's clock is accurate.
-------------------- |
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 16:57
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,611 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
There is no evidence that any such tests have been carried out. How do you know? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 18:55
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,748 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
Fascinating as this is, it is all somewhat academic. You either defend the allegation on one or more of the bases you’ve mentioned or you don’t. It seems you’ve decided not to and I believe that is very wise.
The reason that few people succeed with the type of technical defences you have cited is because largely they are without foundation. The idea that measuring devices can somehow routinely “go off” and that they must be tested frequently to confirm their accuracy is fanciful. There are not that many components to go wrong and comparison with a vehicle that is thrashed up and down the motorway daily is not at all appropriate. It’s like comparing the reliability of your car with that of your oven. |
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 19:07
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
Fascinating as this is, it is all somewhat academic. You either defend the allegation on one or more of the bases you’ve mentioned or you don’t. It seems you’ve decided not to and I believe that is very wise. As long as he avoids the temptation he feels to say to the police that he does not actually believe their speed measurement was inaccurate and he was not speeding. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 07:06
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Member No.: 37,214 |
|
|
|
Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 07:25
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Member No.: 37,214 |
Fascinating as this is, it is all somewhat academic. You either defend the allegation on one or more of the bases you’ve mentioned or you don’t. It seems you’ve decided not to and I believe that is very wise. The reason that few people succeed with the type of technical defences you have cited is because largely they are without foundation. The idea that measuring devices can somehow routinely “go off” and that they must be tested frequently to confirm their accuracy is fanciful. There certainly were technical flaws in the LTI 20-20 that made it prone to errors. "Sweep error" by the operator was one particular issue. I don't know if the device used here is prone to the same errors, I'm not up on the latest developments in laser speed detection. Going by how far away the device must have been to obtain that image (there is a high level of digital zoom, as demonstrated by the very low image quality), the 'cone' of the laser beam would be fairly wide and the close proximity of the posts may well be an issue. But yes, I've made the strategic decision not to contest this one. There aren't really any compelling factors that make a successful defence likely and it would be throwing good money after bad. Challenges to laser gun accuracy may be a dead end in UK jurisdictions now but successful challenges continue to be mounted in other countries, notably Australia in November 2016. In the light of this, I was wondering if there were any recent developments in the UK that I was unaware of. There plainly aren't, so let's leave it at that. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 07:33
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
OK, there is no evidence presented on the WYP website that any such tests have been carried out. Since when have websites been the definitive source for such info? -------------------- 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, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 07:46
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Member No.: 37,214 |
OK, there is no evidence presented on the WYP website that any such tests have been carried out. Since when have websites been the definitive source for such info? *sigh* The NIP includes a link to the WYP website and a password so that the recipient of the NIP can view the evidence that the police are prepared to show at this stage. This consisted of two rather poor quality images bearing the same timestamp (i.e. taken within the same second) and a copy of the annual calibration certificate. I have not been provided with any evidence of a daily check. I'm not saying that no such check was carried out, I'm saying that I have not been provided with evidence of it. People are free to assume that such tests have been carried out but cases are often won when it turns out that Plod didn't follow procedure correctly. However, as I have made the strategic decision not to contest this ticket, the point is entirely moot, so can you kindly stop making issues where there aren't any? I'm not contesting the ticket, that's the end of it. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 10:58
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Member No.: 37,214 |
Can a moderator lock this topic now please - or better still delete it?
I have said a couple of times now that I'm not contesting the ticket and that there is nothing left to discuss. Thank you. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Saturday, 30th March 2024 - 03:11 |