PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Incorrect Reading - 37mph in a 30mph limit
Operator_Error
post Thu, 15 Oct 2020 - 10:29
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 Oct 2020
Member No.: 110,150



Morning everyone,

I received an NIP from West Yorks police for travelling 37mph in a 30mph limit. Its a road on my daily commute which I know is a 30 and drive with my speed limiter on in the car every day so knew I wasn't speeding.

I've reviewed the evidential footage and the video shows one frame at 37mph, the crosshairs move to centre on my vehicle and immediately (as in the next frame of the video) the speed drops to 29mph and remains there for the rest of the 10 second clip. You can also see as its 6:30am that at no point there is any harsh braking by my vehicle and my brake lights do not illuminate at any point. There is various street furniture and trees on the film so I'm pretty sure it will be easy to verify the footage.

I have attempted to contact West Yorkshire on the details on the form but the phone line is constantly engaged. I would like a human to review the footage to see it is clearly an incorrect reading and equipment / operator error (are the videos not meant to be verified before an NIP is sent?)

My question is do I have to name myself as the driver and wait for my day in court to plead my innocence or is there another way of speaking to a human at the West Yorkshire police to have the NIP cancelled?

Thanks for your time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8  
Start new topic
Replies (140 - 157)
Advertisement
post Thu, 15 Oct 2020 - 10:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 13:52
Post #141


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,948
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 12:34) *
If s 20 was not available then wouldn't the prosecution simply adduce the evidence in the normal way, i.e. led by a witness?

In the DD case from memory the judge took a dim view of the prosecution trying to adduce the evidence in a different manner because the initial attempt was seen as unreliable. However, if it was introduced as witness evidence then using the video s=d/t would become easier than if it was admitted under S20. AFAIK it would also move the burden of proof back to the prosecution having to prove the reading to be correct beyond reasonable doubt rather than the OP having to prove it was wrong.


--------------------
Scores on doors

Me 1 - 0 Avon & Somerset
Me 1 - 1 Thames Valley
Me 1 - 0 Oxford University Hospitals/Trethowans (parking)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 13:58
Post #142


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,021
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



There was a case on here a while ago whereby an Aston Martin owner accused of speeding was able to obtain telemetry from Aston martin proving the speed of the vehicle at the particular time Is this not something Tesla can supply ?


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Operator_Error
post Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 14:09
Post #143


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 Oct 2020
Member No.: 110,150



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 13:58) *
There was a case on here a while ago whereby an Aston Martin owner accused of speeding was able to obtain telemetry from Aston martin proving the speed of the vehicle at the particular time Is this not something Tesla can supply ?


I have explored this very early on in the process and submitted a subject access request to Tesla with the timestamps I need. My local service centre will not provide the data unless authorised by Tesla's legal department as the data is "theirs" and not mine.

This post has been edited by Operator_Error: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 14:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 14:12
Post #144


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,380
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 13:52) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 12:34) *
If s 20 was not available then wouldn't the prosecution simply adduce the evidence in the normal way, i.e. led by a witness?

In the DD case from memory the judge took a dim view of the prosecution trying to adduce the evidence in a different manner because the initial attempt was seen as unreliable. However, if it was introduced as witness evidence then using the video s=d/t would become easier than if it was admitted under S20. AFAIK it would also move the burden of proof back to the prosecution having to prove the reading to be correct beyond reasonable doubt rather than the OP having to prove it was wrong.

I'm not sure I follow you. Section 20 is a way of admitting evidence by certificate, rather than having it led by a witness (giving oral evidence or vis a s 9 statement). I don't see how the route to admission makes it any more or less easy to challenge the veracity of the evidence, neither does it shift the burden of proof. Admitting evidence via s 20 does not mean "this evidence is true and unchallengeable" nor does it confer upon it any special status.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 18:10
Post #145


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,268
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 13:52) *
AFAIK it would also move the burden of proof back to the prosecution having to prove the reading to be correct beyond reasonable doubt rather than the OP having to prove it was wrong.

My understanding is that the presumption that equipment and machinery is presumed to be working correctly arises at common law and is nothing to do with s20, nor is it a special presumption that only applies to speed cameras.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 13:00
Post #146


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,948
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



But for the OP to argue the device isn't reliable they would have by definition to convince the court the device shouldnt be assumed to be used within type approval for whatever reason - misalignment, slip, lack of secondary corroboration or whatever.

At that point the evidence could be introduced as a non- HOTA device by means of S89 RTRA, subject to a witness confirming it's reliability. - which from memory is exactly what happened in the DD case.

If the police could simply use any device as long as they could dredge up someone from the RSS to say it's legit there would be no point in having the HOTA scheme at all.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 13:01


--------------------
Scores on doors

Me 1 - 0 Avon & Somerset
Me 1 - 1 Thames Valley
Me 1 - 0 Oxford University Hospitals/Trethowans (parking)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 17:26
Post #147


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,268
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 13:00) *
If the police could simply use any device as long as they could dredge up someone from the RSS to say it's legit there would be no point in having the HOTA scheme at all.

AIUI the purpose of s20 & HOTA is to save the faff of dealing with witness statements, nothing more nothing less. I'm sure sp will tell us if I'm wrong.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 19:00
Post #148


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,380
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 17:26) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 13:00) *
If the police could simply use any device as long as they could dredge up someone from the RSS to say it's legit there would be no point in having the HOTA scheme at all.

AIUI the purpose of s20 & HOTA is to save the faff of dealing with witness statements, nothing more nothing less. I'm sure sp will tell us if I'm wrong.

I don’t think you are.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TonyS
post Tue, 10 Nov 2020 - 13:40
Post #149


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 991
Joined: 24 Mar 2013
From: Scotland
Member No.: 60,732



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 13:00) *
But for the OP to argue the device isn't reliable they would have by definition to convince the court the device shouldnt be assumed to be used within type approval for whatever reason - misalignment, slip, lack of secondary corroboration or whatever.

At that point the evidence could be introduced as a non- HOTA device by means of S89 RTRA, subject to a witness confirming it's reliability. - which from memory is exactly what happened in the DD case.

If the police could simply use any device as long as they could dredge up someone from the RSS to say it's legit there would be no point in having the HOTA scheme at all.

Surely the argument is not that the device was inaccurate, but that it's output is wrongly interpreted. We don't know whether it was correct or incorrect to measure something at 37 mph, because they have not shown that measurement being taken.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Operator_Error
post Wed, 11 Nov 2020 - 20:44
Post #150


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 Oct 2020
Member No.: 110,150



Through my solicitor I have now had the opinion of two expert witnesses. Both agree there is footage before that that has been provided to me. The consensus of opinion is that it is suspicious how the film has been edited. One of the expert witnesses has stated the video does not show the time the laser pulses were sent that recorded the 37mph reading as there is a delay in the device processing the reading.

I have been advised to approach the police again for the earlier footage. Does anyone know of someone senior in West Yorkshire Police Safety Camera partnership that I can enter in correspondence with?

This post has been edited by Operator_Error: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 - 21:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 05:50
Post #151


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46,435
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



They won’t until the matter has progressed to a court case.


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 09:22
Post #152


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,799
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



And even then, assuming the prosecution are not relying on it to convict you, you will probably have to get the court to make a direction that it is provided (as part of the pre-trial process). And even then you may not get it because it may not be available. Getting this sort of material is notoriously time consuming and often fruitless. Be prepared for your matter to run and run.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IanJohnsonWS14
post Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 12:52
Post #153


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: 2 Aug 2005
Member No.: 3,508



QUOTE (Operator_Error @ Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 15:09) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 13:58) *
There was a case on here a while ago whereby an Aston Martin owner accused of speeding was able to obtain telemetry from Aston martin proving the speed of the vehicle at the particular time Is this not something Tesla can supply ?


I have explored this very early on in the process and submitted a subject access request to Tesla with the timestamps I need. My local service centre will not provide the data unless authorised by Tesla's legal department as the data is "theirs" and not mine.


This is GDPR territory and Tesla won’t take your word that you were driving.

You might be trying to find out where your other half went;-)


--------------------
Speeding tickets, like lottery tickets, are a voluntary tax. You don't have to get them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 17:24
Post #154


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,268
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 09:22) *
And even then, assuming the prosecution are not relying on it to convict you, you will probably have to get the court to make a direction that it is provided (as part of the pre-trial process). And even then you may not get it because it may not be available. Getting this sort of material is notoriously time consuming and often fruitless. Be prepared for your matter to run and run.

Still, it's better to show the court that you made every effort to get the evidence, than to not bother trying to get it.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 18:37
Post #155


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,799
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 17:24) *
Still, it's better to show the court that you made every effort to get the evidence, than to not bother trying to get it.

Yes I quite agree. If the OP can persuade the court to make a direction that it is provided and it isn't he can use that fact to his advantage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 18:39
Post #156


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,006
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



As was said early in this thread - if the footage doesn't exist then what they have seems to be insufficient/inconclusive. Or if they do have earlier footage then that would appear to explain the erroneous reading.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ian505050
post Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 21:32
Post #157


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 8 Sep 2015
Member No.: 79,277



With regards to Tesla declining providing you with your own data that they more than likely hold I feel that you may need to force them to provide you with that at data.

If you read the GDPR legislation many things you would not consider are classified as your personal data and I can't image your vehicle speed and location would not be classified as personal data.... assuming its registered in your name.

Companies like Tesla hate GDPR as it causes major confusion and lots of admin to retrieve data. Unfortunately for them they are required to do this by law.

If you forward the proof that Tesla failed to provide your personal data to the ICO this could potentially nudge Tesla to provide you with the data or face investigation.

You have to understand GDPR legislation fully to know what your complaint is about and if its actually valid but I am fairly sure it is.

I have done the above process with both the Police and DVLA in the past to force organisations to act upon my request.

The last time I did a GDPR request the company actually forwarded me a report containing names and telephone numbers of clients who complained about the DVLA.... Breaking GDPR legislation again!!! I won the this case simply due to having proof they broke GDPR and they paid me off to avoid the huge GDRP fines.

All I wanted was my personal Data!!! Which in fact was what Vehicles were registered in my name to avoid all fines for failure to declare SORN. Silly silly world we live in.

But there is no harm in reporting Tesla to the ICO

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach/




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 13 Nov 2020 - 14:14
Post #158


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,268
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Note that unlike FOI / EIR, the ICO does not actually have any powers to force a data controller to release anything. The ICO can give a data controller advice, but if they ignore it you'd have to go to court and seek a compliance order against Tesla under section 167 f the Data Protection Act 2018, which while feasible involves a lot of faffing around.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8
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: Monday, 30th November 2020 - 14:54
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.