[NIP Wizard] Faulty reading possible? |
[NIP Wizard] Faulty reading possible? |
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 13:21
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 7 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,348 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - April 2018 Date of the NIP: - 55 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 57 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Old A30, Blackwater, Redruth, Cornwall, UNITED KNGDOM 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? - I am the registered keeper 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 - There has been an occasional speed-trap van at the bottom of the hill for at least the last 30+ years, I know it might be there and I'm careful. It is positioned to catch people coming down the hill into the 30mph at the bottom (travelling SW towards Redruth). I was coming from the opposite direction, had travelled almost the whole length of Blackwater 30mph zone and was 'clocked' by a non-static (van) camera at 38mph. I was towing a 1/2 ton trailer at the time and aware of the possibility of a speed-trap, I do not believe I was doing 38mph. I asked for photos, which they did send. Very blurry but it does look enough like me driving (it was). My issue is this - I believe the van and equipment etc is set up to monitor people coming down the hill into the 30mph. I was coming from the other direction and don't believe I was speeding. So, could the reading be faulty as I was going in the other direction? oh, the late date for the NIP is because it's apparently a copy, they claim to have sent one within the timeframe, but I didn't get that, I only got one marked 'copy'. 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? - Unsure 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:21:39 +0000 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 13:21
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 00:06
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The advice you've received is based on many, many years of litigation where everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at fighting cases like this. The result being that the authorities have become very good at ensuring their equipment is accurate, their processes are solid and comply with the relevant law / type approval and so on. It is a simple fact that, more often that not, disputed allegations are down to the motorist wrongly thinking he wasn't speeding, when the evidence shows that he was.
If you dispute the accuracy of the evidence, the CPS will bring in highly paid experts to prove the accuracy of the speed reading. Do not underestimate the lengths they will go to: for all intense and purposes the crown has limitless resources, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32733002 (Not saying for one moment that your case can be compared with this one, just illustrating the point that the CPS will throw the kitchen sink at this if you dispute the accuracy of the equipment). The point is, in order to fight the allegation, you will need to adduce evidence to persuade the magistrates that the speed reading might not be correct, you will likely need to instruct your own experts and this won't be cheap. On the other hand, you haven't even said you're 100% certain you weren't speeding, you've just said you don't believe you were speeding (implying you cannot swear in court that you are 100% certain you were not speeding). From the information you've provided so far, unfortunately the likely outcome is that you will be convicted and given the risks involved, most people would take the speed awareness course. If however you chose to fight this, the people on here with the relevant expertise will provide any help and advice their are able to give. It's just that absent anything stronger than a belief on your part that you were not speeding (and bearing in mind your witness evidence will be seen as self-interested), the odds are not in your favour. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 07:31
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I was under the impression that this forum is intended to help people wrongly accused Yes, but we can't magic a defence out of the air. As stated previously there isn't a defence of 'I don't believe I was speeding'. Be under no illusions of what's involved to defend the matter. Even if you do manage to show you weren't speeding you'll still be more out of pocket than taking a course or even fixed penalty - the 'price' of justice. It is still far more likely that the analysis of the video would show the measurement was correct - you do not have enough material or accuracy at this point to show otherwise. This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 07:33 -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 16:56
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
The point to focus on is that the device was operated incorrectly which, if the speed is wrong is 99% likely to be the reason.
Do not stray near the accuracy of the gun itself because they will just throw expensive experts at the case. The police will counter that the person is properly trained and that they never make mistakes. However inevitably the device can give erroneous readings if operated incorrectly, and it is impossible even for a trained person to never make errors. All you then need to do is counter with your own speed readings, ideally with intermediate marks so that they cannot claim you were braking. Think about making this as robust as possible, e.g. if you know a solicitor, doctor, clergyman etc who can come along and witness the measurements all the better. This is important now because you may be using foliage etc. which is later cut back. Obviously it would be better if the reading was below 30mph but there was a case of this site desktop daemon where the alleged speed was 35mph, camera images showed 31mph. Still found not guilty because once one part of the system is found to be defective then how can you rely on any part? Best case scenario you show the reading to be inaccurate and the police or CPS drop it before it gets to court anyway. After all you are one case vs the PR hassle of inaccurate speed gun stories. Police at camera clerk level can be pointlessly intransigent but more senior officers are considerably more pragmatic. |
|
|
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 17:48
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Before rejecting any course or fixed penalty I'd want to be sure there was sufficient 'evidence' to cast such doubt. Unfortunately, you won't be able to request the relevant video until rejecting the offers and that the matter is going to court.
DD's thread is here. ...was a case of this site desktop daemon where the alleged speed was 35mph, camera images showed 31mph. Still found not guilty because once one part of the system is found to be defective then how can you rely on any part? The DJ excluded the prosecution's evidence under s.78 PACE - not strictly 'found' not guilty but if no evidence was made available to the court then there's only one outcome. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 13:53
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 7 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,348 |
I agree that questioning the accuracy of the equipment is a non-starter My thinking started when someone above mentioned the 'crosshairs' on the images Only one is on the front of the car, the others are on the side of the car, and not in the same place I think the operator was set up to measure in the opposite direction and moved quickly to 'get' me. 'slippage' 'operator error' etc would be my angle, not technical accuracy of equipment I will report back whether I decide to contest this, and what the eventual outcome is if I do. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 14:02
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
But the crosssahairs only need to be pointed at your car when the trigger is pulled.
Which way was the van facing? -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 14:12
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
As has been said there is no guarantee the crosshairs exactly match the laser beam though. Even a small discrepancy at this distance can potentially have made a huge difference.
OP personally I would say not to concern yourself too much about the mechanisms that could have lead to a faulty reading at this stage, beyond knowing they are rare but possible. As you very likely won't be able to see the evidence at this stage you have to decide if it is certain or near certain that you were not exceeding the limit at this moment in time. If you have this certainty then as with the DD case there are people who will assist you with the fight, which may be short (if the police or CPS review the video and decide it is unreliable) or longer if it goes to court. If you are talking about balance of probabilities then probably a fixed penalty or SAC is a pragmatic option. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 14:23
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If you are talking about balance of probabilities then probably a fixed penalty or SAC is a pragmatic option. My understanding is proving an approved device isn’t working is BoP, not just creating reasonable doubt. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 15:48
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 8 Dec 2011 From: Bristol, UK Member No.: 51,661 |
To the OP,
If you are SURE you were not speeding check your wheels. Sounds bizarre, but check what size tyres you've got on and then check what tyre size the car was fitted with to begin with. If too large a tyre is fitted to the vehicle then the speed shown would actually be lower than the speed of the vehicle, due to the circumference of the tyre being greater. Just a thought. Might be complete rubbish, but you sound adamant that you were doing 30 and no more. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 16:02
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
If you are talking about balance of probabilities then probably a fixed penalty or SAC is a pragmatic option. My understanding is proving an approved device isn’t working is BoP, not just creating reasonable doubt. I meant certainty in himself, e.g. "I don't think I was speeding" vs "I was definitely not speeding". As I said I think if it came to proof the path to take would almost certainly be that it was operated incorrectly rather than the device being faulty. To the OP, If you are SURE you were not speeding check your wheels. Sounds bizarre, but check what size tyres you've got on and then check what tyre size the car was fitted with to begin with. If too large a tyre is fitted to the vehicle then the speed shown would actually be lower than the speed of the vehicle, due to the circumference of the tyre being greater. Just a thought. Might be complete rubbish, but you sound adamant that you were doing 30 and no more. The OP would have had to HUGELY increase the wheel size - think 14" to 20" (with same profile tyres) to get that discrepancy. They would have probably noticed their wheels constantly crashing into the wheel arch! |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 16:21
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Wheel circumference would indeed have to change significantly to have that much of an effect. Usual advice is to confirm displayed speed with GPS on SatNav on a flat straight road.
This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 19:29 -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:21 |