PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Ouch!
lmr1342
post Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 14:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 7 May 2016
Member No.: 84,203



http://www.northants.police.uk/press-relea...ge-found-guilty

😂😂
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 7)
Advertisement
post Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 14:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
StuartBu
post Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 14:23
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



To save you the bother :-

A driver who tried to claim photographic evidence from a safety camera had been altered has been found guilty of speeding and ordered to pay almost £1,500.

A Northamptonshire Police mobile camera unit captured Hopeton Radcliffe Samuels’ car travelling at 36mph in a 30mph zone on Welford Road, Creaton, on May 9, 2017.

Samuels, 59, confirmed he had been driving but denied speeding, and claimed the photographic evidence had been manipulated.

Northamptonshire Police asked Road Safety Support (RSS), a specialist road safety service provider, to examine the case. An expert report was produced which used two methods to confirm the speed recorded by the mobile camera was correct.

A trial at Northampton Magistrates Court on September 5 heard evidence relating to the correct set-up and use of the mobile camera by the operator, as well as confirmation that the image had not been manipulated. The author of the RSS report, Steve Langdon, also gave evidence in relation to his expert findings.

Samuels, of Booth Lane North, Northampton, was convicted by magistrates and ordered to pay costs of £1,200 within two months. He was also fined £242 with a £30 victim surcharge, and had his licence endorsed with three penalty points.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 14:39
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



I'm intrigued on what basis did he think it was 'manipulated'.

Shooting fish in a barrel comes into mind...

This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 07:29


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 17:37
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Pick your fights......


--------------------
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
Ocelot
post Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 22:12
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,140
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
From: Surrey
Member No.: 1,326



Threw away a 'perfectly good' SAC for that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 22:22
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 15:39) *
I'm intrigued on what basis did he thing it was 'manipulated'.

No doubt he was simply "adamant that he would never have exceeded the speed limit", which the Court did not find quite as persuasive as he had expected.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
facade
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 07:43
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 882
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Member No.: 1,847



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 15:39) *
I'm intrigued on what basis did he think it was 'manipulated'.

Shooting fish in a barrel comes into mind...



They simply wind the clock up a bit, then all this "independent evidence" which will be based on video timecodes and the ground measurements (made with the 99cm metre rule kept specifically for the purpose wink.gif ) will confirm that the measurement is correct.

Like a certain car company's products, when the device knows that it is being checked for calibration, it reverts to real time, then drops back to the short measure in the field. biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by facade: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 07:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 09:42
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



Save that link for those threads where the OP wants to dispute the accuracy of the laser/camera/whatever, and draw their attention to the cost of the inevitable failure.
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 16:04
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here