Incorrect Reading - 37mph in a 30mph limit |
Incorrect Reading - 37mph in a 30mph limit |
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. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 15 Oct 2020 - 10:29
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 13:52
Post
#141
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 13:58
Post
#142
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 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
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 14:09
Post
#143
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 15 Oct 2020 Member No.: 110,150 |
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 |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 14:12
Post
#144
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2020 - 18:10
Post
#145
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 13:00
Post
#146
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 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 |
|
|
Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 17:26
Post
#147
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 4 Nov 2020 - 19:00
Post
#148
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 10 Nov 2020 - 13:40
Post
#149
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,214 Joined: 24 Mar 2013 From: Scotland Member No.: 60,732 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 05:50
Post
#151
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 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 |
|
|
Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 09:22
Post
#152
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 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.
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 12:52
Post
#153
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: 2 Aug 2005 Member No.: 3,508 |
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.
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 17:24
Post
#154
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 18:37
Post
#155
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
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. |
|
|
Thu, 12 Nov 2020 - 18:39
Post
#156
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 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. |
|
|
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/ |
|
|
Fri, 13 Nov 2020 - 14:14
Post
#158
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 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.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:06 |