PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

could the Kustom Lazerwitness Lite be wrong or wrongly used?, I am sure I was not speeding!
heatherheather
post Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,816



Hi,
Firstly thank you for such a helpful site. Its important that people help others not able to help themselves. Now I wonder if one of you good Samaritans can help me? smile.gif

I received a NIP through the post for allegedly exceeding 30 mph in a 30ph zone (36mph) My first reaction was that I was not speeding and am going to fight this. However, I am a busy lady and the time it would take up wasn't worth it really. I do have a clean licence and did not mind going on the course though I did feel I was being fined with the course cost! I requested photos I wasn't sure who was driving the car. The photo were unclear but I was able to tell that the driver must have been me by the date/time of some work desk top emails that were sent by the other person who could have been the driver. I filled in the form and requested to go on a drivers awareness course. I didn't hear back from them so I sent a letter chasing them up! The next I heard was the option of the drivers awareness course had been removed as I had not attended and that I had a conditional offer of a fixed penalty. I sent a recorded delivery letter indicating that I had responded but that their agents had not got in touch with me about the course and that I had written to them to chase the matter. Their response was that in the body of their letter was a telephone number that I should have phoned had I not received the course details. The upshot for me is that I should have read the letter properly!

So now I need to decide if I will take the points and fine or dispute this matter. My areas of concern are:

1) My car was coming round a bend the police could have had no prior opinion that I was speeding contrary to their ACPO - Is this relevant?

2) My car is a Land Rover. The Laser was trained on a bend of the road at the number plate hight of a normal car. This meant that the first photo showed the cross section of the laser beam targeted on the void under my number plate to the right of centre, possibly even under my car. The second photo shows the laser to the far left above the number plate. Is it acceptable that the laser has clearly been moved across the car or are these two different pictures? - I can not request the video until I have made a commitment to go to court.

3) The test calibration certificate shows the range as having being tested at 156.3, 284.5 and 488.4 My first photo shows a distance of 748F - Yet this range has not been calibrated - Is this relevant?

4) The first photo shows 36MPH at 10.48.06am at a distance of 748F. The second 29MPH at 10.48.14am at 378F. Does this mean that in 8 seconds I have travelled 370ft. I have travelled the length of road again and to travel the full distance in 8 seconds I would need to be driving at 29MPH any slower and I would not reach the target area quick enough. Any quicker and I would be past the target area too quickly.


I am not sure what to do about this. I am concerned with a point of principal. I do not think I was speeding. However, I am human and I may of made a mistake. What is this evidence pointing to. Could I be risking heavy costs to defend something that should not be defended. Perhaps I am one of the hundred that get caught up in this net of stealth taxes and take the hit on a fine and or points because we do not question it and the powers that be rely upon this.

Please Your help before I run out of time on my remaining options and before I go mad!! Thank you in advance. smile.gif
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Photos.pdf ( 115.9K ) Number of downloads: 336
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Advertisement
post Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
I am Weasel
post Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:40
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,399
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
From: Winnersh, UK
Member No.: 27,840



nothing you write will make this go away

370 feet in 8 seconds averages out at 31.53 MPH so it looks like you were exceeding the limit and perhaps even slowed down once you had seen the laser operator

Take the course or the 3 points - you won't do well in court with what you have told us so far

This post has been edited by I am Weasel: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BaggieBoy
post Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:44
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,723
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
From: North Hampshire
Member No.: 5,183



Fighting on a technical point would require expert witnesses on your side, they would counter with expert witnesses on their side. If you lost they would request costs that could be eye watering. It possible it could be done, but nothing you have said makes a not guilty very likely.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:54
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



The beam is a cone several inches across at 700+ feet so it would have easily hit your plate in photo 1. Go to court and this will be an expensive mistake.

You are unclear what speed you were actually doing and +6 mph is easily done without noticing. Ask yourself if when you saw the officer you lifted off.

Prior opinion is not required in law so that is a non starter.

This should be a SAC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 13:24
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49,992
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



700ft or just over 200m, the footprint of the cone will be in excess of 8" across, if it didn't reflect back then no speed could have been measured.

There has to be opinion, but not prior.

The 2 readings indicate clearly that you slowed down but that your average was still over the limit.

You may not think you were speeding, but given everything you have showed us, I do and so will a court.


--------------------
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
BaggieBoy
post Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 13:51
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,723
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
From: North Hampshire
Member No.: 5,183



QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:54) *
This should be a SAC.

Read post #1 again, the SAC has gone:

QUOTE
The next I heard was the option of the drivers awareness course had been removed as I had not attended and that I had a conditional offer of a fixed penalty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 14:14
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37,346
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (heatherheather @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29) *
1) My car was coming round a bend the police could have had no prior opinion that I was speeding contrary to their ACPO - Is this relevant?
Nope.

QUOTE (heatherheather @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29) *
2) My car is a Land Rover. The Laser was trained on a bend of the road at the number plate hight of a normal car. This meant that the first photo showed the cross section of the laser beam targeted on the void under my number plate to the right of centre, possibly even under my car. The second photo shows the laser to the far left above the number plate. Is it acceptable that the laser has clearly been moved across the car or are these two different pictures? - I can not request the video until I have made a commitment to go to court.
Ping looks good to me. As you've noted it's a continuous stream - see here for an (extreme) example.

QUOTE (heatherheather @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29) *
3) The test calibration certificate shows the range as having being tested at 156.3, 284.5 and 488.4 My first photo shows a distance of 748F - Yet this range has not been calibrated - Is this relevant?
The device works by timing the reflection of the signal - if the timing is correct at the tested distances there's nothing to indicate there would be a significant difference at 748f. (Of course longer distances are likely to introduce larger 'errors' but will be tiny and the distance is within the operating specification of the device)

QUOTE (heatherheather @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29) *
4) The first photo shows 36MPH at 10.48.06am at a distance of 748F. The second 29MPH at 10.48.14am at 378F. Does this mean that in 8 seconds I have travelled 370ft. I have travelled the length of road again and to travel the full distance in 8 seconds I would need to be driving at 29MPH any slower and I would not reach the target area quick enough. Any quicker and I would be past the target area too quickly.
The measurement is made in around 1/3s - so is virtually instantaneous. Looks like they've given you the 'money shot' and one to assist in the identification. The particular shots are around 8 seconds apart but that gives an average speed of almost 32mph - but this would be consistent with slowing down from 36. (Also the time delta is not accurate enough to make a firm conclusion - for example, 7.5s difference puts the average speed nearer 34mph)

QUOTE (heatherheather @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29) *
I am not sure what to do about this. I am concerned with a point of principal. I do not think I was speeding.
Not thinking you were speeding is not a defence. Just to focus the mind, the costs of pleading not guilty and then being subsequently found guilty is likely to be £600+ alone. Expert witnesses can easily see this over £1k. Of course, you could plead NG and get some evidence disclosure but any fixed penalty offer will have to be rejected forever.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 14:15


--------------------
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
heatherheather
post Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 20:55
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,816



QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:44) *
Fighting on a technical point would require expert witnesses on your side, they would counter with expert witnesses on their side. If you lost they would request costs that could be eye watering. It possible it could be done, but nothing you have said makes a not guilty very likely.


Thank you 'Baggieboy' for taking the time to reply to my post.

Wow thank you every one for your advice. I really appreciate it. You are all have so much knowledge. I will take your advice and pay up tomorrow. Thank you again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IanJohnsonWS14
post Tue, 18 Feb 2014 - 07:53
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 328
Joined: 2 Aug 2005
Member No.: 3,508



QUOTE (heatherheather @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29) *
I filled in the form and requested to go on a drivers awareness course.


By doing this I believe you have already admitted guilt.


--------------------
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
heatherheather
post Tue, 18 Feb 2014 - 08:21
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,816



QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Tue, 18 Feb 2014 - 07:53) *
QUOTE (heatherheather @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29) *
I filled in the form and requested to go on a drivers awareness course.


By doing this I believe you have already admitted guilt.



This is a fair point. So many considerations!! I will be paying up this morning
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 18 Feb 2014 - 08:28
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49,992
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Tue, 18 Feb 2014 - 07:53) *
QUOTE (heatherheather @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:29) *
I filled in the form and requested to go on a drivers awareness course.


By doing this I believe you have already admitted guilt.

You believe wrong......


--------------------
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

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: Saturday, 4th December 2021 - 19:51
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.