Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Faulty reading possible?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
Jelly_Bean_Jon
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:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:21:39 +0000
The Rookie
To get your speed the operator points the laser (and accompanying camera) at a car and takes a speed reading, if he can point it at you there is no reason to believe there would be anything wrong with the reading just because you think he normally targets cars coming the other way.

While errors do occasionally happen (VERY occasionally) they are not always easy to prove, the chances are that the measurement is correct and you were careless due to your preconception of how it was operating, an awareness course is almost certain to be offered.

You would have a defence based on the late NIP, however its not always easy to prove t the courts satisfaction that you didn't get the NIP as you have a lot to gain if you were choosing to tell porkies!
notmeatloaf
If they have sent you the shot with the speed reading exactly what speed is displayed?

Most laser guns display the speed of a receding vehicle as a minus (negative) speed. If the speed isn't preceded by a minus it could be the gun was misaligned/algorithm picked the wrong car and they actually measured a vehicle travelling towards the camera.

It might be best to scan/photo the picture for confirmation.
Jelly_Bean_Jon
So, the sent 3x pictures, but only 1 has a speed and distance measurement on ~

notmeatloaf
Well it is not an ideal position to get a speed reading. The beam from 52m away will be relatively narrow and it risks the speed being increased by "slip effect" if it is dragged down the side of your vehicle.

Are the other three images before or after the shot above? Do they show the crosshairs on the same part of the car?

The issue you have is that if you dispute the speed then many police forces will automatically refer it to court. So you are in a double or quits scenario - they may review the footage and cancel it, or you may have the hassle of going to court.

If you are quite certain you were not going 38mph then it is a relatively safe option as the footage should prove you were not travelling at that speed and/or the speed reading was poorly executed. However obviously any defence will require time and putting your money on the line.
Jlc
QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 17:36) *
So, the sent 3x pictures, but only 1 has a speed and distance measurement on ~

That’s normal - no apparent issue with that still alone.

You only say you believe you weren’t speeding. Generally, those that believe the same are often surprised when they see the photo.

You have to nominate the driver regardless. There’s a potential defence on the ‘late’ NIP but the burden of proof is yours in that it didn’t arrive.
122basy
That image shows the scene shortly after the speed was measured. The combination of your direction and speed and the delay in writing the data to the screen puts your vehicle further to the left and crossing to the right.
Looks fine to me, you were driving at 38mph.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 17:50) *
Well it is not an ideal position to get a speed reading. The beam from 52m away will be relatively narrow and it risks the speed being increased by "slip effect" if it is dragged down the side of your vehicle.

Are the other three images before or after the shot above? Do they show the crosshairs on the same part of the car?

The issue you have is that if you dispute the speed then many police forces will automatically refer it to court. So you are in a double or quits scenario - they may review the footage and cancel it, or you may have the hassle of going to court.

If you are quite certain you were not going 38mph then it is a relatively safe option as the footage should prove you were not travelling at that speed and/or the speed reading was poorly executed. However obviously any defence will require time and putting your money on the line.

Absolute rubbish. Poor advice.
Jelly_Bean_Jon
Image 2 is timed at 11:53:43 and has the cross hair under the corner of the numberplate
Image 1 is timed at 11:53:46 and has the cross hair right on the edge of the indicator
Image 3 is timed at 11:53:46 and has the cross hair on the front edge of the wheelarch

#2 has a number stamp that reads 00:19:08:17
#1 is stamped 00:19:11:17
#3 is stamped 00:19:11:15

I really do not think I was doing 38, I think it's unfair how biased this whole thing is

I have told them I was driving (seems to be more hassle if you don't nominate someone)
Jlc
Image 2 is the measurement shot.

You have the right to go to court and put them to proof. But as it stands you are likely to pick up prosecution costs of £620 as well as an income related fine and surcharge. Still only 3 points mind.

As an approved device you would have to show the measurement was incorrect. Just thinking you weren't speeding isn't a defence.

QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 21:08) *
I have told them I was driving (seems to be more hassle if you don't nominate someone)

Not nominating the driver is a separate offence carrying 6 points. I’d say that was more hassle as a guaranteed court visit.
Jelly_Bean_Jon
Great, so basically I'm stuffed
I do not believe I was speeding
but the system is so biased and the risk of contesting so high
that they 'win' whatever the truth actually is

so, like most people, I just pay up and start hating an unfair system.
AntonyMMM
Your speed was measured by a laser device that is deemed to be accurate - and in reality they are (very). Arguing against that, despite how aggrieved you feel is almost impossible, and the pic is about as clear as it gets.

You could run a defence on the late NIP angle, but that is a big gamble given the costs of losing against taking an awareness course
nosferatu1001
How is it unfair or biased?
They have evidnece that says you committed an offence - do you have anything that says otherwise? If you dont, how is this different to anything else where the prosecution has evidence of a crime being committed?
Jlc
QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 09:08) *
I do not believe I was speeding
but the system is so biased and the risk of contesting so high

But if you were not speeding there's no risk in contesting?
122basy
QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 21:08) *
Image 2 is timed at 11:53:43 and has the cross hair under the corner of the numberplate
Image 1 is timed at 11:53:46 and has the cross hair right on the edge of the indicator
Image 3 is timed at 11:53:46 and has the cross hair on the front edge of the wheelarch

#2 has a number stamp that reads 00:19:08:17
#1 is stamped 00:19:11:17
#3 is stamped 00:19:11:15

I really do not think I was doing 38, I think it's unfair how biased this whole thing is

I have told them I was driving (seems to be more hassle if you don't nominate someone)

Image 2 is 3 seconds before the image in which your speed appears.

The speed will have begun to be measured 0.4s before image 2 is made. As I mentioned earlier, the cross-hair will not have been where it is in image 2 when your speed was measured. There is nothing wrong with the position of the cross-hair moving, it is impossible, almost, to keep it in the same position, you are after all driving at 38mph.

Image 3 is made 0.04s before image 1.

Image 2 is made exactly 3 seconds before image 1 and your vehicle was probably not being measured at that time as it only takes 0.312s to measure your speed.

notmeatloaf
Surprised at some of this "advice".

OP states they know of the speed trap and do not speed past it.

Furthermore they are heading in the wrong direction to get caught out travelling downhill.

It is up to the OP to clarify but I know of similar speed traps near me and I would say with certainty if I got a ticket from any that the speed was incorrectly measured.

It has been proved time and time again that laser guns are capable of giving erroneous readings. If the OP is certain/near certain they were not speeding than by definition it is certain/near certain the reading is erroneous.

As usual the normal camera apologists pop up pretending that with three images and some googled numbers they can say with certainty that a rading is accurate. Clearly rubbish which is why any defence solicitor will ask for the relevant video.

I don't really get why you would bother posting on a "fightback forum" if all you have to say to an OP in this sitation is "police right, not worth challenging". rolleyes.gif

OP one of the posters in this thread pretended to work for the police until the police force called him out on the lie. Not everyone has advice worth accepting without question.
The Rookie
This shouldn’t be too hard, returning to the ‘scene of the crime’ measure how far the car moved between first and last photos and calculate the speed.

However as noted above the device is approved and thus deemed to be accurate, you have to prove it was not on this occasion not the other way round.

Laser devices have been proven to give incorrect readings, HOWEVER it is actually very rare that they do so, although the angle here may make it more likely, a recall a handful of cases on here in 15 years where cases where dropped as the reading was demonstrably wrong.
Churchmouse
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 09:50) *
QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 09:08) *
I do not believe I was speeding
but the system is so biased and the risk of contesting so high

But if you were not speeding there's no risk in contesting?

No risk? What an extraordinary thing to say in this forum!

--Churchmouse
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 18:13) *
Laser devices have been proven to give incorrect readings, HOWEVER it is actually very rare that they do so

Poor grasp of statistics.

If you take something very rare and repeat it millions of times it becomes almost impossible for it not to happen fairly often.

Usually that is quite a punt but here - OP knows of speed trap, travelling uphill, only 50m from van when speed measured - would to me indicate a relatively high chance the speed reading is erroneous.
Jlc
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 22:50) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 09:50) *
QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 09:08) *
I do not believe I was speeding
but the system is so biased and the risk of contesting so high

But if you were not speeding there's no risk in contesting?

No risk? What an extraordinary thing to say in this forum!

Perhaps slightly disingenuous but if the OP has the footage and wasn’t speeding then an expert witness can present the evidence to disprove the allegation.

Depends on how you define risk I suppose...

Perhaps the device was faulty or the operator managed to produce a misread by the slip effect but it’s far more likely they were speeding and their belief was misfounded.
The Rookie
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 23:31) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 18:13) *
Laser devices have been proven to give incorrect readings, HOWEVER it is actually very rare that they do so

Poor grasp of statistics.

If you take something very rare and repeat it millions of times it becomes almost impossible for it not to happen fairly often.

Usually that is quite a punt but here - OP knows of speed trap, travelling uphill, only 50m from van when speed measured - would to me indicate a relatively high chance the speed reading is erroneous.

How’s it a poor grasp of statistics, it means that in any given case the chance of a misread is very small, absolute numbers are irrelevant, THAT is a poor grasp of statistics.

As for the OP knowing it was there, that’s offset somewhat by the fact he thought is was measuring the speed of traffic going the other way?
kernow2015
I know the area ( just by the old weighbridge office) and can measure this next week to give a more accurate distance of where the van was and where the reading was taken, but from the picture it looks like they were parked with the camera detecting vehicles coming from Smokey Joes/Mitchell & Webber end of the village.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 08:21) *
How’s it a poor grasp of statistics, it means that in any given case the chance of a misread is very small, absolute numbers are irrelevant, THAT is a poor grasp of statistics.

As for the OP knowing it was there, that’s offset somewhat by the fact he thought is was measuring the speed of traffic going the other way?

Because you are saying with two seemingly very unlikely events because the laser gun doesn't often obtain incorrect readings than the OP being mistaken is then a very likely option.

In reality it is just as unlikely as before.

For me the clinching thing is that the speed reading wasn't obtained just as the OP came into view. It was obtained three seconds before the OP passed the van. Even without knowledge of the speed trap it would be very inattentive to get caught in those circumstances. But only the OP can plug in the %age chance of that occurring.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 08:21) *
How’s it a poor grasp of statistics, it means that in any given case the chance of a misread is very small, absolute numbers are irrelevant, THAT is a poor grasp of statistics.

As for the OP knowing it was there, that’s offset somewhat by the fact he thought is was measuring the speed of traffic going the other way?

Because you are saying with two seemingly very unlikely events because the laser gun doesn't often obtain incorrect readings than the OP being mistaken is then a very likely option.

In reality it is just as unlikely as before.

For me the clinching thing is that the speed reading wasn't obtained just as the OP came into view. It was obtained three seconds before the OP passed the van. Even without knowledge of the speed trap it would be very inattentive to get caught in those circumstances. But only the OP can plug in the %age chance of that occurring.
NewJudge
The OP's choice is fairly straightforward. He can either accept he was speeding or challenge the matter in court. If he does so the prosecution will produce evidence to show that his speed was measured by an approved device (which is deemed to be accurate unless the contrary can be shown) and that it was operated in the approved manner. His task will therefore be to disprove one of those two. I doubt he will be able to do so unaided so he will need expert assistance for which he will have to pay. The majority of those costs will be unrecoverable should he succeed. Simply turning up and saying "I don't believe I was speeding" will not do.
notmeatloaf
No, he doesn't need to prove the measurement is wrong, he needs to cast reasonable doubt on that measurement.

If the full video is obtained and the average speed is o
calculated between two points and found to be less than 30mph then the court will be able to decide whether the OP significantly accelerated at the point the van measured the speed or that the laser gun was not operated correctly.

The video may well support that assertion anyway.

As to whether the court would require an expert to present a simple s=d/t calculation that would seem to me to be unduly onerous. We do, after all, have educated magistrates.

But it all depends on how certain the OP is that he was not exceeding the limit. Unless it is near certain then court would be too risky an option.
122basy
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 13:36) *
No, he doesn't need to prove the measurement is wrong, he needs to cast reasonable doubt on that measurement.

If the full video is obtained and the average speed is o
calculated between two points and found to be less than 30mph then the court will be able to decide whether the OP significantly accelerated at the point the van measured the speed or that the laser gun was not operated correctly.

The video may well support that assertion anyway.

As to whether the court would require an expert to present a simple s=d/t calculation that would seem to me to be unduly onerous. We do, after all, have educated magistrates.

But it all depends on how certain the OP is that he was not exceeding the limit. Unless it is near certain then court would be too risky an option.

That's nice. How would the magistrates establish the accuracy of the video and perform an accurate analysis of its content in a way that would be more convincing than the reading from a Type Approved device?
Magistrates decide guilty or not guilty on the evidence they are presented with, at this time the courts in the UK do not perform inquisitorial trials.
Are you the guy from Vic reeves Big Night Out? The one on fantasy island.
Jelly_Bean_Jon

Some here have come across as if the police never make any mistakes

but I appreciate the good advice in between, and will follow some of it.

I am going to get proper professional advice tomorrow
Jelly_Bean_Jon

using google maps, which I accept isn't 100% accurate

the distance between the 1st image and the last image is 143ft

which, if covered in 3 seconds = 32.5mph, not close to the indicated 38mph

at 38mph, I'd have covered 167.2ft = 24ft adrift somewhere

I'm now even more convinced they are wrong, proper legal advice tomorrow
NewJudge
I don't think anyone is suggesting the police never make mistakes but think you face a couple of difficulties with that approach.

You would be asking the court to accept that your calculation, based on measuring distances from two photographs, is more likely to be correct than a measurement taken by an approved device operated in the correct manner. If you are just 12 feet out (less than 10%) with your measurement taken from the photographs your speed would be 35mph.

The second problem you face is that even if your measurements are 100% correct, 32.5mph is greater than 30mph and the allegation you face is exceeding the speed limit, not travelling at 38.5mph. You will have to convince the court that the measurement taken by the police is so unreliable that it cannot be relied upon to prove you were exceeding the speed limit.

At the very least I would visit the scene and get an accurate measurement of the distance between the two points. I would also beware of solicitors who offer to get you acquitted.
Jelly_Bean_Jon

I agree totally, measurement wheel is on the way

and yes, I'll be looking to cast doubt on their allegation


Jlc
Just bear in mind an instantaneous reading versus an average calculation may not fully equate, especially if any braking is involved.

Let us know how you get on but at least you are aware of the potential costs etc.
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 17:34) *
Just bear in mind an instantaneous reading versus an average calculation may not fully equate, especially if any braking is involved.

Indeed. Also comes into play if the opposite is true, i.e. vehicle was accelerating and was pinged at the peak speed, however the average over the distance could well be below the limit.
122basy
QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 16:52) *
I agree totally, measurement wheel is on the way

and yes, I'll be looking to cast doubt on their allegation

Will it be calibrated? Are you qualified to use it? How will you verify the time you are going to use in the calculation? How will you know when the laser took the speed measurement? Why will your calculation be preferred to the Tupe Approved calibrated device operated by someone who is likely to be a skilled, trained and experienced operator?

Your early estimate of 32.5, if verified is above the limit.
Jelly_Bean_Jon

I really don't need to prove any of my arguments
just that theirs might not be accurate - benefit of the doubt etc

but only if someone suitably qualified agrees I have some wiggle room

122basy
QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 22:16) *
I really don't need to prove any of my arguments
just that theirs might not be accurate - benefit of the doubt etc

but only if someone suitably qualified agrees I have some wiggle room

Indeed! But where is the doubt raised that there is a possibility of error in the measurement? Saying "I didn't do it" raises no reasonable doubt.

From the image you have posted it appears that there has been a Type Approved device used to measure your speed. That is sufficient proof of your speed until you prove otherwise.

Finding someone suitably qualified is your next task perhaps.
Jlc
Was this the proper legal advice?
122basy
QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 22:45) *
Was this the proper legal advice?

Probably from the pub by the look of it.
NewJudge
QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 22:16) *
I really don't need to prove any of my arguments
just that theirs might not be accurate - benefit of the doubt etc

As I think I and others have explained, you need to do more than that.
BaggieBoy
You may very well get a calculated speed which is lower than is alleged. As yours is an average speed and theirs is instantaneous, both could be correct.
Jelly_Bean_Jon

I was under the impression that this forum is intended to help people wrongly accused

The 'advice' I have been offered seems mostly "the police etc never make mistakes"

and "you're done mate, just bend over and take it"

I have, quite clearly I thought, said I will take proper legal advice
I do not drink, there is no 'pub' or other such dodgy source of advice
In fact, the only place I have asked for or been given any advice is right here

I am quite sure the speed reading is wrong, at the moment I am not sure how wrong it is
the main question I'll be asking is: should I risk the obvious bias of the system?
cp8759
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.
Jlc
QUOTE (Jelly_Bean_Jon @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 00:03) *
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.
notmeatloaf
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.
Jlc
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.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 17:56) *
...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.
Jelly_Bean_Jon

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.

The Rookie
But the crosssahairs only need to be pointed at your car when the trigger is pulled.

Which way was the van facing?
notmeatloaf
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.
The Rookie
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 15:12) *
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.
jezt
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.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 15:23) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 15:12) *
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.

QUOTE (jezt @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 16:48) *
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!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.