Hi guys,

I have just received a NIP from Hampshire Constabulary, claiming that I was doing 53mph on the A27 Eastern Way, Fareham, Hants, on the 16 sept.
I drive a HGV class 1.
But.........
At the time that they state, their speed that they are accusing me of differs from my tachograph.
My tacho states that i was only doing 65kph (approx 41mph) which is just 1mph over the limit. :!:
I will be sending the NIP back unsigned, but the assistance i am wanting is this........
Is it advisable to put a covering letter with the NIP stating why I have not signed it, and the information stated above? And, if so, do i send a photocopy of my tachograph as well?
Or, do I wait for them to issue me with a summons, and produce in court?

Also, and I do not know if anyone here will know this, but if a tachograph is not properly calibrated, does the onus still fall on the driver? and if not, then who?
I ask this as I am sure that it is calibrated ( as required by law) but if it goes as far as them checking, and they find that it is not, then what happens?
Your help and replys are, as always, greatly appreciated.

Hi cuddlyewok,

How about sending the SCAMera Filth one of these babies

If Dibble come around for "a friendly chat" DO NOT LET THEM IN, AND SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING until you have your lawyer present. :!:

(I'd keep quiet about the tach. for now, as it clearly shows you breaking the speed limit, which as you probably know is an absolute offence! )

Please keep us posted on any new developments.

Good luck!
_______________________
Please help to fund the ‘fight’

This is no longer the best course of action. The pace letter is current best route for most cases. as mentioned in the above posting.
Was this a fixed camera or the mobile van unit?

your tacho unit is fairly accurate but small variations can be made by fitting different profile tyres. the tacho accuracy could be proved on a rolling road if you can find one big enough. Hampshire use the LTI 20-20 vidio/lazer units in thier mobile units thich can be inaccurate when not used properly. See the thread in cameras section.

What ever you do, read lots , don't rush, take your 28 days wisely to chose the best course of action. Don't contact the coppers un-neccessarily..

extra question
is the front of your truck flat or sloped, fitted with air deflector. did you have a large load or box on the back of your truck?

Many thanks for your input, both BritishBlue, and Anton,
I honestly have no idea what camera it was, as I did not notice either a van or a camera at the side of the road.
As for my truck -
It is a flat fronted Renault 17 1/2 tonne with trailer, both with detachable box bodies, although I cannot honestly remember whether I had the trailer attached at the time of the alleged offence.
The truck aslo has an air deflector on the cab.
The truck is also a lease vehicle, so i am assuming that Renault got the NIP, then my firm, before me.
BritishBlue - thank you for the link, which I have pasted into word, and will wait a few days before sending it off recorded delivery.
Many thanks for both your replys.

Hi Cuddlyewok,

I am fairly certain this would have been a van not a fixed camera.

JackieA

Hi again cuddlyewok,

Firstly, how did this case finish? It was left hanging in the air as I remember. Did you receive anything from the scammers/CPS?

If you dispute the claim in your current case, then how accurate are tachographs? Could they be used to counter the claim of alleged speeding? Does anyone know???

when i was up at Bath, prior to my case a truck driver used this defence, he was subsequently found guilty

that said, he was on his own and may not have presented the case with maximum effect, if a proffessional had presented the case then i believe it is a strong defence, mika do you remember the bloke?

Hi FF, its been a while

Many thanks for reminding me about the previous case, as I clean forgot to post the results back up.
So, here is the full outcome.
I sent the NIP back to L+B unsigned via recorded delivery.
They then sent me back my original unsigned NIP back to me, stating that I had to sign and return, which they sent by normal post, so I did not return it.
A short while after they sent me a reminder, stating that if I did not fill in the NIP and sign and return within 7 days, then I would receive a visit from Pc plod.......It is now 10 months since recieving the first NIP, and since their last B+B letter, I have heard absolutly nothing, so one would assume that I got away with it using the unsigned route in Scotland.
I doubt very much that I could do the same with Hampshire, as I have heard that they persue you in the courts if you go unsigned.
As for Tachographs, they are supposed to be a legal document, which they Ministry of Transport can use against a driver, so it should apply for the reverse, and be used by the driver to prove innocence.
I assume that they are only accurate as long as they are properly calibrated, which is a specialist job to do, and nothing to do with the driver. We just put the circular bit of paper in each day, to record our speed and distance travelled and hours worked.
But, I am not entirely certain about the use of Tacho's in court, and Matt1133's reply does not fill me with great optimism. So, if anybody else has, or knows of, a case like this where the driver has used a tacho as defence against speeding, I would love to know.
Anyway, some good news, at least everyone knows that it can be done going unsigned in Scotland, although I can offer no guarantees to others, just advice of my own case if it is needed.

Many thanks
Cuddles

Cuddles,

In he case Matt is referring to, the defendant only had the witness statement provided by his “expert”.

As the expert was not present in person, the Crown probably objected to the introduction of the statement because they could not be cross-examine him, therefore, the court will probably have disregarded the expert’s opinion.

However, as has already been pointed out, getting an expert to confirm that your speed was 41mph may not be a good idea.

Morning.

65kph is actually 40.39mph. I cant believe the reading accuracy of the chart, let alone the intrument error is that high. Therefore whilst possibly indicating an absolute offence, it at the same time evidences, within the assumed accuracy, that no offence took place.

Therefore their must be reasonable doubt that an offence took place, and certain proof that the polices instrument was wrong.

Peteturbo

why I asked about the truck shape
is that the coppers are supposed to target a flat surface only then they can get a reading. But they zip from target to target as seen in one of mika's videos ; see him target 6 cars in 21 seconds...here

The result is they hit and outside edge of the target then center in on the no plate


the pace letter is your first and cheapest line of defence. you have a backup if you get a summons then you have a tacho and and with a full unedited copy of the video evidence a chance to add to the cases that prove that the lti 20-20 is infalable.


I hope this wonderfull artistic sketch helps people understand better.

Anton...what a fab piccie
With the info that you have provided, it seems that that is what has happened.
As Peteturbo stated

add to this from your diagram 13mph
= 53.39mph - rounded down to 53mph - the speed I am accused of.

Whether this is an exact science, i do not know, but it is certainly making me feel more confident.

Thanks as well for the link to watch the scamera zipping from car to car.
How long does their guns take to get a reading from an object, and also can hand held and van cameras get an accurate reading on a vehicle travelling away from them?
Should I ask Hants Const. to send me the video &/or photographic evidence ( I state both as thats what it says on my NIP, it does not specify which one).
I assume that they will tell me to go down to hants to view it, rather than sending me them.

Cheers

Cuddles

Anton,

The phenomenon that you have described is known as “slip” and, according the Crown’s expert witness, the LTi 20-20 cannot be affected by it.

Those of you who were unable to witness the explanation firsthand at Cardiff Crown Court, can study the details here.

Mika, the expert opinin has been removed for leagle reasons,
I recall you came back from that case feeling shafted by magistrates who would not listen.
how did they explain away slip? Did they say that It has stabilisation software? because they claimed this in the USA , they couldnt prove it!
The prosicution witness waved one of the cameras round the walls of the court room and recorded a speed from the walls which were obviously stationary.

Anton,

When I wrote my last post on this thread, I couldn’t find one of the Emoticons with “tongue in cheek”, so I had to use this one instead.

In my opinion, a Judicial Review may be required.

Mika tounge in cheek or not, you have not actually answered my question..

As YOU WERE THERE ... could you to the best of your recolection... tell us how they backed up thier claim that slip couldn't happen

unless this would jepordise a case in the pipe line..

All the best Anton

Their 'expert' (who had no expertise in science, engineering or computing) said that the software algorithms prevented it.
No code was produced.

Hi jeffrey
do you also remember



Regards

How about:

A former Chief Superintendent, Traffic and Operations, Warwickshire Police, said of IMP Electronics’ designs, “They work simply, require minimal training, and are so unremarkable in operation, they’re remarkable”.

You really need to get the software off an LTI and get an expert in whatever CPU it uses to analyse it's operation in a simulator.

Gareth

well out side my field

That is one way and I know a man who can! if anyone can get the software.

However a simpler way, if the lti 20-20 has this software (and I dont think it has!) . If you proved wether it had it or not that using it you could get a speed reading from a stationary car you prove it DOES NOT WORK... hundreds of cases would need to be overturned... get me access to a lti 20-20... any where in the country 24 hours warning please!

Has anyone tried www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk, eg

http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/snooper920.htm

What you need to do is perfect your stationary slip technique on any oblique object, and then give Jeremy clarkson a ring. New series of Top Gear starts soon.

Peteturbo

Hi,

The problem with all this is they will state that they have evidence that it is accurate and after exhaustive tests by the Police Scientific branch and in 99.9999% of cases it was entirely correct in its reading. We know that this is a load of old tosh but Magistrates and Judges will use it to justify the decisions that they make. They will say that when coupled with primary expert opinion, no matter if an error can be induced, it still does not cause reasonable doubt.

If Top Gear did do their own tests and showed it to be inaccurate that might cause a reaction and while I would sincerely hope that it might lead to its withdrawl, I somehow doubt it.

IMHO what we need is proper, truly independant, testing of all speed measuring devices used in evidence production with full disclosure of the raw data. I don't think that this happens anywhere in the World and I think that we all know why.

Best wishes

Bob

I am thinking of a speed reading from a stationary car
or an incorect reading from a car driven ar exactly 30mph with a video cam in car on a digital speedo and at the LTI20-20 showing the wrong reading.

I have info that may lead me to a LTI20-20 (thanks)

I think that the police and CPS and the manufacturers are so entwined in this scam the only way is to go direct to press and MP's.

first we need evidence!

For your information the members of this forum make up the other 0.00001% of cases. Case dismissed.

Hi

Don't forget that in Cardiff the Crown and the 'Independent' expert witness for the Crown both agreed that the tape showed 'innacuracies', with cars coming towards the LTI20-20 showing a negative (going away) speed
This was however due to 'loose nut(s)' which meant that the targetted vehicle didn't always show on the tape. No problem with the kit, just allignment of the camera and laser :? Happy to prosecute on that evidence? Of course!
Rather a good reason I would suggest to see the whole video!

Regards

Anton,

stationary vehicles; so was I.. Prove a stationary vehicle is doing x mph due to slip, and heh presto. Or a brick wall, or a US courtroom.

I suggest a brick wall, 300metres away, at about 20 degrees to the laser and gently pan the 20 20 along it until you can reliably get a decent false reading. Is this difficult? Does it work? You could even do it with the road surface from a bridge.

Peteturbo

Hi Blackbird,

It beggars belief that they have the brass neck to try this on never mind actually get away with it.

Best wishes

Bob

Hi Bob,

It would have been very interesting to hear the reasoning if this case had come to court.

In that case, there were no “nuts and bolts” to come lose because the LTi 20-20 didn’t have the Lastec video recording equipment attached.

On the subject of proving that the device is unreliable; don’t forget that we already have several Lastec traffic videos including the 1.5 hour one from the Cardiff case so, all we may need now, is to find someone who is prepared to fund the Judicial Review and initiate the civil litigation.

What is the estimated cost? and how long would that take?

Anton,

I consulted a specialist on your behalf.

The Judicial Review will probably cost around £20K if you lose - £10K for your costs + £10K for the opposition.

However, if you win, the cost will probably be zero.

Hi guys

Many thanks for the replies on this thread.
So, do I assume correct that the best way forward at this point is to just send in a copy of the Witness Statement, as linked to by Britishblue.
If i do, do i also send in my NIP, but not filled in?
And is it advisable to keep shtum about both my tacho and the "slip" effect?
By drawing attention to these two items, would it not hopefully dissuade them from continuing? Although, proofing the slip theory will not be easy as a judicial review seems to be a bit on the expensive side.
I would rather appear daft now, asking these questions and gaining advice from you guys, than apear in front of a court.

Best wishes

Cuddles

as i am aware, it seems to motivate them more than ever should you show them your best defence points. i would minimise the amount you disclose if any. if you must, do not give them too much.

others will give a more definitive answer but you may need to send a skeleton argument so the CPS can't cry ambush

Hi Guys,

Right, the story so far.

Last saturday I sent in to Hampshire Police a copy of the witness statement, fully filled in, along with a photocopy of my tachograph for that day.
I sent them all recorded delivery, although Royal Snail has no comfirmation of its delivery, so I phoned the Hants ticket office to double check that they had received the paperwork, which they have.
Today, I received a letter back from Hants constabulary stating the following:

Dear sir/madam
I refer to your recent communication in relation to the above numbered notice of intended prosecution/section 172 Road traffic Act, 1988 document issued following detection of a road traffic offence.

Having looked at the Tachograph you sent us we are concerned that there are gaps in the distance trace, this would indicate that the tachograph has been opened during the day for periods up to 20 mins. The mechanical setting of the clock on the tachograph would not be as accurate as the timing set up on our cameras, which are set by the speaking clock.
We enclose a copy of the Notice of intended prosicution and await your reply.

Yours faithfully

a squiggle

Officer in charge.


Now, firstly, my tachograph is never opened during the day, apart from inserting a new tacho, and removing it, and the said gaps that they mention, well, I can only assume that they do not employ or ask anyone with any knowledge of tachos, as they will have found out that the gaps are in fact breaks, which i legally have to take - a minimum of 45mins every 4.5hours.

So, now I am wondering whether to send them a really snotty letter stating the above to them, and asking them to check the ruddy tacho again, but by someone who knows what they are looking at!

Right now I am thinking sod the consequences, and if they want to get uppity about it, then
I will take it all the way to court to prove my innocence!

So, does anyone have any better advice, or is what I have said above the best way forward.

Cheers

Cuddles

In my experience trying to discuss anything with Hampshire Constabulary is a waste of time

If youre in the position to send them a PACE letter and let the FPN time out like I did with them.

My experiance with Hampshire too, Copper in charge was unbeleavable. Pretends to be your friend, offers his advice, very cocky. Evasive when you mention his officers were parked under a road sign. My advice is not to contact them. keep your case on that very big pile of ones they don't know what to do with. I bet no-one at the cps knows what a tacho disc is, let alone how to read one.

Ps it is now 4 1/2 months no summons.

All the best Anton.

Hi Guys
Well OU182 and anton, you were right about Hampshire Constabulary.
Yesterday, whilst I was working away, I received a letter at my home from Hants police stating, in a condensed version, that they have not received any information off myself and that I legally have to supply the drivers details to them. Basically, they cannot issue a fixed penalty, and a court case is probable.
It also states to respond immediatly to the letter and if I do not understand the document, or require further info, to contact the office without delay.
Now, with me being away, my wife opened the letter, read it, and then phoned up the office to let rip and tell them that they had in fact received information from myself, which they then sent back, and is stamped as being received.
The woman at the other end of the phone double checked everything, and said that yes, they had in fact received my details (in the form of a witness statement, and not the filled out NIP) and she would proceed to issue me with a fixed penalty, which I am, in her words, to either pay and get my license endosed, or to take the matter to court, in which case a judge would look at my evidence and the evidence of the police, and then decide on whom is right.
She was also adamant that the police cameras are never faulty and that their evidence is correct, as all their cameras are calibrated daily, and are in time with the speaking clock, and I would be well advised to accept the fixed penalty.
Basically, they are right, and my evidence is wrong, and they are not interested in anything I have to say or show.

Well, I am adamant that my evidence is correct, and that I am not guilty of this trumped up charge, so when I receive the fixed penalty, I think that I shall send it back, asking for it to go to court, and enable me to prove my innocence.

I will update as and when I get my fixed penalty, and also the summons.

Any advice on how to proceed with a court case would be appreciated, as I have never been to court before, so therefore have no clue on who to contact, how much it costs, (do you pay up in advance or after the case?) etc.

Best wishes

Cuddles

Cuddels, You dont actually have to send anything back, you get a fixed penalty notice which, if you choose to ignore after 28 days, should result in a summons. I then got a letter offering me a second change to give them 60 quid, how kind!
However I have been waiting over 4 months now from the incident and no summons. Just keeping my fingers crossed.

It may be the case that they just want the 60 quids or it might be I scared them off with some letters. Or they might be playing me like a fish and will send my summons via sleigh on christmas eve!

Worryingly, half my friends have tickets now most have been good little citizans and paid them.

This includes a 75 year old pensioner (first offence) 3 draftsman, a retired school teacher, a contracts supervisor, etc etc.

I have given my friends a good talking to and I doubt that they will pay a second ticket.

Since I complained about cirtain camera van locations they don't appear to have revisited them.

Be lucky,
Anton

Cheers for the info anton

I will hang slack, and let you guys know how things develop.

Cheers

Cuddles

If you replied with PACE then I'd wait for the FPN's to time out and then the 6 months after that.....

I doubt you'll see a summons

Well guys, received Hampshire constabulary's kind offer of a conditional offer of fixed penalty today.
Obviously they would love me to roll over and pay them and takes the 3 points.......yeah right!
I shall ignore the fixed penalty (which they printed upside down on their letter headed paper, I assume they were in a mega rush to get me the paperwork out and didnt pay too much attention to detail!) and await any summons that may come my way.
At least the CPS cannot cry ambush at me, as Hants Cons. have received a copy of my Tacho, and chose to ignore my evidence.

I will keep you all updated.

Best wishes

Cuddles

Hi guys

Just to keep you all up to date...
Today I have received a letter from Hants Const. stating the following:
Dear Sir/madam,
I refer to the recent allegation of a road traffic offence made against you. The circumstances of your case allow it to be dealt with through fixed penalty procedures thereby avoiding a court appearance.
A document was sent to you advising you of that decision.

To date there has been no response from you to that document. The case is therefore now liable to be referred to a magistrate's court for adjudication.

The ability to have this case concluded by fixed penalty procedures is reliant upon the surrender of a valid DVLA driving licence (Provided it does not have more than eight penalty point endorsements) and payment of the £60 penalty.

Should you wish to avail yourself of the fixed penalty procedures you must send your driving licence and a cheque or postal order made payable to The Justices Chief Executive, Fixed Penalty Office, PO Box 431, Winchester, Hampshire, SO23 7XF, (Tel No. 01962 814888) immediately.
Failing this a court prosecution file will be submitted and a summons issued.

If you remain unsure of your position in this case you are advised to contact this office without further delay.

Yours faithfully
Office in charge.


So, my next step is to sit tight and await a summons, and hopefully prove my innocence in court.
I also assume that it is best not to enter into any correspondance with them at all (verbal and written) until the summons comes through.

Best wishes and seasons greetings

Cuddles

Spot on - wait for the summons...or the 6 month time out which ever comes soonest :-)

Can you get copies of the various legislation about 20 min breaks, requirement to have a tacho, and any guidance (expert?) from the tach maker or anyone who reads them for a living?

This might come in handy if you really do need to use the tacho to prove: -

(a) Definitely not even close to 50mph, therefore police evidence unreliable & should be disregarded, and,

(B) Tacho is over-reading by 1mph, therefore not guilty of 41mph.

...or just wait for the timeout ;-)

Hi boyz and girlz,

Well, Hampshire Constabulary must think that they have a case against me, as today I received a summons to appear before the magistrates in Fareham in May.
I received in my summons bundle the following:
Copy of the summons.
Copy of the summons plea form.
Paperwork advising on how to plead by post or in person.
Statement of my income/outgoings.
Statement stating which witness statements are enclosed.
Witness Statement of the Police Officer Operator.
Witness Statement of the Safety Scamera Unit Prosecution Clerk.
5 pages of details of my driving licence - obtained from enquiries at DVLC.
And that is it.

Now, I replied to the original NIP with the pace statement, yet on the bottom of the safety Scamera unit Prosecution Clerk's statement it states  the following:
I produce the reply from the defendant which contains a signed admission as to having been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence (Exhibit MFW2)
Now, as it is a pace letter, and the information on it not admissable as evidence in court, how can this clerk use it as an exhibit?

Also, none of the witness statements are signed by witnesses. Is this relevant?

Also, from the police officers statement is the following:
The LTI/LASER CAMERA was positioned to face East checking spedd of the traffice travelling West and East on both carriageways.
Is it possible for this camera to detect the speed of traffic both coming towards, and going away from it?

Below is the links to the documents:

Summons page 1

Summons page 2

Police officers statement

Scamera Unit Prosecution Clerk Statement

I assume that i have a set time to respond, as I can find no reference to a date the paperwork has to be returned.
Any advice on the best way forward in this case is most appreciated.

Best wishes

cuddles

They are. What do you mean?


In with the 'bundle', did you receive a copy of exhibit mfw2?

MFW2, implies, that there is also MFW1 did you get this also?

The police officer refers to an exhibit. Did you receive a copy or extract of this?

Hi CJM99,

I did not receive anything with regard to Exhibit MFW2 ( which was my pace statement), nor evidence of Exhibit MFW3 , which is alleged DVLA VQ5 document regarding ownership of the vehicle (It is a leased truck).

Exhibit MFW1 was also not included, which was the original NIP, which i sent back, unsigned with "see attached letter" on it.

Also, I have seen no extract or video evidence of the video exhibit ML/5088

Is this significant?

Cheers

Cuddles

If they don't disclose, it will be fatal. . Just plead not guilty and say nothing else.

Cheers for that CJM99


The witness statements are signed by the the person who wrote them, ie. the copper and the clerk, but there is a section at the bottom by their signatures which states
Signature witnessed by:

and this is blank.
Do not know if this is relevant or not like.

Best wishes

Cuddles