Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 36 in a 30. Gatso took 2 photo's but one is totally distorted where VRM and Gatso data are unrecogniseable.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
qwer1234

Date of the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 8 days after the offence

Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
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 - Driving on road. Rear facing camera took pictures. Alleged to have done 36 in a 30 limit (to be fair the 30 is signed and I know the road D'oh). I am the registed keeper and do not put the case that ANOther was driving at the time.

Anyway the photos in question are viewable online. First photo is grossly distorted. I can't down load image (for technical, copyright and probably legal reasons) to show you so I'll describe it.

FIRST PHOTO
The whole image (including road markings, background, numberplate and Gatso data) is distorted. The data of the Gatso and number plate are unrecognisable.

SKIP this next paragraph if you don't want a wordy description of how the picture is distorted.
The distortion is best described as follows. (Please allow me some artistic license on this one!) Hold your hands infront of you palms towards you and thumbs pointing up at the ceiling and now interlock your fingers by placing your fingertips in the other hands webspaces. Imagine that as the true image. Your finger creases all line up. (correct image). Pull them apart by half a centimetre and they no longer align (distorted image) Basically the image online shows 4 rear sets of lights almost as if you've gone slightly cross-eyed.

Back to my point.

SECOND PHOTO
This one is clear and demonstrates the Gatso numbers, road markings and number plate.

BOTH PHOTOS
There are "imperfections" on both images. These look like scratch marks Interestingly these are NOT distorted on the first image.

My personal conclusion is therefore that the first image/ photo is in fact Distorted prior to being copied or scanned for website display.

So my question is simple

Do I have a case that the first image doesn't state my number plate, or gatso data that they have insufficient evidence to prove a case?

Just to restate the images are online images and not hard copies.


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? - Yes
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: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:19:53 +0000
nemo
QUOTE (qwer1234 @ Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 22:19) *
Do I have a case that the first image doesn't state my number plate, or gatso data that they have insufficient evidence to prove a case?

Clearly they have an image where your VRM is sufficiently legible to have enabled them to ascertain your details and subsequently issued a NIP / s.172 request.
qwer1234
Thanks for your fast response

Yes they do. That's the second photo which clearly does show my VRM. I don't dispute the clarity of this second photo

However the first photo is distorted and doesn't show my VRM (or the Gatso data) in any legible format (edited for spelling)
nemo
Both images will have come from a roll of 35mm [wet] film and neither of the originals are likely to be distorted in the manner you describe.

andy_foster
For the required corroboration, they would have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the same vehicle was in both photos.Considering that the gatso would usually take the photos between 0.5 and 0.7 seconds apart, that might not be a major problem for them.

Perhaps the biggest issue is where they get the figure of 36 mph from if the data block in the first photo is unreadable - the second photo only shows time, date, time lapse and 'offence' number.
qwer1234
Thanks Nemo.

(glad you managed to understand my description!)

I can't explain the distortion. If like you say they were done on a 35mm film then I would expect it to be blurring which it is not.

It looks like some sort of "digital" distortion but I can't think how that could have occured.

If the squence was FILM to HARD COPY to SCANNER to FILE to WEB then the only digital distortion could be from scanner to file. however this would surely have distorted the scratch marks which are identical on both.

If it was a digital film in the speed camera (do such things exist) then there may have been a digital distortion at source on one photo.

The sequence DIGITAL to HARD COPY to SCANNER (?why) to FILE to WEB would then explain the digital distortion and the identical scratch marks.

Any ideas??

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 22:46) *
For the required corroboration, they would have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the same vehicle was in both photos.Considering that the gatso would usually take the photos between 0.5 and 0.7 seconds apart, that might not be a major problem for them.

Perhaps the biggest issue is where they get the figure of 36 mph from if the data block in the first photo is unreadable - the second photo only shows time, date, time lapse and 'offence' number.


Thanks Andy

That is sort of my point. If there is genuinely no Gatso or road marking data in Photo 1 then how is there evidence of excess speed? Could it be argued that there is in fact no case to answer.
nemo
QUOTE (qwer1234 @ Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 22:53) *
If there is genuinely no Gatso or road marking data in Photo 1 then how is there evidence of excess speed?

Sorry if I appear negative, but they don't necessarily have to rely upon a painted grid to provide the required secondary check anyway.

Note that the Gatso Type 24 was first approved for use with photogrammetry being used to determine the distance travelled (and hence the speed) between the two photos. But this technique proved to be too labour intensive and, as a result, the police experimented (and were granted approval to use) a system of graduated timing marks painted onto the road surface. And, AFAIK, the original conditions relating to photogrammetry and the secondary checks were never revoked or superceded and remain valid to this day.

In short, as long as the photographs permit a secondary check to be undertaken (to a required accuracy of 10%), then the conditons of type approval will have been met.


qwer1234
QUOTE (nemo @ Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 23:04) *
QUOTE (qwer1234 @ Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 22:53) *
If there is genuinely no Gatso or road marking data in Photo 1 then how is there evidence of excess speed?

Sorry if I appear negative, but they don't necessarily have to rely upon a painted grid to provide the required secondary check anyway.

Note that the Gatso Type 24 was first approved for use with photogrammetry being used to determine the distance travelled (and hence the speed) between the two photos. But this technique proved to be too labour intensive and, as a result, the police experimented (and were granted approval to use) a system of graduated timing marks painted onto the road surface. And, AFAIK, the original conditions relating to photogrammetry and the secondary checks were never revoked or superceded and remain valid to this day.

In short, as long as the photographs permit a secondary check to be undertaken (to a required accuracy of 10%), then the conditons of type approval will have been met.





Thanks

You're right it was a 24! And I don't mind if you're negative.

Could you clarify a couple of things. by timing marks do you mean marks of set and fixed distance apart.


I understand speed = distance/ time . And if time is/was 0.5 seconds and marking on road show distance then speed can be calculated.

and looking at Wikipedia then photogrammetry seems to say that change in size of image (?of car) when certain points are traced that speed can be calculated


however due to the photographic distortion of my car's rearend (you know what I mean) it's apparent width is much greater in photo 1 that it would otherwise appear.

So if the road markings are unclear and the car width is unclear then how is the measurement made?

Thanks again
Glacier2
If they don't have a better picture they are sunk.
nemo
QUOTE (qwer1234 @ Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 23:27) *
Could you clarify a couple of things. by timing marks do you mean marks of set and fixed distance apart.

Yes.

QUOTE (qwer1234 @ Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 23:27) *
So if the road markings are unclear and the car width is unclear then how is the measurement made?

It is probable that they have two images of sufficient clarity to allow the secondary check to be undertaken to the required accuracy. The issue would seem to be how you can prove that is the case.

You could write a polite letter to the police requesting 'copies of any photographs which may assist with identification of the driver'. Keep the letter short, do not elaborate or embellish and avoid asking for 'evidence' or 'proof'.

They are under no obligation to supply you with copies of anything at this stage, and perhaps they will be even less inclined bearing in mind that the information is available online, but certainly no harm can come from asking.

If they deny your request for photos, then your best hope of reviewing the evidence would be to await a summons, enter a plea of not guilty and see what is disclosed by the prosecution. But note that once matters have proceeded this far, you will have waived your right to have the matter dealt with by fixed penalty and you could be facing a higher fine if convicted, plus court costs and the mandatory victim support surcharge.

Whatever you choose to do, you should keep an eye on the 28 day response window of the s.172 request and be aware that this clock is not automatically stopped, reset or extended simply because correspondence has been entered into with the police.

Which constabulary was this ? If it is one which offers speed awareness courses and you submit a timely s.172 response then, at the speed alleged, it is possible that you would be given the option to attend a workshop in lieu of any penalty points.
qwer1234
QUOTE (nemo @ Sun, 8 Feb 2009 - 07:07) *
QUOTE (qwer1234 @ Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 23:27) *
Could you clarify a couple of things. by timing marks do you mean marks of set and fixed distance apart.

Yes.

QUOTE (qwer1234 @ Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 23:27) *
So if the road markings are unclear and the car width is unclear then how is the measurement made?

It is probable that they have two images of sufficient clarity to allow the secondary check to be undertaken to the required accuracy. The issue would seem to be how you can prove that is the case.

You could write a polite letter to the police requesting 'copies of any photographs which may assist with identification of the driver'. Keep the letter short, do not elaborate or embellish and avoid asking for 'evidence' or 'proof'.

They are under no obligation to supply you with copies of anything at this stage, and perhaps they will be even less inclined bearing in mind that the information is available online, but certainly no harm can come from asking.

If they deny your request for photos, then your best hope of reviewing the evidence would be to await a summons, enter a plea of not guilty and see what is disclosed by the prosecution. But note that once matters have proceeded this far, you will have waived your right to have the matter dealt with by fixed penalty and you could be facing a higher fine if convicted, plus court costs and the mandatory victim support surcharge.

Whatever you choose to do, you should keep an eye on the 28 day response window of the s.172 request and be aware that this clock is not automatically stopped, reset or extended simply because correspondence has been entered into with the police.

Which constabulary was this ? If it is one which offers speed awareness courses and you submit a timely s.172 response then, at the speed alleged, it is possible that you would be given the option to attend a workshop in lieu of any penalty points.



Northumbria and they do mention a speed workshop in the paperwork sent out although not how or whether I would qualify for one.

Thanks for your help in this. TBH course would be preferable to points and right now I would fill in the s172 to state that I am both the keeper and driver at that time.

Seems that I am best to return s172 in a timely fashion and then see what they offer me.

Regards
Glacier2
Indeed, that would be the best option.
The Rookie
If you can't save the pictures, try using print screen insteda then use an image handling software (MS paint will do) and cut the image from it and paste into a new image, then save and post them.

No, legal/copyright reasons why you can't post them, just be sure to blank ALL identifying details.

Simon
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.