Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: LTI 20-20 TS/M Speedscope
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
dan_gleeballs
Hi,

Wondering if anyone can help me on this one:

I got a letter from Herts Constab saying 'NIP reminder'. Now, i never received the first one which i know doesn't matter as they have a signature from proof of postage which apparently is enough to say i received it.

My query is this: My car was photographed by some git in his van on a sunday having driven past their van and obviously seen it. They have a pic of my car (which has been either massively cropped or zoomed in on for some reason (cars going the other way??) driving past them at 12:16.13 distance 51.3m @ 39mph in a 30 zone. The second pic is 3 seconds later at 12.16.16 (not cropped as much & shows cars on other side of the road in pic) and has no speed or distance showing. Now if i was doing 39mph i am told this would mean i had travelled in excess of another 50m in those 3seconds which would mean i was past 100m at which this device has been tested and therefore the reading would be invalid?? 1) why crop the first photo? 2) why no speed or distance on the second photo??

The thing they were using was an LTI 20/20 Speedscope which was due for 'service' 3 weeks later

I know for a fact (as stupid as i can be) i would/did not drive past this thing at 39mph and wonder if i can request the testing from when it was re-calibrated to see how far out it was measuring. + if i can get a copy of the video to potentially see the distance i travelled or should i just face the music?

I would be most grateful for any advice.

Thank you
Logician
A certificate of posting does not prove you received it, but creates the presumption that it was delivered and it is very difficult to prove it was not.
One picture is to show the registration number clearly and has no speed on it, the money shot is the one showing the speed.
There does seem to be a certificate available on the SCP site. Just because it was tested at 100m that does not mean it is only valid up to that distance, the range is AFAIK 999m.
It seems unlikely you can challenge this, but you may well be offered a Speed Awareness Course that will at any rate save the points.
justforthepictures
QUOTE (dan_gleeballs @ Thu, 10 Mar 2011 - 11:04) *
Hi,

Wondering if anyone can help me on this one:

I got a letter from Herts Constab saying 'NIP reminder'. Now, i never received the first one which i know doesn't matter as they have a signature from proof of postage which apparently is enough to say i received it.

My query is this: My car was photographed by some git in his van on a sunday having driven past their van and obviously seen it. They have a pic of my car (which has been either massively cropped or zoomed in on for some reason (cars going the other way??) driving past them at 12:16.13 distance 51.3m @ 39mph in a 30 zone. The second pic is 3 seconds later at 12.16.16 (not cropped as much & shows cars on other side of the road in pic) and has no speed or distance showing. Now if i was doing 39mph i am told this would mean i had travelled in excess of another 50m in those 3seconds which would mean i was past 100m at which this device has been tested and therefore the reading would be invalid?? 1) why crop the first photo? 2) why no speed or distance on the second photo??

The thing they were using was an LTI 20/20 Speedscope which was due for 'service' 3 weeks later

I know for a fact (as stupid as i can be) i would/did not drive past this thing at 39mph and wonder if i can request the testing from when it was re-calibrated to see how far out it was measuring. + if i can get a copy of the video to potentially see the distance i travelled or should i just face the music?

I would be most grateful for any advice.

Thank you

The speed and distance only appear for less than a second following the trigger being pulled - it does not keep recording and displaying your speed and distance as you move further down the road.

I am uncertain what you are implying by the 'cropping' question?

There is no way to measure your distance travelled post-the-ping shot given what the photos show.

Are you saying you weren't doing 39mph?

If the equipment was still within calbration date, then you can forget that as a line of defence - the post-session checks will have confirmed its accuracy as far as a court is concerned.
mashman36
QUOTE (justforthepictures @ Thu, 10 Mar 2011 - 17:01) *
QUOTE (dan_gleeballs @ Thu, 10 Mar 2011 - 11:04) *
Hi,

Wondering if anyone can help me on this one:

I got a letter from Herts Constab saying 'NIP reminder'. Now, i never received the first one which i know doesn't matter as they have a signature from proof of postage which apparently is enough to say i received it.

My query is this: My car was photographed by some git in his van on a sunday having driven past their van and obviously seen it. They have a pic of my car (which has been either massively cropped or zoomed in on for some reason (cars going the other way??) driving past them at 12:16.13 distance 51.3m @ 39mph in a 30 zone. The second pic is 3 seconds later at 12.16.16 (not cropped as much & shows cars on other side of the road in pic) and has no speed or distance showing. Now if i was doing 39mph i am told this would mean i had travelled in excess of another 50m in those 3seconds which would mean i was past 100m at which this device has been tested and therefore the reading would be invalid?? 1) why crop the first photo? 2) why no speed or distance on the second photo??

The thing they were using was an LTI 20/20 Speedscope which was due for 'service' 3 weeks later

I know for a fact (as stupid as i can be) i would/did not drive past this thing at 39mph and wonder if i can request the testing from when it was re-calibrated to see how far out it was measuring. + if i can get a copy of the video to potentially see the distance i travelled or should i just face the music?

I would be most grateful for any advice.

Thank you

The speed and distance only appear for less than a second following the trigger being pulled - it does not keep recording and displaying your speed and distance as you move further down the road.

I am uncertain what you are implying by the 'cropping' question?

There is no way to measure your distance travelled post-the-ping shot given what the photos show.

Are you saying you weren't doing 39mph?

If the equipment was still within calbration date, then you can forget that as a line of defence - the post-session checks will have confirmed its accuracy as far as a court is concerned.

were would the pre and post be registered in a note book or back at hq.if so can the individual ask for these. Also if the the kits going for annual calibration the calibration sheet should tell you if any alterations have had to be made assuming they are compliant with ISO 9000-1 BSRIA and UKCAS national acreditation.
peterguk
QUOTE (dan_gleeballs @ Thu, 10 Mar 2011 - 11:04) *
I know for a fact (as stupid as i can be) i would/did not drive past this thing at 39mph


I presume you mean if you'd seen it....


QUOTE (dan_gleeballs @ Thu, 10 Mar 2011 - 11:04) *
and wonder if i can request the testing from when it was re-calibrated to see how far out it was measuring. + if i can get a copy of the video to potentially see the distance i travelled or should i just face the music?


You're not entitled to any evidence until you make a formal not guilty plea in court.

Choices are either take the FPN (or SAC if offered), or if you have a defence, plead not guilty in court. So far, you've said nothing that constitutes a defence.
Pancras
The quality of the 'ping' seems to be spot on. I don't think there is a defence here. 39 in a 30 would possibly result in a SAC being offered anyway.
The Rookie
Neither photo is cropped, if it were the datablock would be cropped, that is as good a quality ping as I've ever seen, right up your chuff at 50m and as square as you like, I suspect you followed a curve and they were hidden up and caught you as you came into site round the curve.

Simon
dan_gleeballs
Thanks folks, seemed like a pretty clean hit to me too but i remember seeing them and thinking 'w****rs got nothing better to do on a sunday morning' and slowing down as i past them.
Does the fact that they say the site is in 'watford' on the NIP but on the site it says the site is in'Bushey' and that they say i was travelling southwest when infact i was travelling bang on north make any difference?? I imagine not but if they got that wrong who says they can use on of these things properly!!
Could the cars on the other side of the road have interferred? I read somewhere that the beam is approx 3m wide and they were coming across the flow of traffic so could that interfere with the reading? Clutching at straws i know.

Thanks
The Rookie
A NIP is required to give the location of the offence, direction of travel isn't required, nor do they have to publicise it, so errors in that are an irrelevance, however if the location on the NIP is wrong then you may have a defence.

The beam (is cone shaped and) spreads 1m wide for every 300m of range, so at 50m its 1/2m wide, that isn't going to get a reading from cars on the other side of the road (and the speed reading is -ve which means the target is going away, heading towards has no symbol), it is only 3m wide at a range of 900m!

Simon
Logician
What is the location given on the NIP?
desktop_demon
QUOTE
You're not entitled to any evidence until you make a formal not guilty plea in court.

The defendant is entitled to receive, at a minimum, a summary of the evidence held by the CPS before or on the morning of the first hearing. No plea needs to be entered for that regulation to come into play. If the minimum summary is not provided then the hearing should be adjourned without plea. According to the crim proc rules part 21 (see details here)

QUOTE
the post-session checks will have confirmed its accuracy as far as a court is concerned.
Presuming they have been correctly performed.... It does happen that sometimes they are not.

Having looked at the photos supplied it would seem to be a good measurement of excess speed - or I can see no reason it might be considered an error. If the OP completes the s.172 and names the driver then it is quite possible a SAC will be offered. The received wisdom is that if offered then the course should be accepted as their are no points associated.

good luck
mashman36
Time to cut your losses and turn your pockets out; now the laptops working again I have had a look at the pictures posted and its a bang to rights ping square and straight up the sherriffs badge! huh.gif
dan_gleeballs
Logician,

The location on the NIP states "Park Avenue, Watford near to j/w Park Close travelling south west". The actual location of the ping was Park Avenue, Bushey which is approx 2 miles from Park Avenue in Watford. If you multimap directions from WD23 3EQ (Alleged offence location) - WD18 7 (address shown on NIP).

I read somewhere that these mobile camera sites were included in the approved locations list due to number of accidents etc............. I have done my own investigation and there have been 4 ‘slight’ road traffic accidents at this junction in the last 10years (the last one being in 2006). All of these incidents appear to involve cyclists or motorcycles which suggest that people pull out of the turning onto the main road without looking rather than people speeding. It’s just an open road with no houses/children playing. There is only a car body repair centre and that's it. There is no reason for them to be sat there, they aren't saving lives in this location, it is just an easy spot to catch people. Also, if they set up to monitor cars travelling south west, would it mean that there is a separate check they need to do to test cars moving in the opposite direction?

I think as Mashman36 eloquently put it, i'll just be taking one in the sherriffs badge but if anyone sees anything i could work with in all of this i would be really grateful!!

Thanks again folks!!

Dan
The Rookie
QUOTE (dan_gleeballs @ Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 13:53) *
The location on the NIP states "Park Avenue, Watford near to j/w Park Close travelling south west". The actual location of the ping was Park Avenue, Bushey which is approx 2 miles from Park Avenue in Watford. If you multimap directions from WD23 3EQ (Alleged offence location) - WD18 7 (address shown on NIP).

But where is 'park close' in relation to where you were done, have you been mislead is the legal test, only you can answer that (and the answer I suspect is no).

QUOTE (dan_gleeballs @ Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 13:53) *
I read somewhere that these mobile camera sites were included in the approved locations list due to number of accidents etc............. I have done my own investigation and there have been 4 ‘slight’ road traffic accidents at this junction in the last 10years (the last one being in 2006). All of these incidents appear to involve cyclists or motorcycles which suggest that people pull out of the turning onto the main road without looking rather than people speeding. It’s just an open road with no houses/children playing. There is only a car body repair centre and that's it. There is no reason for them to be sat there, they aren't saving lives in this location, it is just an easy spot to catch people. Also, if they set up to monitor cars travelling south west, would it mean that there is a separate check they need to do to test cars moving in the opposite direction?

Guidelines for site selection for 'netting off', netting off ended 3 years ago and non adherence was never a defence anyway.

Simon
Logician
Why the van was where it was is not relevant.

For those who do not know, Bushey is next door to Watford. There are Park Avenues in both towns, the OP knows he was in Bushey, he saw the van, and only in Bushey could he be travelling SW and near to Park Close. The NIP states "Park Avenue, Watford near to j/w Park Close travelling south west". Park Avenue, Watford is a short road running NW to SE. The postcode given by the OP relates to Park Road, Watford which is neither of these locations!

Do people think there is enough there for a defence based on incorrect locus?
What should the OP say in response to the s172 notice, since it is actually a non-existant location?

I am inclined to think that it might be better to 'fess up and hope for an SAC, rather than fight a rather difficult defence.
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.