Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Fighting speed charges - was under 30mph
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
drjanmen
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - February 2012
Date of the NIP: - 10 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 12 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A475 Llanwnen, Ceredigion
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? -
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 - Hello. I was forewarned of the speedcamera mobile unit by another motorist well in advance of the 30mph speed limit, around a bend, over the brow of a hill, and checked my speed which was 30mph. I then reduced my speed to between 25 and 30mph for the entire 30mph zone, passing the mobile speedcamera van on the way. I was confident that I was in the clear. I was astounded to get a NIP saying I was accused of doing 37mph. The camera van was parked behind a wall so that it was hidden until right on top of it. Likewise the camera operator would only have seen me as I passed him at an angle. I wrote to the Chief Constable with copy to Safety Camera Partnership explaining the facts and requesting photographic evidence (it does not identify me as the driver). I was obviously forced to state that I was the driver, ie incriminate myself, but had no choice. They offered me a COFP or Speed Awareness Course for £85 which I ignored. I now have a Magistrate's Court date for 5.9.12 which will be adjourned if I plead not guilty. I have told the CPS that I require the camera operator (not a police officer btw) to appear in court for questioning. The camera device is laser LTI 20.20 UltraLyte 1000 and Lastec recording system.

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? - Wales

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: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:25:55 +0000
Logician
As you have the photo, post it up here following the directions in the FAQs, and see if anyone can identify anything wrong with it.

There is no reason the van cannot be hidden and taking a reading at an angle would mean your speed would be recorded as lower than actual.
glasgow_bhoy
Why do you want the camera operator in court? I might be wrong- but if your found guilty this could lead to higher costs being asked for than if you didn't demand him to be there :/
Jlc
QUOTE (drjanmen @ Mon, 30 Jul 2012 - 23:25) *
I wrote to the Chief Constable with copy to Safety Camera Partnership explaining the facts and requesting photographic evidence (it does not identify me as the driver). I was obviously forced to state that I was the driver, ie incriminate myself, but had no choice. They offered me a COFP or Speed Awareness Course for £85 which I ignored. I now have a Magistrate's Court date for 5.9.12 which will be adjourned if I plead not guilty. I have told the CPS that I require the camera operator (not a police officer btw) to appear in court for questioning. The camera device is laser LTI 20.20 UltraLyte 1000 and Lastec recording system.

This sounds like a perfectly normal way for them to process the case (self incrimination too). Other than 'I didn't do it' how do you plan to defend yourself as pleading NG could be very costly, especially if you are starting to form a technical case?
jimster
QUOTE (drjanmen @ Mon, 30 Jul 2012 - 23:25) *
Likewise the camera operator would only have seen me as I passed him at an angle.


You would probably have been spotted long before that







sgtdixie
You will receive the relevant photos in your evidence pack albeit you seem to imply you have seen it already. It is likely that the van caught you going away from it and that you accelerated towards the end of the limit. Post up the photos so experts can comment.

As has been said you need to have an idea why your speed is wrong. In general camera operators attend court regularly and are very polished and knowledgeable and will have the answers to most questions you can think of. The court will not acquit just on your assertion you were not speeding. The equipment if used correctly is accurate and approved and will be accepted as such.

Going to trial will be very costly but if you feel you never exceeded 30 mph you need to start on a technical defence.
justforthepictures
QUOTE (drjanmen @ Mon, 30 Jul 2012 - 23:25) *
Hello. I was forewarned of the speedcamera mobile unit by another motorist well in advance of the 30mph speed limit, around a bend, over the brow of a hill, and checked my speed which was 30mph. I then reduced my speed to between 25 and 30mph for the entire 30mph zone, passing the mobile speedcamera van on the way. I was confident that I was in the clear. I was astounded to get a NIP saying I was accused of doing 37mph. The camera van was parked behind a wall so that it was hidden until right on top of it. Likewise the camera operator would only have seen me as I passed him at an angle. I wrote to the Chief Constable with copy to Safety Camera Partnership explaining the facts and requesting photographic evidence (it does not identify me as the driver). I was obviously forced to state that I was the driver, ie incriminate myself, but had no choice. They offered me a COFP or Speed Awareness Course for £85 which I ignored. I now have a Magistrate's Court date for 5.9.12 which will be adjourned if I plead not guilty. I have told the CPS that I require the camera operator (not a police officer btw) to appear in court for questioning. The camera device is laser LTI 20.20 UltraLyte 1000 and Lastec recording system. [/b]

It’s really quite common to read such claims regarding the positioning of enforcement vehicles, but I struggle to accept that such operations would be placed behind walls or bushes, when the equipment relies on a clear and uninterrupted line of sight to the target. You also add the angle issue, which if true, would have reduced the displayed speed of your vehicle due to something known as the ‘cosine effect’.

Is it possible you could post a Google Maps link to the exact location please, indicating where the enforcement vehicle was positioned and your direction of travel?
CuriousOrange
To be fair to the OP, they do say that they were sticking to 30mph or below before and throughout the entire 30mph limit through Llanwnnen. This isn't one of those 'I believe I was...' or 'I looked at my speedo when I saw the van' matters.

If I knew I hadn't got anywhere near 37 mph throughout a 30 mph limit yet I had someone claiming a speed gun had me doing just that, I'd want to challenge it, even if I didn't yet know why they were wrong. And I wouldn't know why they were wrong until I saw the evidence, and I can't see the evidence until I plead not guilty. So picking the OP up now for not knowing what their defence is going to be is a tad unfair.

@OP: As suggested, post up the photo and show us where the van was parked. You say you slowed well in advance of the start of the limit, but one obvious question is whether you started accelerating before the NSL signs at the end of the limit?



Oh, and as asked, your direction of travel...and also where you were when you were flashed by this other car. It has to be said that doing 30 mph along the NSL roads there is a little unusual.

glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Tue, 31 Jul 2012 - 10:01) *
To be fair to the OP, they do say that they were sticking to 30mph or below before and throughout the entire 30mph limit through Llanwnnen. This isn't one of those 'I believe I was...' or 'I looked at my speedo when I saw the van' matters.

If I knew I hadn't got anywhere near 37 mph throughout a 30 mph limit yet I had someone claiming a speed gun had me doing just that, I'd want to challenge it, even if I didn't yet know why they were wrong. And I wouldn't know why they were wrong until I saw the evidence, and I can't see the evidence until I plead not guilty. So picking the OP up now for not knowing what their defence is going to be is a tad unfair.

I wouldn't say people are picking on the OP for this defence- just making sure he is aware that the bastards will ask for higher costs if they win.
The Rookie
The OP will also want the video of at least his section to try and understand why his car which was apparently doing 30 or less was clocked at 37.
drjanmen
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Tue, 31 Jul 2012 - 10:01) *
To be fair to the OP, they do say that they were sticking to 30mph or below before and throughout the entire 30mph limit through Llanwnnen. This isn't one of those 'I believe I was...' or 'I looked at my speedo when I saw the van' matters.

If I knew I hadn't got anywhere near 37 mph throughout a 30 mph limit yet I had someone claiming a speed gun had me doing just that, I'd want to challenge it, even if I didn't yet know why they were wrong. And I wouldn't know why they were wrong until I saw the evidence, and I can't see the evidence until I plead not guilty. So picking the OP up now for not knowing what their defence is going to be is a tad unfair.

@OP: As suggested, post up the photo and show us where the van was parked. You say you slowed well in advance of the start of the limit, but one obvious question is whether you started accelerating before the NSL signs at the end of the limit?



Oh, and as asked, your direction of travel...and also where you were when you were flashed by this other car. It has to be said that doing 30 mph along the NSL roads there is a little unusual.


I was approx half a mile outside 30mph zone when I was flashed in NSL area (no streetlights etc). I must have braked first,on instinct, then checked speedo - 30mph. Next I saw 30mph sign with camera sign. Before I got there I reduced my speed to UNDER 30mph and kept it there the entire time until I exited the 30mph zone. I will check my speedo with satnav & road monitors but there MUST have been a technical fault with the speed camera/operation of some sort. I'm a complete novice at this but I must fight it because otherwise I could theoretically be travelling under 30mph and be zapped 4 times and get banned for doing NOTHING. These camers are not infallible but it's trying to prove that in court, I guess. I have requested DVD/video. All help gratefully received. Click to view attachment
captain swoop
Looks like a good 'zap' what is the location? There appears to be something written on the road behind the car, that should help identify the spot. (google link?)
mrh3369
I would be interested to know what the markings on the road behind the car say.
The Rookie
Using street view I went all the way through the 30 at LLanwnnen (not spelling difference) and the only place the photo looks like is just as you enter the 30 at the western end. Not convinced though ('ARAF SLOW' in lots of places on the road)
morrisman
QUOTE (mrh3369 @ Wed, 1 Aug 2012 - 12:43) *
I would be interested to know what the markings on the road behind the car say.


Looks like here http://goo.gl/maps/3Xs3C just inside the 30 limit, the writing is SLOW ARAF.
captain swoop
I went through the 30 zone through the village and couldn't see the banked virge with the overhanging trees
morrisman
QUOTE (captain swoop @ Wed, 1 Aug 2012 - 12:52) *
I went through the 30 zone through the village and couldn't see the banked virge with the overhanging trees


This link shows the dog fouling sigh on the left and the posts with the signage on the right

http://goo.gl/maps/dsAvv
mrh3369
I am also having trouble identifying the exact spot.

QUOTE (morrisman @ Wed, 1 Aug 2012 - 12:56) *
QUOTE (captain swoop @ Wed, 1 Aug 2012 - 12:52) *
I went through the 30 zone through the village and couldn't see the banked virge with the overhanging trees


This link shows the dog fouling sigh on the left and the posts with the signage on the right

http://goo.gl/maps/dsAvv



Yes that does seem to be the spot, within the signed 30 about 60m after 30 is writen on the road so it looks a good ping within the 30 zone.
captain swoop
well spotted, i was thinkingthe dog foulingsign looked to be on a telegraph pole. IT looks like the foreshortening of the telephoto lens makes the banks look higher. I can see the 'leaning' tree in the background and the speed signs are visible behind the car in the photograph above its roof.
Jlc
It will be almost certain that the 37mph reading is correct - the point of capture is going to be the important bit.
captain swoop
Looking closer at the dog fouling sign I think it is actualy this one on the 30 repeater way down the road

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Llanwnen,+Ce...,20.38&z=15


It has the two plasitc tie wraps and the same black mark on it.

Pan to the left and there is the parking place the van was parked in
desktop_demon
The OP must make an application for disclosure of the entire video recording not just the" relevant portion" showing the OP. That should be done at the first hearing for plea. The police might make a copy or they might invite the Op to come see the recording. Either way if the OP intends to run a defence of some sort the original evidence must be examined.

The Photo provided shows none of the data block that records the laser readings and similar information.
promethian
Its about time these speed camera van cheats got caught.

There is a scam going on, I hope someone can prove it.

I just wish I had taken mine to court too, but was advised not to, by the wise and wonderful on here.

My so called ping was ok too
mrh3369
QUOTE (promethian @ Wed, 1 Aug 2012 - 20:27) *
Its about time these speed camera van cheats got caught.

There is a scam going on, I hope someone can prove it.

I just wish I had taken mine to court too, but was advised not to, by the wise and wonderful on here.

My so called ping was ok too


Anyone hold a gun to your head? The advice given is based on how the law works and how to get the best outcome given the facts presented it would be easy for us all to say go not guilty, fight it and call expert witnesses to refute the evidence but when you lose and get a costs bill of many thousands you might not be so happy with that advice.
promethian
Basically Yes they did, in as much as warning about costs etc. and warning what a waste of time and energy it would have been.

No one believed me either when I said I definitely was not speeding

The title of this Forum is PePiPoo Helping the motorists get justice.

Well its about time the above was achieved.

I'm still annoyed about it now, and I'm sorry if my annoyance is misdirected, but with all the people like me on here, who have posted that they were sure they definetly were not speeding , I would have thought the penny would have dropped by now, and the experts on this forum could galvanize themselves into some sort of action to actually help people.

Read my thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=66338
captain swoop
So you claim the vans 'cheat'? How? equipment that gives deliberately false readings?
I tihnk you should make your case for a conspiracy in the Flame Pit, it doesn't help the OP with his case.
promethian
I've edited my post please read again, and ignore it and the justice it requires.

A quick search of this forum of the terms not speeding shows how many there may be, and that is probably only the tip of the iceberg.
mrh3369
And prisons are full of innocent people. If people truly believed that evidence was being fabricated they would be shouting it from the rooftops not helping people get the best outcome.
Logician
You would not believe the number of people who post on here that they 100% definitely, no argument, did not go through a red light, only to have to back down when photos show that they did, similarly with GATSOs when the secondary check confirms the reading.
The Rookie
+1, we have learnt to be cynical about posters claims based on the fact that the evidence proves their opinion to be wrong.

None of the links really show the trees overhanging the bank as in the OP's photo, but streetview is 3 years old now......either way it's almost certainly where entering the 30 limit from the west.
drjanmen
QUOTE (captain swoop @ Wed, 1 Aug 2012 - 12:40) *
Looks like a good 'zap' what is the location? There appears to be something written on the road behind the car, that should help identify the spot. (google link?)


The white markings on the brow of the hill say "ARAF SLOW"

QUOTE (justforthepictures @ Tue, 31 Jul 2012 - 08:32) *
QUOTE (drjanmen @ Mon, 30 Jul 2012 - 23:25) *
Hello. I was forewarned of the speedcamera mobile unit by another motorist well in advance of the 30mph speed limit, around a bend, over the brow of a hill, and checked my speed which was 30mph. I then reduced my speed to between 25 and 30mph for the entire 30mph zone, passing the mobile speedcamera van on the way. I was confident that I was in the clear. I was astounded to get a NIP saying I was accused of doing 37mph. The camera van was parked behind a wall so that it was hidden until right on top of it. Likewise the camera operator would only have seen me as I passed him at an angle. I wrote to the Chief Constable with copy to Safety Camera Partnership explaining the facts and requesting photographic evidence (it does not identify me as the driver). I was obviously forced to state that I was the driver, ie incriminate myself, but had no choice. They offered me a COFP or Speed Awareness Course for £85 which I ignored. I now have a Magistrate's Court date for 5.9.12 which will be adjourned if I plead not guilty. I have told the CPS that I require the camera operator (not a police officer btw) to appear in court for questioning. The camera device is laser LTI 20.20 UltraLyte 1000 and Lastec recording system. [/b]

It’s really quite common to read such claims regarding the positioning of enforcement vehicles, but I struggle to accept that such operations would be placed behind walls or bushes, when the equipment relies on a clear and uninterrupted line of sight to the target. You also add the angle issue, which if true, would have reduced the displayed speed of your vehicle due to something known as the ‘cosine effect’.

Is it possible you could post a Google Maps link to the exact location please, indicating where the enforcement vehicle was positioned and your direction of travel?

Can't get a link to Google maps. The site was A475 Llanwnnen SA48, mobile camera in layby outside school. My vehicle approached from over brow of hill towards camera, heading in direction of Llanwnnen village (where there's a mini roundabout). From the photo I was zapped as I popped over the brow - fishing expedition.
The Rookie
Why can't you get a link to google maps, see above, lots there!

Approaching from the west? So pinged just as you entered the limit over the brow?

Not fishing no.
sgtdixie
QUOTE
The camera van was parked behind a wall so that it was hidden until right on top of it.


Apparently not
drjanmen
QUOTE (captain swoop @ Wed, 1 Aug 2012 - 13:24) *
well spotted, i was thinkingthe dog foulingsign looked to be on a telegraph pole. IT looks like the foreshortening of the telephoto lens makes the banks look higher. I can see the 'leaning' tree in the background and the speed signs are visible behind the car in the photograph above its roof.


The dog fouling sign is on telegraph pole outside school. The ping is as I come over the brow of the hill coming down the hill towards the school/cameravan MONITORING MY SPEED FROM BEGINNING TO END AS I HAD BEEN WARNED. It's good to be challenged on this forum but it would be even more helpful to be given practical advice, for example analysing video evidence, set up errors on LTI 20.20, the physics of laser cameras, etc. If no-one challenges these people when they are wrong, what's to stop a camera on every road zapping every driver within the speed limit and creaming off cash? Tyranny, I think it's called.

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 1 Aug 2012 - 13:27) *
It will be almost certain that the 37mph reading is correct - the point of capture is going to be the important bit.


"It will be almost certain that 37mph is correct" - would that stand up in court? Pure guesswork and WRONG because you were not there behind my wheel monitoring my speed. Thanks for challenging but you are totally wrong.
drjanmen
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 02:48) *
+1, we have learnt to be cynical about posters claims based on the fact that the evidence proves their opinion to be wrong.

None of the links really show the trees overhanging the bank as in the OP's photo, but streetview is 3 years old now......either way it's almost certainly where entering the 30 limit from the west.


The key word is EVIDENCE. So let's talk about that, shall we? Blind faith in cameramen, technology...not infallible. How many people pay the fine because they can't afford justice? Think of them.
The Rookie
WHICH END OF THE FLAMING TOWN WAS IT??????

(third time of asking)

My post was in responce to others, right now they have enough evidence to convict you, we're trying to help....so tell us where it happened preferably with a street view link, or confirmation another link provided is right.

A link to the parking spot of the van would help as well!
sgtdixie
OK, here goes.

Your assertion/belief you were not speeding will have very little sway with a court. A quick check on this forum will tell you how many posters are 100% sure they were not doing what was alleged until faced with proof, and has been said the prisons are full of those proclaiming they are innocent.

So your mission, should you choose to accept it, will be to show that the device was either being operated outside the operating instruction, or the operator was unqualified, or that the device was operating incorrectly. These days the first 2 are exceptionally unlikely as procedures have been tightened up, partly as a consequence of forums such as this.

This leaves a technical defence. This will require you to plead NG and request all the evidence and any associated information pertinant to your defence. These devices are extremely complex devices and you will almost certainly require the services of an expert witness to put across any defects you believe will show reasonable doubt.

If you succeed your costs will be reinbursed, if you fail it will cost you possibly thousands of pounds in costs. As the ping you posted looked about as plumb as it gets you are already looking at an uphill battle.

I am sorry to tell you this but my experience shows that despite warnings many drivers in modern cars simply take their foot off the throttle to slow down and fail to realise that it takes time and that they enter a limit slightly over as was the case here.

By all means fight it but be aware of the potential consequences.
captain swoop
QUOTE
None of the links really show the trees overhanging the bank as in the OP's photo, but streetview is 3 years old now.


I don't think the overhanging trees are actualy overhanging, going back down the road I can see the trees that appear in the picturee, they are a good way back and appear close because of the foreshortening.

QUOTE
The dog fouling sign is on telegraph pole outside school. The ping is as I come over the brow of the hill coming down the hill towards the school/cameravan MONITORING MY SPEED FROM BEGINNING TO END AS I HAD BEEN WARNED. It's good to be challenged on this forum but it would be even more helpful to be given practical advice, for example analysing video evidence, set up errors on LTI 20.20, the physics of laser cameras, etc. If no-one challenges these people when they are wrong, what's to stop a camera on every road zapping every driver within the speed limit and creaming off cash? Tyranny, I think it's called.


In my following post I put a link to the layby and the dog fouling sign in the picture. They have a clear sight all the way back to the 30mph sign. your picture is inside the limit, the sign is behind your car.

If you go to court and challenge the accuracy of the device they will point out it is Home Office Approved and will produce a Calibration Certificate for it. If you try to showe that Laser Devices are unreliable they will produce an expert witness to say they are reliable and will also point to the Home Office Approval.
drjanmen
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 09:14) *
WHICH END OF THE FLAMING TOWN WAS IT??????

(third time of asking)

My post was in responce to others, right now they have enough evidence to convict you, we're trying to help....so tell us where it happened preferably with a street view link, or confirmation another link provided is right.

A link to the parking spot of the van would help as well!


Coming from the West, over brow of hill, just past 30 sign, by the look of the photo.

QUOTE (drjanmen @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 09:22) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 09:14) *
WHICH END OF THE FLAMING TOWN WAS IT??????

(third time of asking)

My post was in responce to others, right now they have enough evidence to convict you, we're trying to help....so tell us where it happened preferably with a street view link, or confirmation another link provided is right.

A link to the parking spot of the van would help as well!


Coming from the West, over brow of hill, just past 30 sign, by the look of the photo.


Van parked outside school, further down the hill on right hand side, just behind wall (before you get to mini r'b at centre of village).
norahl
Here's the scene.
Prosecution have evidence from a type approved device and have a witness, it's all on video. The equipment is approved and calibrated and the operator has set it up correctly all is presented to the court. Case complete.


Your defence.
I didn't do it.....



Verdict = guilty
drjanmen
QUOTE (norahl @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 09:24) *
Here's the scene.
Prosecution have evidence from a type approved device and have a witness, it's all on video. The equipment is approved and calibrated and the operator has set it up correctly all is presented to the court. Case complete.


Your defence.
I didn't do it.....



Verdict = guilty


Well let's see the evidence first.
desktop_demon
For what its what I support the OP's efforts to prepare a case. If the OP believes he is innocent then so do I. More so, as no one has proven him guilty yet! The court might find him guilty with the associated fines and higher costs - bit that hasn't happened so far.

Yes it is true that many who defend their case in magistrates court are convicted - but not all are. I wasn't, even though the muppets at RSS said I was speeding. Others here have collapsed the prosectuon case based on laser device evidence. Troy2010 is an example.

So while it is fair to give the OP "tough questioning session" in preparation of what might happen in court - the idea of this forum (a "FIGHT BACK FORUM") is to be "against 'em". If everybody who was charged with speeding did the noble thing and defended the case (or even just turned up in court to plead guilty) then the current system would collapse under the work load. But as long as the OP is prepared for the possible outcomes then I would always recommend testing the prosecution case. It might not be the cheapest or easiest thing to do but it is often the correct thing to do.

So OP if you are determined to run a defence (and good luck, I support the idea) then the first point will be to analyse the evidence against you. To do that you will need to ask for disclosure of the full video. That can be done by writing to the CPS and asking for it before the hearing. They will probably refuse, in which case at the first hearing an application for disclosure of the entire video should be made. That can be done orally by the OP in court.

The first hearing for plea will be just that. If a guilty plea is entered then the case will be adjourned for a case management hearing at a later date. The OP can then arrange to have the video examined or indeed examine it himself. The idea would be to estimate the speed of the vehicle at the time by using the frame numbers are timers and the road artefacts as position (= distance) estimates.

good luck! smile.gif
CuriousOrange
I must've missed something: that photo doesn't show any data on it, so why are we so sure it's the money shot?
captain swoop
QUOTE (drjanmen @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 09:24) *
Van parked outside school, further down the hill on right hand side, just behind wall (before you get to mini r'b at centre of village).



https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Llanwnen,+Ce...,20.38&z=15
CuriousOrange
QUOTE (norahl @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 09:24) *
Here's the scene. Prosecution have evidence from a type approved device and have a witness, it's all on video. The equipment is approved and calibrated and the operator has set it up correctly all is presented to the court. Case complete. Your defence. I didn't do it.....Verdict = guilty
As already pointed out once, the OP can't know what their defence is until they see the evidence, and they can't do that until they plead not guilty.

If the OP's wrong about not exceeding the limit then there won't be any flaws in the evidence and they'll be found guilty.

On the other hand, if the OP is right in knowing (not 'thinking', not 'surprised if I did', but knowing) that they didn't exceed the limit, then the evidence, when they see it, will be flawed in some way. But the OP (or us) wouldn't be able to tell how until it was seen.


A van driver came through here once with a GATSO that had him exceeding a 30 mph limit, and that reading would have been correct if only the line spacing had been 2 m instead of 5 ft.

sgtdixie
DD

The days when a defendant could ask for everything on a fishing trip are gone.

The defendants case must be that the speed produced by the device is wrong. The set up and daily checks procedures are relevant as is the video of their vehicle. It is very unlikely the full session video will be released.

I suspect the operator will be appropriately trained and authorised and if they have conducted the correct checks what the OP is left with is a technical defence, hence the cost.

I rarely ever tell an OP not to fight if they believe they are innocent, but as long as they understand fully the consequences they should follow their conscience.
The Rookie
wink.gif
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 09:50) *
I must've missed something: that photo doesn't show any data on it, so why are we so sure it's the money shot?

Its either just before or just after or cropped (the cross hairs are to right and above centre of the picture) as there is only about 150m from 30 limit (right on the crest - no visability of roads or cars before that point) to where the OP passed the van, UNLESS he was pinged from behind but given the layout of the road that is unlikely as the obvious place to ping is as they clear the crest just into the 30 limit.

As there is no streetlighting it would be worth the OP getting the TRO from the local highways department to see if the signage matches the limit!

SD a typo is different to what appears to be a deliberate misspelling, but accept that like my Windows phone the iphone is US sourced......
Jlc
QUOTE (drjanmen @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 08:47) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 1 Aug 2012 - 13:27) *
It will be almost certain that the 37mph reading is correct - the point of capture is going to be the important bit.

"It will be almost certain that 37mph is correct" - would that stand up in court? Pure guesswork and WRONG because you were not there behind my wheel monitoring my speed. Thanks for challenging but you are totally wrong.

I think you misunderstand me - other posts have covered what WILL stand up in court. However, given that at the time of your ping you were doing 37mph (99.9% likely) then what matters is the speed limit of that exact spot. Perhaps the road doesn't comply correctly (signs/TRO) and there's an angle to explore. Of course, there's a small chance (the 0.1%) that you were at/under the limit and they have a 37mph reading - again, others have covered the pro's and con's.
desktop_demon
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 - 10:58) *
The days when a defendant could ask for everything on a fishing trip are gone.

The defendants case must be that the speed produced by the device is wrong.


The defendants case is up to the defendant to argue. There are many possible defences which ones are applicable in the circumstances is not yet determined. The TRO might be wrong for example.

I do not agree with the good Sgt. regarding full session video. A defendant in a case I was assisting managed to get full disclosure of the video with a simple letter to the CPS. If the defence argument is that the speed alleged is wrong then the video can provide good evidence on which to base a speed estimate. It is not a "fishing trip" it is more "equality of arms" and access to all evidence by all parties. IT might be classed as a fishing trip if the defendant gave no defence statement (the " lets see what unfolds" approach) but here the accused is stating clearly and simply that they were not going at the speed alleged. The defence has a right to view all evidence that has a bearing on the matter.

So while "evidential fishing trips" are frowned on there is no reason to suppose the court will not order disclosure of relevant evidence when a sensible application is made during the course of preparing a 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.