View Full Version : Caught at 58mph in a 50! Grrr! anything I can do?
Huge dual carriage way, loads of visibilty.
Doing 58 mph in a ridiculous 50, out pops a forward facing camera from behind a tree (tru-velo), flash bang wallop.
And they say it isn't to make an income:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Words cannot describe how I feel.
Anything I can do? Or do I just accept it and get caned when my insurance comes trough?
J
You be buggered then.
Question would be how many flash's, think i remember someone saying that it only does 2 flash's if it has film.
C.
amcluesent
08-03-2003, 09:22
>Anything I can do?<
Well, you could try the latest wheeze of not signing the Notice to Owner. Then if you're summonsed, plead not guilty. The unsigned form is not admissible as evidence, so there is no legal evidence of who the driver was at the time of the offence and the court must find you not guilty.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html
However if they do find you guilty you will have to pay court costs.
C.
tim rome
08-03-2003, 10:09
go back and throw loads of tyres over it and then set light to it
crackdownuk
08-03-2003, 11:09
Originally posted by Cookie
However if they do find you guilty you will have to pay court costs.
C.
how much would that be???? my boss got caught over loading by around 400k (which is a hell of a lot:p ) the lucky BA$TARD only got a £120 fine plus £35 cost.
his speech went something like this : i have been driving for X years, doing at least 30K per year, when you are doing that sort of mileage, you dont keep a clean license by luck, I admit i was in the wrong and am now very careful and causious about overload, so we know keep scales on the back of the van and weigh everything!!!!!! total BOLLLLLOXSSS but it worked for him
Forward facing? I'm assuming you mean taking pics of the back of your car and not the front?
No sorry - meant backward facing.
Called Tru-Velo apparently - they now use an infra red flash so not to dazzle the driver.
Got the NIP through this morning.
I can see the idea of not signing it - but I will look like an idiot in court if I try to use that method without a good (expensive) solicitor.
Does anyone know a friend of a friend this has worked for? Not just some bloke in North Wales who has got away with it? (From your link)
Oh see your point - they have pictures of me driving.
So that method won't work - who cares if I don't admit to driving -they've got pictures of my face.
May try the sending a letter asking for proof though as per
http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/fight.htm
J
Amdathlonuk
08-03-2003, 12:40
Was the NIP sent by recorded delivery?
If not just say you didn't recieve it, if they don't let you know in 2 weeks there is no case..
JJ
Dan@DB-Power
08-03-2003, 23:46
So did it take a picture of your front or back?
I remember something about it being illegal to take a face fronting picture due to it being a intrution of privacy. Is it possible that it could have taken a picture of someone else travelling towards you? 58 in a 50 seems to be a bit cr4p.
Cheers
Dan,
crackdownuk
09-03-2003, 00:01
Originally posted by Dan S13
So did it take a picture of your front or back?
I remember something about it being illegal to take a face fronting picture due to it being a intrution of privacy. Is it possible that it could have taken a picture of someone else travelling towards you? 58 in a 50 seems to be a bit cr4p.
Cheers
Dan,
do a search i sure someone on here has a record of something like 7 non guiltys ove rthe old bill:D
Yingtong
09-03-2003, 20:28
I read somwhere that you must fill in all details on the NIP by law, but you are not forced to sign it!!!!,
thus becoming null and void,
Its worth a go at least.
Originally posted by crackdownuk
do a search i sure someone on here has a record of something like 7 non guiltys ove rthe old bill:D
Quite possibly Turbo Pete, if memory serves :D
i think it was Turbo Pete - and I think his record is even better than that IIRC. Pete?
Originally posted by Dan S13
So did it take a picture of your front or back?
I remember something about it being illegal to take a face fronting picture due to it being a intrution of privacy. Is it possible that it could have taken a picture of someone else travelling towards you? 58 in a 50 seems to be a bit cr4p.
Cheers
Dan,
For what it's worth - I read something similar somewhere. Can't remember where though :rolleyes:
It would certainly make sense, though, for this to be construed as being an infringement of one's human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
whether this is or isn't the case, I'm sure you're entitled to disclosure of the picture under the Data Protection Act - you never know, such a memento might go well above the mantelpiece! ;)
Originally posted by Tombs
Quite possibly Turbo Pete, if memory serves :D
And his record is currently 15!:D :D :D
amcluesent put a link up which details the reasoning for not signing the form. Basically when it goes to court they cannot use it as evidence. However, the court will have a picture of me driving as it took a pick of the front of the car - therefore this form won't even be needed as evidence in my opinion.
I didn't sign for the letter - does that mean not recorded delivery?
It does say on the form:
Under section 172 of the R.T.A 1988 you are requested to supply info requested within 28 days of this notice. Penalty for failure to supply this information is 'SIMILAR' to that for the alleged offence itself.
Hmmmmm...think might give Turbo Pete a PM....
Asht_200
10-03-2003, 11:34
Did you say the camera was obscured by a tree, thought that wasn't allowed.
Amdathlonuk
10-03-2003, 11:44
Originally posted by J..
I didn't sign for the letter - does that mean not recorded delivery?
It does say on the form:
Under section 172 of the R.T.A 1988 you are requested to supply info requested within 28 days of this notice. Penalty for failure to supply this information is 'SIMILAR' to that for the alleged offence itself.
Hmmmmm...think might give Turbo Pete a PM....
If you didn't sign for the letter then it wasn't recorded delivery, if they get in touch after 28 days saying that you haven't supplied the info requested, you can say that you haven't recieved any letter as they have no proof that it was delivered..
Originally posted by AshT_200
Did you say the camera was obscured by a tree, thought that wasn't allowed.
Only if the county police are part of the netting off (hypothication (I Think)) scheme.
I know Essex are but not sure about Cambridgeshire???:confused:
If they are then the camera MUST be clearly visible from a set distance (although I can't remember what it is in a 50) and the Camera also has to be Painted Yellow.
Not sure it will get you off but will certainly earn them a slap and they loose all the fines from that camera to central government so its in their own interests to sort it out.
Originally posted by AshT_200
Did you say the camera was obscured by a tree, thought that wasn't allowed.
It was obscured slightly but still painted bright yellow - my fault.
My attention was on the 'safety' camera on the other side of the road!
And I was passing Coventry at the time
All this recommendations and set distance stuff is a load of bollocks.
Not only is it not a legal requirement but they just don't comply.
In the Bristol area you drive round a corner and there they are. Wish they'd make the same f*cking effort with burglars........:rolleyes: :mad:
Originally posted by tim rome
go back and throw loads of tyres over it and then set light to it
do this between 3 and 4 AM on a weekday (tuesday or wednesday)
or run it over with a lorry, then nick it and destroy it at your leisure ;) :D
Originally posted by Vez
Why tuesday/wednesday?
Because it's probably the quietest times and police are less expecting/on the look out for trouble.;) I'd also get mates with mobiles to station themselves up and down the road to alert you of any cars ;)
Just throw th eNIP in the bin and say you never got it...
Section 1.1(c) and 1.2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act states that...
"Within 14 days of the offence a NIP specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been commited was... served on him"
and, importantly
"A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undeliverable or was for any other reason not received by him"
So the second part invalidates the NIP if it doesn't come recorded or special delivery! You just have to prove you never received it... by asking the police to provide proof of delivery.
Originally posted by Ripper
All this recommendations and set distance stuff is a load of bollocks.
Not only is it not a legal requirement but they just don't comply.
In the Bristol area you drive round a corner and there they are. Wish they'd make the same f*cking effort with burglars........:rolleyes: :mad:
why would they want to do that, they wouldn't make any money out of it, and it would take far more effort!!!:rolleyes: :mad: :mad:
Originally posted by JackaL
Just throw th eNIP in the bin and say you never got it...
Section 1.1(c) and 1.2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act states that...
"Within 14 days of the offence a NIP specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been commited was... served on him"
and, importantly
"A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undeliverable or was for any other reason not received by him"
So the second part invalidates the NIP if it doesn't come recorded or special delivery! You just have to prove you never received it... by asking the police to provide proof of delivery.
I'd get TurboPete's second opinion on this. I'm not convinced things are that straightforward.......
Originally posted by Ripper
I'd get TurboPete's second opinion on this. I'm not convinced things are that straightforward.......
Yeah, they usually find away around such irritations as the law or legality when it comes to extracting cash from motorists :rolleyes:
In the letter of the law you can get away with it, but I bet they have a 'precedent' that says they don't have to send one at all!
Next time you get flashed ask if they can change the charge to burglary.
Guaranteed to let you off.......
W@nkers!
steve(s14a)
10-03-2003, 16:02
W@nkers :mad:
I might try telling them I was on my way to commit a burglary. And was in a rush because me and my mate 'Burgular Bob' wanted to do some muggings when we were finished...innit
That's got to be my best chances of getting let off ...... :)
jenbstevieb
10-03-2003, 19:10
Was the Zapper handheld?
With an 8mph overspeed (16%) you might be able to argue against the carge on this basis. Mate of mine got away with it with a 22% overspeed. Mind you though, he had a friend in the car following who testified that the speed he was travelling was within the legal limit.
Both cars speedos were checked and with corroboration from the guy behind, my mate got off....on the basis of an error in calibration of the instrument....maybe worth trying if you have a REALLY good friend. ( after all, you ain`t gonna go to hell for 8mph surely?)
turbo pete
11-03-2003, 01:50
Ok I'll try and answer some of the questions some of you have posed.
Forward facing cameras have an inductive loop in the road AFAIK. This is the first piece of evidence. I presume that they also have radar since their must be two pieces of evidence to prove a vehicle was speeding. You can find out how these work. Look at the links I posted in the links section. A search should find it. There were loads of sites that I have used. The cameras use IR to take the pics an id the vehicle. Don't think they take two pics though. GATSO's do cos the pics are used to calculate speeds using marks on the road and the known time interval between pics.
Whatever, they are approved by the gov so you can't argue against that.
As far as pics are concerned. I would be tempted to write and ask for copies of the evidence. I couldn't remember who was driving last time I was done for speeding. Perhaps you were sharing the driving? Could you write a letter and ask for the pic in order to help you ascertain who was driving. you may find the pic is crap. That would be a shame wouldn't it. You may find that they have screwed up and binned the pic. Oh dear no evidence.
As far as filling in the NIP and not signing I am not sure what would happen. i am still waiting for my magistrate friend to follow that up. I checked the relevant ACT and it deffo doesn't specify that you have to sign. Just name. I think it may be right that the form would not be admissable without the signature. Will post more as and when I get the info back.
Court costs are f all. I was in court for about four hours at mags. In fact copper one was grilled by moi for over two hours. Worked up a right sweat and lost his rag. Well funny. Think my costs were £100. Whats £100 these days. I think I would always argue in court. It has paid off so far.
I don't think the recorded delivery angle works. I think there is some clause which counters it. Something to do with reasonable effort being made to contact the driver. If you argued this you would end up in court and get your chance to argue.
However, if they don't send the NIP out in 14 days you have got a legal angle. They have to send it out to whoever is registered within 14 days otherwise you send it back pointing out that they have failed to comply with whatever regulation it is that states they have 14 days.
I don't think that u can argue that you are entitled to see evidence before signing because it is a summary offence and not criminal. The infringement of one's human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms doen't apply here but I would still argue.
My record is ? I have lost count. Only been done twice myself for speeding. Got off both of those. Appealed one. Father been done 3 or 4 times got off all them too. And then there are all the friends we have helped and parking offences etc. reckon it is 15 or there abouts if you add them all up.
Camera positions are not relevant. The new rules are not set in stone and don't apply across the UK. Only constabluries that use the money for additional cameras and film are required to paint them yellow and put up signs. If they don't u still can't argue. The only time camera postion is an issue is if it affects the function of the camera.
I have also pm'd u mate.
Bye. gotta sleep now.
Cheers for the advice mate - much appreciated.
I need to have a think about this one before rushing into anything.
The main thing that's putting me off is the fact that they have got a picture of my face and could quite easily demolish my only possible defence in court i.e I don't know who was driving.
So it would be me going to court hoping they made a mistake e.g bad picture/losing picture/other general **** up.
But then if I just write a letter asking for a pic of the car so I can ascertain who was driving because I don't remember driving on that stretch of road (one of Petes possible suggestions)- can they send me to court for that? Their letter said I'm not entitled to any photgraphic evidence and it is my duty to state who is driving - if I don't then I go to court.
My brain hurts now! ..... I need a beer! :)
Also anyone know if you get convicted mid way through insurance do you have to tell them straight away? I assume you do?
They've got me trapped really:
I only want to go to court if I know I can win. I can only win if they have made a mistake somewhere with the photo. But I can only find out if they have made a mistake if I go to court!
Make sense?
The bastards!!
tim rome
11-03-2003, 21:11
from what i can gather it wont be a case of winning, if they havnt followed procedure 100% your case will be thrown out. the reasoning for this is because once u go to court and "win" then it has set a precedent, (next person along just quotes your case and gets away with it) so generally people who kick up a stink and say that they intend pleading not guilty will get the charges dropped. tis much easier revenue earner to just collect the dosh from the peeps who send a cheque and license off and accept their punishment.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.