Safe Speed Forums

I was caught speeding on a traffic-free sunny M6 somewhere south of Carlisle by a bridge based police van. The NIP duly arrived and I have signed it to say I was driver (dont really hold with using loopholes to get out of something i was actually doing!). I sent the NIP back middle of March and thought I would have had a court date by now, but have heard nothing. This is my first ever speeding prosecution (also no insurance claims/accidents in 11yrs) and I dont know what I can expect. I was doing 96mph (I knew at time was going over limit but hadnt realised was that fast - dont usually drive along looking at speedo). Before anyone starts Im not proud of it and whilst its not an excuse, the road was empty and the visibility/weather was very good. Had cicumstances been otherwise I would not have been going so fast. It is a bit galling that 1mph less would seem to have been a fixed penalty but looks like court for me.

So, questions:

Should I contact police to find out when I can expect court date?
Can I request the issue to be heard in a court closer to where I live?
Is there a time limit between the NIP being issued and the court date being fixed - ie does the NIP/offence lapse if its not actioned in a certain amount of time?
Given the circumstances - my clean record and road conditions, what sort of fine/points/ban do you think I'll get?

DO NOT contact them. If it times out so much the better.

Before we go ANY further... what was the full evidence - and was it with an LTi2020 - and if so, at what distance were you gunned? This is all very important. It is entirely possible you were travelling slower than 96 if the LTi was used at too great a distance.

No, they probably won't know anyway.


No.


The CPS have to lay papers with the courts within 6 months of the offence. The only trouble is they don't have to tell you they have done this. If they meet this dealine then there is a fairly open ended "resonable period" in which they have to bring the case to court, 2 years is a rough guideline.


If you were assistant chief constable "just keeping up with traffic" it would be 6(?) points and no ban.

Why do you feel so guilty? You say you would not have been travelling so fast if you thought it was unsafe, you were obviously in control of your vehicle (to the extent taht you didn't crash anyway). So why are you so uptight about exceeding a speed limit set completely arbitarily with no safety basis at all.

Don’t be in a hurry to flagellate yourself, as others will be happy to do that for you. Don’t expect any sympathy from the police, since they don’t care whether you were or were not of any danger to anyone. All they consider is that you are another catch they can add to their tally and more money to pay their wages. It doesn’t matter if there wasn’t another car or person in site, their only concern is your speed in relation to the speed limit.

Suggest that you pay a visit to http://www.pepipoo.com/ to get some legal advice.

As I mentioned at
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7039
if it was an LTI 20.20 with a video camera and you have accepted you were the driver then the video evidence is personal information about your movements. Then under the Data Protection Act you can ask for a copy of the video evidence, or otherwise for the photographic evidence. You would need to do that as soon as possible. If you get that you may then be able to check the validity of the speeding allegation and whether you were travelling at the alleged speed. It may be very helpful to show it was a lower speed, even if you were above the speed limit.

Essentially you need to write to the relevant address on the NIP stating something like, “I am making a Subject Access Request under section 7(1) of the 1998 Data Protection Act that you provide me with a copy of all the information you are holding with respect to the speeding allegation you have made against me.”

The police may try to claim exemption, but they are not exempt and I had a ruling from the Information Commissioner's Office that the police should provide a copy of the evidence when you ask to do so.

Expect the police to try various tricks, such as doctoring the video to make it difficult for you to analyse. You will need to have, or borrow, a video recorder with a frame stepping facility, or get the video transfered to CD or DVD.

You can also ask the Information Commissioner's Office for help;
http://www.ico.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?pg= ... s#Helpline
Helpline: telephone: 01625 545 745
email: mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk

If the police will not release the video then you can appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office, but that can take about three months, but you should still get that before your first court hearing.

Hopefully as it was taken from a bridge it may be possible to check what your speed was by using the dashed white line markings between the lanes as a ruler, since these marks have a well defined spacing. From the video you could determine an appropriate time interval of a few seconds from the time indicator and the frame counter, at 50 frames per second. Speed is then distance travelled divided by the time interval in which that happened.

If there was more than one recording of your speed, that will also give you distance measurements, which may be of help, but there can be some variation in the time delay between taking the reading and its initial display on the video.

Because it is a motorway you would not be able to go onto the road to do any measurements.

You may also care to consider the Data Protection Act 1998, Chapter 29 - continued
PART IV, EXEMPTIONS - continued
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm

Section 35:
Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary-

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

Item 2b may be of particular interest to you.

Hope this may be of help.

Good luck

Thanks for your help everyone - I will go and look at the points you suggest and try (Homer) not to feel quite as guilty!

Be warned that you will need to fight them tooth and nail in order to get hold of the video.

But quite apart from the statutes mentioned earlier, once you become the defendant in a court case you have a right to have a copy of any evidence against you beforehand, and in particular any evidence they have that might weaken the case against you. In this case you need the full session video, not just the bit that shows your car, as it may well be possible to demonstrate from this why the conviction is unsafe.

The underlying point is that it would seem from a mounting body of evidence that is accumulating elsewhere, that the way in which these devices are operated and used to gain convictions is fundamentally dodgy, hence the reason they don't like releasing the evidence against you. Quite simply, it undermines their profitability.

I strongly recommend you go over and do a bit of research on www.pepipoo.com

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Absolutely agree about the determination required and expect to encounter all sorts of "dirty tricks" along the way. That can include doctoring of the video to make it almost un-viewable.

Once you get to court you can ask for disclosure of the evidence under Section 7 and 8 of Chapter 25 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which requires that: “The prosecutor must disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might be reasonably expected to assist the accused's defence . .”

In principle that should allow you to obtain the full video for the complete enforcement period, but expect a huge amount of opposition and it is likely that they would rather discontinue the case than provide you with that, as they are sh1t scared of revealing the problems with the LTI 20.20.

If they do that then surely they have failed in their obligations. When it comes to court and they produce their "highly viewable" version, would you not have a case against them for attempting to pervert the course of justice and offences against the DPA? Must they not disclose evidence in the same detail as they have and would that mean that the court should rule that their viewable version is inadmissible?

BTW, I don't know the answers to my questions - but perhaps someone on PePiPoo does.

_________________
Will

Well you might think that and that is what I have claimed, but under the data protection act and after appealing to the Information Commissioner's Office I got my video the day before the first court hearing, with them claiming it was all the information they had. It had four out of every five frames removed, so it looked like I was going at 200mph.

After three court hearings at which I asked for a true copy it took a letter from my MP to the Chief Constable to get a true copy and the police still deny the first copy was doctored and say I should return it to them to check, after which I doubt it would ever be seen again !!!

The case was discontinued by the CPS shortly after I received the true copy because of “insufficient evidence”.

I have since complained to the IPCC and what I have got so far from local Professional Standards Department of Police Headquarters is, “Following assessment it is apparent that this is not a `Recordable Conduct Matter' within the meaning of the Police Reform Act 2002, as you do not satisfy the criteria specified within that Act of persons entitled to make a complaint. I have therefore determined that this will not be recorded as a complaint against the police”. So I am now appealing to the IPCC against this and have submitted further evidence to them of the doctoring of the video tape and wait to see what happens. If anyone else has had a similar experience I would be pleased to hear about it.

From what I have heard of another case at the same location I believe they also used such doctored evidence in the trial, where I was told that “the video was played as if on fast forward”, but he still lost his case.

Maybe the video camera they are using only records at 25 fps?

The whole thing stinks though, especially the part about the magistrates being an integral part of the safety camera partnerships. Welcome to the big brother machine.

I wish I had pursued the full video in my case (Police setup), but I was having so much trouble communicating via recorded delivery to their PO box with second class replies that I gave up and relied on a "only safe option to avoid an aggressive driver" argument, that was accepted as being a valid reason, but tough, the law is still the law, you have admitted guilt therefore we have no choice but to fine you and add points to your licence. I recon that a full video or at least visibility of the next vehicle through the trap should have had a pair of traffic officers in prison.

Hmmm ... I presume that you also requested disclosure of all prosecution evidence. If you did, they failed to meet their obligation and from what I've read on PePiPoo, any evidence on which they relied but which was not disclosed to you no later than seven clear days prior to the hearing should have been disallowed under the disclosure of evidence rules.

However, I've heard of magistrates riding rough-shod over the same rules and granting an adjournment so that the undisclosed prosecution evidence comes into scope rather than forcing the prosecution to proceed on what they have left I do wonder how much of that is driven by the vested interests that the maggies court has as partners in the scam If the scameratsi were forced to play by the rules, they might be less inclined treat justice as secondary to paying their own wages

_________________
Will

Rewolf;

The video would need to have to been running at 10fps, but it turned out they had already sent me five video frame photos that were not in the first video, so it must have been doctored. Anyway when forced to do so they were able to provide a true copy of the video with all the frames in it, at which point the case was discontinued.

I understood that the courts were supposed to be independent of the police, but it seems they are in collusion with the SCPs, so you are stitched up before you get to court. I understand the Magistrates court also gets money out of these cases, so they have a vested interest.

I think if you behave submissively you get no sympathy and are treated just as badly. As they say, if you act as a doormat you will just get walked over.

wilcove;

Yes I certainly did request all the evidence, including the video for the whole enforcement session.

I also wrote a letter to the court and prosecution which I handed over at the hearings so as to ensure the requirement could not be ignored.

I found that email was a far more effective way to communicate with the SCP and their chief inspector, but it took a while to find their email address. Your police force should have a central email address you can use. You can set the email so as to provide a receipt on delivery.

Both the Police and SCP's are no strangers to using underhand techniques to catch motorists so forget the playing fair card.

Glad they do there best to prosecute such dangerous driving its what we pay them for, now if every car had a speed limiter there would be no such probs for the lead foted amoungst you.

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit

At least make an effort, or get an adult to help.

Also; mashing on that keyboard with your plastic safety spoon will do it no good whatsoever.

who also once said, lest he forget:

Besides being illiterate, you appear to confirm a sub-human intelligence with replies like that.

ps. I think it's unfair that your 'Final Warning' has not been removed removed...............and you along with it.

So you do advocate 'sticking at the speed limit' regardless of conditions?

(my bold)

not trying to defend the apparently poorly educated one, there does appear to be a tendency on this forum to divide people into 2 camps:

"Safespeeders" will choose the safe speed regardless of the limit, so if the safe speed is higher than the limit they will break the law, if the safe speed is lower than the limit they will drive at lower than the limit.

"Cattle" who drive AT the speed limit because that's "safe".

I submit that there is a large number of drivers who unwittingly or wittingly are "safespeed within speed limit constraints", i.e. will choose a range of speed as the conditions dictate but not deliberately break the law. I'm not denying that the "cattle" class exist, but I do not agree that everyone who chooses to make more effort to stay within the law is in that class.

Just my 0.03 of a Euro.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I don't think those are people I think those are tendencies present in all of us to greater or lesser extents. We could also list other related tendencies.

I also think 'everyone speeds' from time to time. DfT figures show around 60% of people speeding at sample sites on most road types in free flowing conditions. In the early morning it rises to 80%. And of course at the next sample site a different 60% (or 80%) will be speeding - leaving ample room for almost all of us to speed on occasion.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety