Safe Speed Forums

Hopping mad not so much at being 'caught' but that I have no way of contradicting the so called evidence. I've never even been stopped by the police before.

I was apparently clocked at 43 (an indicated 45-46) in a 30 !!!. This was at the 'Crooked Billet' on the A30 just after the junction with the A308 heading east towards London (51 deg 26 min 11.48 sec N, 0 deg 29 min 55.59 sec W for Google map).

Just to set the scene. The A30 goes from a 2 lane DC 70 NSL to 30 mph just before the roundabout and stays at 30 mph for about a mile. If the traffic lights on the roundabout are green then the traffic slows down to about 40-50 for the second set and then slows down to about 35-40 when back in the two lane section. This roundabout has 4 lanes going through it so you get 2-4-2 lanes all within a few hundred yards.

This can make for some interesting situations so I always keep below 40 exiting the roundabout and slow to 30 shortly afterwards. I've traveled this bit several hundred times by now so know the problems.

Anyway I sent of for the photo as I genuinely didn't know who was driving at the time. Got the photo back and realised that I can't accurately work out where the car was when the snap was taken.

How do I find out where the snap was taken from. Will the 'safety' camera people tell me. The snap was apparently taken from 187.1m away at almost dead ahead from the car.

I just don't do an indicated 45 mph at the point where I think the photo was taken.

How am I supposed to defend myself (if it is neccessary) against a system that deems that a human plus a bit of machinery is always 100% correct under all circumstances. (I programmed big and complex IBM systems around the world for a living so have some experience of what can go wrong - TPF and ALCS/MVS for those that recognise them).

I had just taken delivery of the car the day before. It is a Toyota Yarris T3 M/M - hardly the fastest car in the world. My other one is a bit faster.

Can I say that I was just familiarising myself with the car (I was).

Realistically there is no way out of this because I'm trapped by the system. Its certainly not justice. Not sure about the legality either.

By the way it was a police car sitting at the roadside and a police logo on all the paperwork.

Any comments welcome.

Sharing a problem is supposed to help. It just puts up my blood pressure.

BobM

Genuine questions:

1) Can you now determine it was you driving from the photo or could this as easily have been another family member or a test drive? Did a few of you have a go at the new toy? If this is so, a letter explaining the facts is likely the best route forward, ending with a ".. therefore despite my efforts, determining the identity of the driver in this instance is beyond me" or similar.

2) If you know you were driving, you will have to pplead as the driver and it boils down to technicalities. Was this an LTi 20/20 catch? If so, ask fora copy of the video, on the grounds that you know you were not speeding on the section of road to which they refer and that there must have been some mistake, which no doubt you will be able to identify for them on the video to avoid them embarrassing themselves in court.

Before adopting 2), you might like to check over on Pepipoo for the latest news on this aspect. Good luck.

Hi bob,
Firstly like Roger I think you should try pepipoo.com in their forums goto the FAQ at the top's of the sections and read on.
As for your problem you're waying up a few options,
1- 'Unsure of Driver',
2- Incorrect reading and due to camera error or signage ect.
3. Just hoping they be understanding if you explain.

The chances of success are
1- good as part of law RTA 1988 sect172(3)
[RTA1991 revision sect172(4) is best refered to which can confuse]
2- slim and difficult you can try but the signs equipment has to work correctly by law .
3. No point

If you want to choose the unsure of driver route, don't complicate the matter by saying any thing else as you will look like your tring to get out of it by any means.
For the advice on Pepipoo.com and send a basic letter not to much detail saying you are having problems knowing who was driveing at the time please send copy of photo evidence as refered to in the NIP. If you get a photo (likely you will) deside if you can tell the driver, no point saying anything more untill you see their best image.

Use the sample letters by firefox in the 'Unsure of Driver' post (search the forum for this phrase far all cases. Also look in the 'Success Stories' post for full case histories.

But remember I am having to use this route and have been summonsed with my full trail coming up very soon. I have been charged with 172(2) 'not giving driver detail' which could mean 3pts +£1000 fine (usually £250-300). So have you got what it takes to go all the way? It may come to it. That said alot of cases are dropped at camera partnership level, and even just before the final hearing . Let's hope you can read about my case in the 'success stories' soon

Best of luck

Thanks for the replies.

Yes - Pepipoo is where I have looked. I hesitate to write too much detail as you never know who is reading this.

I missed the smiley after the third question.

I got the photograph back and while it may be possible for me to decide who is driving there is just no way a third party could possibly identify that person. The photo shows as much as a typical grainy b/w CCTV picture. However it had a piece of paper stapled to it that says

"Video print(s) taken from the photographic evidence. This video evidence is to prove the offence not identify the driver; that is the responsibility of the user/keeper".

This just leaves me a bit puzzled. I am sent the photo to help identify the driver but I can't use it to identify the driver Or am I just reading it wrongly.

Anyway, I've sent another letter asking where precisely the alleged offence took place. The A30 is not a short road and it has 30 and 40 limits.

This all reminds me of a statement that says roughly - The authorities can only control you if you break the law so they create as many laws as possible to ensure they can control you.

BobM

That is utter rubbish and will NOT stand up in a court of law.

While the video evidence may well prove an offence, it does NOT prove that the car in the video is actually the correct car and not a clone (especially with no driver ID).

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I think you mean that the system depends on drivers confessing - or being prosecuted for failing to confess.

There is NO alternative evidence of identity.

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