DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 122942--------------------------------------------------
NIP for 35 in a 30, mobile camera van
DIR By: Zakalwe
Date: June 25, 2026, 5:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve just received a NIP, 5 days after alleged offence of 35 in
a 30.
I’ve looked through sticky and still wonder about whether to
request images to identify driver and calibration certificates
as my Waze always keeps me under limits so I’m surprised, if it
was me, that I was over 30.
Before accepting 3 points or otherwise, is it worth as AI
suggests, demanding images to identify driver and calibration
certificates and maintenance records, operator logs, citing RTA
(1998) - requirement to provide sufficient info, HRA Art 6
(1998) -right to fair trial and CPIA (1996) duty on prosecution
to disclose all material evidence?
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 122943--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP for 35 in a 30, mobile camera van
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: June 25, 2026, 5:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Right, so you've read the sticky, which clearly sets out our
opinions on AI, and decided to ask us whether you should follow
AI's advice?
#Post#: 122947--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP for 35 in a 30, mobile camera van
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: June 25, 2026, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Zakalwe link ---
>
> HRA Art 6 (1998) -right to fair trial
>
--- End Quote ---
If you want a 'fair trial' then you should demand the Police
prosecute you and plead not guilty...
#Post#: 122948--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP for 35 in a 30, mobile camera van
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: June 25, 2026, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
<deleted>
#Post#: 122950--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP for 35 in a 30, mobile camera van
DIR By: Zakalwe
Date: June 25, 2026, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to be clear, on reading the sticky I wasn’t clear on the
stuff around calibration etc.
I’m asking for help, Sarcy comments don’t help, but hopefully
provide the armchair warriors some brief sense of superiority.
#Post#: 122955--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP for 35 in a 30, mobile camera van
DIR By: 666
Date: June 25, 2026, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Zakalwe link ---
>
> I’ve just received a NIP, 5 days after alleged offence of 35
in a 30.
> I’ve looked through sticky and still wonder about whether to
request images to identify driver and calibration certificates
as my Waze always keeps me under limits so I’m surprised, if it
was me, that I was over 30.
> Before accepting 3 points or otherwise, is it worth as AI
suggests, demanding images to identify driver and calibration
certificates and maintenance records, operator logs, citing RTA
(1998) - requirement to provide sufficient info, HRA Art 6
(1998) -right to fair trial and CPIA (1996) duty on prosecution
to disclose all material evidence?
> Thanks in advance.
>
--- End Quote ---
I shall try to explain some of the reasons why we advise against
AI.
It suggests "demanding". If you ask nicely, the police may
provide some of these things, although they don't have to. If
you "demand", they probably won't. In any case, it's very
unlikely that any of that information will help you.
At that speed, you will normally be offered a fixed penalty, and
- if appropriate - a speed awareness course. If you decline or
ignore those offers, you will automatically be referred to court
for a fair trial - there is no need to demand it. At that stage,
the prosecution should disclose the evidence upon which they
will rely": they are not obliged to do so earlier, and again you
don't normally need to demand it.
To be fair to your AI, at least it hasn't cited Magna Carta.
#Post#: 122957--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP for 35 in a 30, mobile camera van
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: June 25, 2026, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The photographs are primarily to capture the alleged offence and
not the driver.
However, some cameras may capture the driver. Regardless, the
onus falls on the registered keeper to use reasonable diligence
to identify the driver.
As noted, you may request such photos to assist in the
identification but if they do not supply or they do not provide
clarity on the driver there's no automatic defence.
In regards to Waze - it does not keep you under the limit. It
only provides an alert if it believes your velocity is above the
limit from its database. (And limit data can be wrong)
#Post#: 122985--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP for 35 in a 30, mobile camera van
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: June 25, 2026, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> …images to identify driver
--- End Quote ---
It is your job to identify the driver. The police have no
obligation to help you with that whether you “demand” anything
from them or not.
--- Quote ---
> … and calibration certificates and maintenance records,
operator logs,
--- End Quote ---
If you defend the matter in court, it is unlikely that the
police will rely on any of those to convict you. Mechanical
devices are presumed to be working correctly unless the contrary
can be proved. The burden of that proof will rest with you and
if you are not provided with those documents, you can ask the
court to order their disclosure. You will have to tell them why
you want them and simply saying “Waze always keeps me under
limits” is unlikely to be a sufficient reason.
--- Quote ---
> citing RTA (1998) - requirement to provide sufficient info,
>
--- End Quote ---
I’m not sure that the Road traffic Act does make such a
requirement, though I could be wrong.
--- Quote ---
> ...HRA Art 6 (1998) -right to fair trial
--- End Quote ---
Do you believe you will not get a fair trial without all those
things?
--- Quote ---
> ...and CPIA (1996) duty on prosecution to disclose all
material evidence?
--- End Quote ---
That duty is not absolute and is tempered by the word
“material.” The prosecution is obliged to disclose, initially,
the evidence it intends to rely on to convict you. As well as
that it might be ordered by the court to disclose any evidence
it has which might assist you or undermine their prosecution (as
I explained above).
If you follow the advice offered in the "Read This First"
article, you will realise that AI presents a grave threat to
your safety:
"If your source is AI - we will look for you, we will find you
and we will kill you"
I think the advice is fairly clear and quite relevant.
BTW – the “armchair warrior” you refer to is the Global
Moderator for this site who was largely responsible for the
“Read This First” advice.
#Post#: 123035--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP for 35 in a 30, mobile camera van
DIR By: d612
Date: June 26, 2026, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Waze has different user setting for the point at which the alert
tone sounds in respect of the speed limit.
You can set it for:
Alert "at the speed limit", 5mph over the limit, 10 mph over the
limit, 15 mph over the limit and even 20mph over the limit!
The alert only occurs at the point of passing over your set
threshold as above. So only if you drop below the limit set and
then subsequently go above it do you get a further alert.
So in no way can Waze even be claimed to be preventing speeding
- and that before the fact that every now and then it gets
confused as to what the speed limits are.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1