DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31918--------------------------------------------------
Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: HammyTheHamster
Date: August 2, 2024, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hH5FgZW/81mph.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------
That is the full resolution image available on the Avon &
Somerset Public Access System.
There is a second photo, ~15s later according to timestamps,
much closer which shows the plate clearly - but clocks speed at
71mph. For what it's worth, average speed between the 2 images
based on timestamps & laser distance is ~70mph.
If there's a higher resolution version of the above - or a
continuous video of the intervening period - then it would
settle the matter. Worth requesting or a waste of time?
If I request and they refuse to produce anything/fail to
respond; am I going to be worse of if they then produce it at a
hearing?
Haven't replied to NIP yet - all thoughts welcome.
#Post#: 31920--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: slapdash
Date: August 2, 2024, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There probably is a higher resolution photo of the offence. The
camera record will be.
It is entirely up to them what - if anything - they publish.
I imagine it would be hard to convince a bench the second image
is not the same vehicle.
You should get a course offer if not done on in 3 years or 3 PTS
and £100 fixed penalty offer. (These options would normally be
on the NIP for Avon and Somerset).
You can of course refuse those and elect for court where it will
be more expensive (if pleading or found guilty).
#Post#: 31921--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: FuzzyDuck
Date: August 2, 2024, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Clearly a still from a video, they will have a continuous
recording between the "ping" and the point the VRM can be read.
#Post#: 31930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: BertB
Date: August 2, 2024, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whatever you decide to to, you still need to reply to the NIP.
Failure to do so will result in a £600 fine, 6 points and a
nasty endorsement code that will bump up your insurance costs by
a lot.
Will they have video? The stills they have shown you are
captures from a constant video. Sharing that video with you so
you can make up your mind is unlikely. Being captured at 81 and
then passing the van at 71 proves nothing. Plenty of people
brake when they see the van but by then it is too late.
If you take this to court and plead not guilty it will cost
somewhere in the region of £600. A contested trial where you
plan to prove the inaccuracy of the device or errors in its
operation will cost you more than that.
When you send off your driver nomination you will get back the
offer of a fixed penalty + 3pts or speed awareness course.
#Post#: 31934--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: August 2, 2024, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HammyTheHamster link ---
>
> Worth requesting or a waste of time?
>
--- End Quote ---
You'll only get it IF you take it to court (risking a higher
fine and MUCH higher costs if you lose) AND you convince the
court to order it's disclosure.
It appears from the data shared you braked heavily - possibly
having seen the van - something you would probably remember, if
that's the case you probably know you were speeding... Braking
so and getting a slower average doesn't help you, if the Police
can prove to the court the 81mph is correct you would be
convicted.
#Post#: 31942--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: HammyTheHamster
Date: August 2, 2024, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks folks - sounds like they're certain to have a continuous
video of it so removes all doubt = fair enough!
If it was just the 2 stills then I'd have thought they'd
struggle to prosecute to be honest; isn't the burden of evidence
supposed to be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable
doubt?
--- Quote from: The Rookie link ---
>
> [quote author=HammyTheHamster
link=topic=2687.msg31918#msg31918 date=1722589419]
> Worth requesting or a waste of time?
>
--- End Quote ---
It appears from the data shared you braked heavily - possibly
having seen the van - something you would probably remember, if
that's the case you probably know you were speeding...
[/quote]
Hah it's more memorable the days you DON'T see the vans on the
M5, but sadly I have to cover it very frequently for work.
Not that my remembering anything or not has any relevance to
their burden of evidence - otherwise we'd all have amnesia...
#Post#: 31949--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: 666
Date: August 2, 2024, 7:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HammyTheHamster link ---
>
> Thanks folks - sounds like they're certain to have a
continuous video of it so removes all doubt = fair enough!
>
> If it was just the 2 stills then I'd have thought they'd
struggle to prosecute to be honest; isn't the burden of evidence
supposed to be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable
doubt?
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Why? Both stills show you exceeding the limit.
#Post#: 31952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: HammyTheHamster
Date: August 2, 2024, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 666 link ---
>
> [quote author=HammyTheHamster
link=topic=2687.msg31942#msg31942 date=1722598937]
> Thanks folks - sounds like they're certain to have a
continuous video of it so removes all doubt = fair enough!
>
> If it was just the 2 stills then I'd have thought they'd
struggle to prosecute to be honest; isn't the burden of evidence
supposed to be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable
doubt?
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Why? Both stills show you exceeding the limit.
[/quote]
These mobile cameras are only certified to a calibration
tolerance of +/- 1mph, so a reading of anything less than 2mph
over the limit isn't evidence of speeding.
I don't know if other cameras have the same tolerance, but I'd
imagine so as the courts presumably don't want to bother with
cases that could be reasonably dismissed as a rounding error.
#Post#: 31956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: August 2, 2024, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1/ They don’t need a still at all to prove beyond reasonable
doubt, as happened for circa 80 years before even the very first
cameras were used.
2/ ignoring the numerical illiteracy, the police wouldn’t
progress a reading of 71 (though the LIDAR is much more accurate
than that, the camera merely recording what it provides).
There was a well known case of a lady being convicted for 31mph
in a 30 (possibly) which cost her circa £10,000 in costs as they
went ‘all the way’ although how it got to that isn’t really
analogous to 99.9999% of most speeding cases.
#Post#: 31962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unidentifiable Photographic Evidence
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: August 2, 2024, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HammyTheHamster link ---
>
> These mobile cameras are only certified to a calibration
tolerance of +/- 1mph, so a reading of anything less than 2mph
over the limit isn't evidence of speeding.
>
--- End Quote ---
But they have two strands of evidence. The first is the opinion
formed by the operator that the vehicle was exceeding the speed
limit. The second is corroboration of that opinion which is a
measurement showing the vehicle travelling at 81mph.
I'm not too sure what the basis of your argument is. From the
title, are you suggesting that the vehicle is unidentifiable
because you cannot read the number plate from the image you have
been provided with? They clearly have identified your car and
you do not seem to dispute you were there police have no
obligation to provide that image, so how would you proceed if
you didn't have it?
If you take this to court, make sure you take your cheque book.
The police will produce evidence of the operator's opinion and
of the measurement taken by an approved device operated in the
correct manner.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page