Speeding ticket!

[securespark]

David E

Top Gear did this and it was something silly like 175mph. The camera did not even go off at all.

I found this at the ABD website:

Under British law you are entitled to 'presumption of innocence'. This means that you are presumed to be innocent until the state proves you guilty. The prosecution has to prove its case — the defendant need do nothing.
A car has been photographed exceeding the speed limit, the offence is committed by the driver, not the car. The prosecution has to prove that you are the driver — you do not have to prove you weren't. To get round this they send out a form asking the registered keeper for the name and address of the driver — and threatening you with a section of the RTA 1988 if you fail to provide this information. This is where, in my opinion, the whole thing falls flat. I believe that what they are doing is illegal — they are saying in effect if you do not confess to the offence of speeding we will convict you on a charge of not confessing!

The one thing you must not do is to provide false information — to lie. I would suggest that you complete the section with the words "I am unable to supply you with the information you have requested". DO NOT elaborate. If they ask you what the means just repeat the words. Do not confirm or deny you were driving. If they then threaten you with the Failure to supply the information charge, again say nothing.

Take the matter to court. Plead not guilty. The prosecution will outline its case and state that contrary to Section so and so of the Road Traffic Act 1988 you failed to supply such information etc. etc. After they have confirmed with their witness that you did not complete the form they will rest their case. You defence is simple. You state that supplying the required information is tantamount to a confession, and you are not obliged to confess to anything under the rule of Self incrimination. Threatening you with penalties if you do not confess is coercion and is therefore illegal. You can then rest your defence. If you are convicted of failing to supply the information inform the court you intend to appeal.

I wouldn't bother with a solicitor, they will only cost you money. If you feel confident enough, stand up and speak for yourself. If you would like back up, attend court alone and when the magistrate asks you if you have representation say no, and could you have the duty solicitor. The reason for this is that it will not cost you anything for that appearance.

Don't forget the only reason they have got away with this for so long is that no one challenged them. Now someone has, it looks like they are going to have to admit that what they have been doing is illegal.

 

[PowerTool]

As I seem to recall (dimly),if streetlights are no more than 200 yards apart and of a set minimum height (7 metres ?) then a built-up area is automatically a 30mph zone,unless stated otherwise.
And those streetlights look high enough,even though I can't remember the exact height.

 

[AdamW]

The (highly-reflective) 30mph sign in the foreground: if you can argue that this is a repeater sign, then the speedlimit could be deemed unenforceable. Repeater signs are not allowed in 30mph zones (what idiot came up with that law!), therefore a zone with repeater signs cannot be a 30mph zone.

That argument was used a couple of years ago and got a LOT of people off the hook.

Also you could pick them up on technicalities like if the statement from the officer who inspected the photos is signed properly (a photocopy/laser-printed signature will not do, as that ex-speeding czar Welsh police chief found out), or if the photos have gone through image enhancement (although I think that is actually legal now).

Looks like you, as you have said, will have to take it like a man... what are insurance premia like with 9 points?

As to numberplates and Gatsos: I saw a Police-camera type programme a couple of nights ago. They came across a car where the plates seemed normal to the naked eye, but the cameras were picking it up as blank. Turns out you can put some illegal spray on your numberplate and make the digits "invisible" to cameras.

The silly berk was driving legally though, and ended up with a biiiiig fine. He would have got away with it had the policeman not glanced at the monitor

 

[pipme]

Don't forget, if the lamp posts are 200yds or less apart, and the limit is greater than 30, there have to be repeaters !!
Therefore rule of thumb ... if there is street lighting travel at 30 mph unless you see greater posted limit ... If limit is greater you should see repeaters, beware of a sudden change back to 30 or less, and attendant lack of repeaters.
Nothing to do with height.
If you want the law tis here:- LINK About lighting and limits

'Right to Silence' case in eurocourt should be resolved by now, but have read nothing further .. Do not hold your breath, I think there is a Euro wide 'thing' sbout road safety, 'greater good' and all that ... There is a conception afoot that everyone is happy to knock motoring and niceties of law do not count ...

Mind you, given Tone's reputation in euroland at present .. things may turn out differently.
Don't forget hmg wants to hold people indeffo on any old suspicion ... running pizz ups in breweries and all that.
Get that 'Union' feeling about the love of producing rules, but not following them ?

 

[pipme]

......... but the cameras were picking it up as blank. Turns out you can put some illegal spray on your numberplate and make the digits "invisible" to cameras.
The silly berk was driving legally though, and ended up with a biiiiig fine. He would have got away with it had the policeman not glanced at the monitor

Guess he admitted the crime then.... Would they not have to prove he actually painted the plate ? After all if they could only 'see the evidence' through a camera, how should he know if someone was 'Having a laff' ?

Ok, pay someone to engage another in painting over your plate.
When caught out get the 'paid' guy to admit defacing your car ie. painting over the plate (not to having being paid to do so of course)... profer no charges against him. Surely not worth any Police time investigating further .. You just need a strong person who repeats when questioned that 'They know nothing about it" .....
Ever wonder why so many crims at a higher level just not in clink for ever ? Proof is not easy without the unwitting help of the accused.
Like admitting speeding charge in return for lighter sentence.

 

[kendor]

Although i don't condone speeding and believe you gets what you deserve, those that seem susceptible to gaining speeding penalties may do no better than to get one of the relatively cheap GPS systems around these days in their cars and install a database of speed cameras to alert them of oncoming cameras.

 

[Thermo]

if you delibratly set out to cover your plate to avoid recognition on cameras for speeding etc, then you can be nicked for attempting to pervert the course of justice. A rather more seriuos offence. As with all con and use offences eg bald tyres, painted number plates etc its your responsibilty to check the vehicle is roadworthy before use, so you wont get far with that one!

 

[pipme]

Although i don't condone speeding and believe you gets what you deserve, those that seem susceptible to gaining speeding penalties may do no better than to get one of the relatively cheap GPS systems around these days in their cars and install a database of speed cameras to alert them of oncoming cameras.

Well, I have a totally clean licence .. two parking tickets and believe it, no insurance claims by or against, since age 18 biker to car owner (No doubt - lucky)....
I actually abide by the limits .. as best I can, I do feel that the business and it is a business of 'no warning' get caught, bang - done - Is not right.
If it is, then why not apply the law in every case the same way ? Jeez even a violent criminal docked, guilty, with a list of previous, has the Judge rummaging through his books to find a half reason for mitigation of the due sentence, business again..cost of goal I s'pose. .. (Maybe motorists are hammered in some perverse reaction to the lack of 'real' prosecutions ?)
Gatso type cameras don't make the roads safer only their marked out area, Police patrols do ... I think there is a load of damage being done to relations twixt law, people and the perception of what is good and bad driving ... The feelgood factor is being forgotten - it is vital to the well being of the nation.

 

[ohmygodwhathaveyoudone]

I had a friend who got let off a speeding fine.he mentioned the police PACE notes (about the size of war & peace apparently)don't know if its bull though

 

[kendor]

If you get yourself a good Barrister you might get off with it, what about Cherie Blair I hear she's quite reasonable.

 

[jtaunton]

As a wise man once said 'Weaselling out of things is what sets us apart from the animals. Except for the Weasel....'

Try asking for the GATSO's calibration certificate before you decide whether to contest it or not. If its too much hassle they may drop it.

 

[kendor]

Top Gear did this and it was something silly like 175mph. The camera did not even go off at all.

another way to beat the cameras is to stick to the limits.

 

[David E]

Agreed, although not a justification for speeding, the only time I got stopped was late one night on the A1 near Alnwick the road was deserted and i was doing 82 in a 70. The officer could have used his discresion but given i had a tail light out as well I got 3 points + fine fairish cop. A GATSO on the A1 has no discresion and I do believe that on roads like this at the correct time and conditions 10ish mph above the speed limit is generally OK, but 31mph past a school at 3:15pm should not be up for discresion - immediate points+fine.

The only speed cameras I believe work properly are those that measure you over a stretch of road and then calculate your average speed with these you can't slow down for the camera and then go back to 100mph like people do with GATSO's. If a road can be proven to need a speed reduction such as the Cat and Fiddle as a road to be considered, a camera could be used to reduce accidents rather than generate income for the local plod.

 

[jtaunton]

I think, but am not completely sure, that Average Speed Cameras are some sort of myth put about to scare us (bit like TV detector vans). AFAIK, you have the rear-facing ones, where a radar takes a picture of any likely candidates, and then a policeman measures against the lines on the road to see how fast you were going, and the front-facing ones with the red lenses, which are triggered by piezo-electric sensors buried in the road just in front of the camera.

I may be wrong though (and about the detector vans, but that's probably a thread of its own).

 

[ohmygodwhathaveyoudone]

££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ opps meant to say safety.