Jump to content
The mkiv Supra Owners Club

Speeding!


400BHP

Recommended Posts

I have been done for speeding ( had the section 172 letter through ) but we're not sure who was driving the car at the time so it may be difficult, may have been me or my girl. The real bastard about it is that it was on the A2 in the supposed roadworks, the 50 limit was still up but there was no roadworks to be seen, they have finished on that stretch of road and all the cones etc have been removed several days previous to my offense, so the only reason I can see for a police camera van being there is to raise revenue, as there was no other reason for it to be there, and it was on the other side of the goddamn road too...

 

Penny pinching bastards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell them you don't know who was driving as you simply can't remember.

 

If you supply incorrect information you commit another offence. (According to what they tell you on the Driver Query form) So, rather than risk committing another offence by perjuring yourself, if you don't know, tell them you don't know. They will then have to decide what happens. And if they can't prove who was driving from the photograph, then they can't proceed with a case.

 

(Regina Vs. Neil and Christine Hamilton, 2004 apparently!)

 

:thumbs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found a website that is quite interesting, apparently I should be privvy to the operating manual of the device that caught me for speeding and the calibration certificate, I am also entitled to see the officer's notebook ( the guy that was operating it) and in that notebook it should note down all his actions prior to operating the unit on drivers, if the opertating manual has not been followed to the letter and this noted down, then the prosecution cannot continue. apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Welshjeff

Cameras can only be placed for 3 reasons:

Previous high record of speeding at location

Previous high number of accidents at location

Roadworks - to protect workers

 

If you write to local council and object to camera placement and ask them to justify it they have to take it down or refuse. If they refuse, you can contact Dept of Transport and council have to prove its placement to them!

 

It costs the council fortune to move cameras so pester them and when costs exceed revenue, them may stop using them altogether, as a few other councils have decided to. This goes for poorly placed camera warning signs, etc as well.

 

Re ticket, always ask for photo. If windscreen glazed by light or driver unidentifiable (always have your sun visor down for this reason), request to see the video recording the photo came from (you're entitled to) as it is better quality than photo. Camera operator also makes notes on every capture, eg female brown hair, etc. Ask whether any notes available to assist you in determining driver.

 

As long as you take "all reasonable steps to id driver" (important you say this) then you have done what is required of you. If driver cannot be id'd by camera unit or you its up to the 'decision maker' whether to refer your matter to Court or drop it. If Court - remember they have to prove who was driving, so if you id all persons in car but none of you can remember who was driving they have to prove it as they cannot simply convict keeper for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from the pepipoo site

 

If you have received an NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) through the post and are unsure as to the driver at that time then you (the registered keeper) have a legal obligation to provide the details of the driver at that time.

 

Quote:

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police

 

This is taken from Section 172 (paragraph 2, subsection a) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and confirms what is written above.

 

QUESTION A REGISTERED KEEPER MIGHT ASK: "That seems really unfair, it could have been any number of people on that given day as it is not just me that can (or is insured to) drive my car".

 

However............

Quote:

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

 

This is taken from Section 172 (paragraph 4) and is basically a line of defence if you were genuinely unsure as to who was driving on the day. Basically, you have to prove "reasonable diligence" in trying to ascertain the identity of the driver.

 

"What is reasonable diligence" I hear you ask and what do I have to do to fulfill this requirement?

 

Well ultimately it is a matter for the courts, although a great many do not reach that stage.

 

Seeking evidence is paramount here. Writing to the ticket office in question and asking for photographic ID will usually be no problem although some forces are a bit sticky about this. Remember that there is no legal requirement for the ticket office to do this, although you will find that most will be helpful.

 

Quote:

Date

 

Address of Camera Office

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION NO : ********

 

With reference to the above notice number, I would be grateful if you could supply me with any photographic evidence of the alleged offence so that I may identify the driver.

 

On the day specified, there was more than one driver of the vehicle and unfortunately we are unable to come to any definitive conclusions as to who the driver was.

 

I look forward to receiving the photographs at your earliest convenience and should there be any problem with this I would appreciate your prompt response.

 

Yours

 

 

 

You could also check your credit/debit/bank statements to see if you purchased any fuel at/about that time. You could request maps/map references to "back track" your movements if you are unsure as to where the camera was. The trick is to be as diligent as possible.

 

In a lot of cases, you will find that when any photographic ID does arrive at your address it will be a rear view of the car and is unlikely to give any clues as to who was actually driving. If the ID you receive is from a Truvelo or such like and is forward facing then the chance of positive ID is greatly increased. In light of recent (March 2004) correspondence, it appears that there is nothing to stop the police using photographic evidence in court to identify you as the driver should ambiguity exist.

 

Any honest citizen that can identify themselves as the driver would do so after being satisfied that this was indeed themselves driving.

 

If the photographic ID was ambiguous or unclear then there are good grounds to NOT sign the NIP, then a friendly covering letter such as the one written below would be sent....

 

Quote:

Re: Notice of Intended Prosecution - *******

 

Dear

 

I have done everything in my power to help identify who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence but to no avail. That said, I can confirm that the people who drove the vehicle on or about that time were the following:

 

· Name and address of driver number 1; and

· Name and address of driver number 2, etc.

 

Each of the drivers listed above have seen the photographic evidence but none of them are able to be clear as to who it actually is. I acknowledge my responsibilities under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but as is required by subsection 172(4) I believe that I have done as much as I possibly can to identify the driver, but that I have not been able, having exercised at the very least “reasonable diligence”, to ascertain who it was.

 

So other than reiterate what I have said in my previous letters, and having provided the details of the individuals above, there is nothing else I can do. I very much hope that this matter can be avoided from going to court.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

One of two things will happen at this juncture :

 

(i) You will be hounded (bluff and bluster letters) to provide the identity of the driver

(ii) The case will be dropped, as happened in my case.

 

It would be difficult to see how any reasonable magistrate could reasonably convict a registered keeper after this chain of events. Short of keeping a log book to note the specific times and dates of each journey and who made them (which is not a legal requirement), then it is virtually impossible for the keeper to know beyond a reasonable doubt who was driving. Much less the magistrate.

 

It does of course require bottle to go all the way with this but I trust this will be of help to all those still unsure.

 

Hope this helps

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. You might also be interested in our Guidelines, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.