Anyone ever queried a speeding ticket?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 43 total)
  • Anyone ever queried a speeding ticket?
  • Premier Icon rhyswilliams3
    Subscriber

    Just been issued with a notice of prosecution (i.e. ticket) from Cheshire police, problem is i am massively doubting what they are telling me.

    Apparently i’ve been clocked doing 83mph in a 30mph zone by an unmanned camera (I’m guessing one of the yellow box type) but there is not a cat in hells chance that could be correct as i was driving a motorhome whilst towing a car trailer at the time!

    I could understand and even accept a typo if it was meant to say 38mph but its not feasible i could have been doing the quoted speeds on that section of road whilst driving a large vehicle.

    Whats my best next step? obviously want to avoid having to stand up in court and defend it as technically i have no evidence (no dash cam or anything) and i wouldn’t really know what to do in that situation anyway.

    drnosh
    Member

    Perhaps your number plate has been cloned.

    Ask for a copy of the photograph that the camera took of you.

    wwpaddler
    Member

    Get yourself over to pepipoo for some advice.

    If you were at the location they say you were you could always try a bemused phone call to the camera office asking if the ticket is correct as you were in a motorhome towing a trailer at the time. They may drop it through embarassment or may issue you a corrected ticket (38mph). If you wait 14 days before you ask the Q they may be unable to issue a corrected ticket.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    Sounds like one to challenge I doubt they can reissue another as the allegation is 83mph.

    cvilla
    Member

    Question is were you at that road at that time in that car? I had similar but had sold the car, still had to prove but easy to prove as had informed DVLA and it was about 3 hours from me. Just record your correspondence, email is good and explain with sound reasons.

    footflaps
    Member

    Sounds like a duff reading which can happen with high sided vehicles, they get a reflection and get confused. Just query it and they’ll probably review it and drop it.

    Premier Icon rhyswilliams3
    Subscriber

    It was me driving i have no doubts about that, i was on my way home at the time and i did travel down that section of road. The camera is a stationary one and if its the one i’m thinking of you’d be hard pushed to do 83 down there in a car unless it was 2am in the morning (it wasn’t, it was 7pm in the evening!)

    they did give me a phone number for the ticket office so i’ll give them a call tomorrow just to check they have the correct info. I’d rather get it dealt with sooner rather than wait the 14 on hte off chance as its causing quite a bit of worry. being more than double the speed limit it would land me in deep s***

    I can apparently request the photo evidence but i’m not sure if i do that before saying yes it was me driving or afterwards

    Premier Icon boomerlives
    Subscriber

    38mph in a mobile mortgage while towing?

    Maniac!

    Premier Icon Dickyboy
    Subscriber

    Don’t do this:-https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

    30k fighting a £100 fine 🤔

    I would suggest replying to the request for the driver details as failing to do that is a separate offence and it would be a shame to fall foul of that one. Its not an admission to the speeding offence or anything, they still have to prove that.

    Thereafter, I would suggest don’t worry too much as I’m sure it can be sorted out. Much of the process is automated and errors can occur. If you highlight the possibility of an error it should be checked by a human traffic officer and then resolved appropriately.

    Premier Icon MartynS
    Subscriber

    I’d be a bit proactive about chasing this.. your looking at possibly a 3-6month ban and a fine of 150% of your weekly income…,,

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    It seems remarkable that they’d offer you a ticket rather than an invitation to appear in court.

    taxi25
    Member

    It seems remarkable that they’d offer you a ticket rather than an invitation to appear in court.

    You get the NIP first. Then once they have your details you get offered a speed awareness course, offer of fine and points, and yes if this went forward a court date.

    fossy
    Member

    Quick, better take out the 5 litre Hemi in the engine bay !

    willalone
    Member

    Many years ago I got a NIP after being flashed doing 96 on the A14, I wrote back pointing out I was driving a battered old 1.6 diesel vw caddy that wasn’t capable of doing that speed, they cancelled the ticket.

    poly
    Member

    It seems remarkable that they’d offer you a ticket rather than an invitation to appear in court.

    I think it’s reasonably clear from the OP that he had received a Notice of Intended Prosecution, not a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty.

    The GreatApe’s advice is good – the s172 request to name the driver is valid and should be complied with even if there is an error in the measurement. Reply to that (in writing). Personally I would phone them.

    I don’t think Drac is necessarily correct that a NIP would need to be reissued within 14 days of the alleged offence. The offence is simply exceeding the limit, and the purpose of the NIP is to draw the keeper or drivers attention to a possible offence so you can preserve evidence etc. It’s not obvious that you would be disadvantaged by a typo of 83 v 38. Obviously only a court can actually decide.

    If it does go to court then you shouldn’t need a lawyer or expert witness to show a camera error as big as you claim. The camera operator would be required to give evidence about the speed, you will get the photographs before. You can ask about the secondary markings and have him perform a speed = distance / time calculation.

    Premier Icon colournoise
    Subscriber

    Deffo query it. ‘Mistakes’ are made. I got an NIP on my journey home from the Boltby Bash for travelling at 57mph in a national speed limit zone in a goods vehicle (so 50mph) – caught on a mobile camera. I rang up and pointed out I had a re-registered V5 showing the vehicle as a motor caravan and so was not subject to the reduced speed limit. They dropped the case.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    I think it’s reasonably clear from the OP that he had received a Notice of Intended Prosecution, not a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty.

    Good point. It was the OP’s use of “ticket” which I misinterpreted.

    Premier Icon v8ninety
    Subscriber

    When I worked at a haulage Co we had a wagon NIP’d for 38 in a 30. Tacho proved that the vehicle hadn’t driven above 25 mph for the entire journey. Ticket was quietly dropped (without an admission of error). Chap next door got exactly same speed NIP on the same day, but in a van with no tacho. Had to suck it up. Since then I’ve had little faith in safety camera accuracy, or the SCP’s integrity.

    stevextc
    Member

    Two seperate things, were you speeding (possibly) and were you going 83mph (I think its clear you weren’t doing 83… perhaps harder to know if you MIGHT and slipped to 38mph ???

    Mostly crap like this is easiest to get rid of by making it easier for them to drop than proceed.
    Work on the principle they are likely to do what’s easy not what’s right.

    I would definitely not raise the possibility of a typo… that’s just making it easy for them..

    Premier Icon nwmlarge
    Subscriber

    You will need to go to court to contest it.

    Be prepared.

    johndoh
    Member

    I would definitely not raise the possibility of a typo… that’s just making it easy for them..

    Such a typo will surely render the NIP void though?

    stevextc
    Member

    You will need to go to court to contest it.

    Be prepared.

    I’d switch that round … you might need to be prepared to go to court

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    I can’t see how they could proceed with a prosecution for a lesser offence at a lesser speed once they come to surely the inevitable conclusion that you were not going 83mph. Their kit, as setup, gave that reading. Any other reading at a lesser speed would surely be a spurious finger in the air guess. As far as I am aware the process from detection to notice letter is autonomous – there is nowhere in the process where human error and an 8 instead of 3 being typed could have happened.

    eddiebaby
    Member

    Old boss had an elderly MGB roadster. He was done on the A34 at twilight by traffic cops using that old school preradar thing where they timed him over a distance as they followed behind (VASCAR?).
    He asked if they would guarantee that his 25 year old car with the hood down was doing 112mph as it would immensely increase its resale value.
    Never went to court.

    These things are auto generated so not vetted by humans before they go out so the chances are that it is a 38 to 83 typo that a human could easily make is not likely. First of all the computer would see the binary versions of those two numbers which would be very different and not really likely to be accidentally reversed, even if it were possible computers could make mistakes. So it indicates to me that it was a misread therefore should be null and void. But you still need to raise it with them and contest it.

    stevextc
    Member

    I can’t see how they could proceed with a prosecution for a lesser offence at a lesser speed once they come to surely the inevitable conclusion that you were not going 83mph. Their kit, as setup, gave that reading. Any other reading at a lesser speed would surely be a spurious finger in the air guess. As far as I am aware the process from detection to notice letter is autonomous – there is nowhere in the process where human error and an 8 instead of 3 being typed could have happened.

    That’s a pretty good point…
    I guess my skepticism is the claim/idea that the process is autonomous and not subject to human error. Reason I say that is I’ve seen other “autonomous processes” in wider industry claim the same thing and have a bunch of people actually transcribing…

    That’s said perhaps it doesn’t matter … and they would prefer to keep the illusion (if it is an illusion) that it is 100% automated and free of human error?

    natrix
    Member

    I’ve queried a spurious NIP before (waited 14 days as Paddler advises) and it was quickly dropped, so well worth querying it.

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Subscriber

    Maybe the point isn’t about Human or Machine error, perhaps it’s simply the fact that any error is evident, therefore how can the court trust the evidence or the organisation presenting it full stop…

    I wouldn’t highlight the 83mph on the NIP, I would go to court and then challenge the credibility of the evidence based on the fact that you have been told (via the NIP) that you are being prosecuted for driving at 83mph in a vehicle that would struggle to achieve 83mph even if you weren’t towing might be worth seeing how much of a straight run up you get to the camera too as I expect your van needs quite a distance to get up to any speed especially when towing…

    Basically go to court with a reasoned argument as to why that 83mph figure must be a spurious reading.

    It would be up to the CPS to demonstrate that your vehicle can and was doing over 80, or highlight the typo (under which circumstances they would normally have issued a FPN?) and the court may then wish to give them a bollocking for wasting the courts time due to a typo and possibly choose to dismiss on the basis of unreliable evidence…

    But so far as you are concerned OP you are accused doing the near impossible and it’s up to them to either revise or (more likely) drop the case, but don’t give them a heads up…

    footflaps
    Member

    The cameras aren’t foolproof and often give spurious readings, reflections are a big problem.

    Just query it and it will probably vanish as it’s such a daft value..

    Some stuff on known issues here: http://www.pepipoo.com/Inaccurate_speed_cameras.htm

    5lab
    Member

    I would wait until the 14 days to send you a new ticket is up before you do anything – I don’t know if they can edit the current ticket but if you wait for the timeout before sending the query they definitely can’t issue a new one..

    Premier Icon rhyswilliams3
    Subscriber

    All sorted now! I rang the phone number on the letter and the lady at the other end confirmed it was a duff reading. Something to do with light bouncing off the side of the trailer (its an enclosed box type) and that I as actually doing just under 30 at the time. Shes told me to just disregard the letter and shes closed the case

    I can put the Hemi back in the engine bay now! (phew)

    Premier Icon jam bo
    Subscriber

    Maybe the point isn’t about Human or Machine error, perhaps it’s simply the fact that any error is evident, therefore how can the court trust the evidence or the organisation presenting it full stop…

    I wouldn’t highlight the 83mph on the NIP, I would go to court and then challenge the credibility of the evidence based on the fact that you have been told (via the NIP) that you are being prosecuted for driving at 83mph in a vehicle that would struggle to achieve 83mph even if you weren’t towing might be worth seeing how much of a straight run up you get to the camera too as I expect your van needs quite a distance to get up to any speed especially when towing…

    Basically go to court with a reasoned argument as to why that 83mph figure must be a spurious reading.

    It would be up to the CPS to demonstrate that your vehicle can and was doing over 80, or highlight the typo (under which circumstances they would normally have issued a FPN?) and the court may then wish to give them a bollocking for wasting the courts time due to a typo and possibly choose to dismiss on the basis of unreliable evidence…

    But so far as you are concerned OP you are accused doing the near impossible and it’s up to them to either revise or (more likely) drop the case, but don’t give them a heads up…

    is this you?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

    Premier Icon Harry_the_Spider
    Subscriber

    Boom! Result.

    stevextc
    Member

    All sorted now! I rang the phone number on the letter and the lady at the other end confirmed it was a duff reading. Something to do with light bouncing off the side of the trailer (its an enclosed box type) and that I as actually doing just under 30 at the time. Shes told me to just disregard the letter and shes closed the case

    Sound result, sounds like bollox excuse (how is any other reading accurate)… but I wouldn’t let that sour the result.

    Good work OP

    johndoh
    Member

    Shes told me to just disregard the letter and shes closed the case

    I hope you asked her to send that confirmation to you in writing (or at the very least make a note of the call time and operator name / Collar number).

    taxi25
    Member

    I wouldn’t highlight the 83mph on the NIP, I would go to court and then challenge the credibility of the evidence 

    Sorted, good job you didn’t follow this advise 🙄🙄

    stumpy01
    Member

    johndoh

    I hope you asked her to send that confirmation to you in writing (or at the very least make a note of the call time and operator name / Collar number).

    +1

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 43 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.