just had a NIP for speeding on a dual carriageway but the website says that no photograph is available. How can they speed tax me if there is no evidence?

3 points;

1) wrong forum
2) if you think you were actually speeding pay up and shut up
3) might be better to ask them that, they'll know the law better than a load of IT support staff.

Oh no here we go again.
I'd say pay it or get some legal advice.

Thanks wwaswasock.

1) sorry
2) works van so was it me?
3) they are only interested in you owning up.

was naively hoping for some (free!)helpful advice!

"works van was it me?"

memory as well as speed problems, then.

I've given you free advice, I'll repeat it;

If you think it was you then take the punishment.

If you want more evidence ask the police.

Your tone indicates that you were most likely driving and going too fast but you wonder whether they can prove it. But calling it a 'speed tax'? MTFU, if you want to break the law you must pay the penalty. You'd presumably not accept a lift from somebody 'only' 10% over the legal booze limit so where is the difference?

speed tax

🙄

Valid question.

Try here for an answer – http://www.pepipoo.com/

Cheers

The Police are obliged to disclose whatever evidence they have. If they can't evidence it, then it'll go nowhere in court.

The S.172 notice will have been sent to the registered keeper of the van. Presumably it's your company's transport dept. They will have nominated you based on their records. Or they may have just asked you and you coughed it? Anyway, someone's id'd you as the driver, which means that you are responsible for the offence. If, after you receive an NIP/S.172 notice you decide to "forget", or plain simple lie about it, then you'll still go to court and then you can be up in front of the magistrate for offering/making a false statement, perverting the course of justice, police obstruction… the list goes on.

That said, if you decide to go to court be prepared for more than 3 points and £60 fine.

as it's a company van then if the registered keeper cannot provide evidence as to who the driver was at the time (all companies should keep a log) then they'll get fined. I wouldn't have thought you'd keep your job for long.

i'm pretty sure that there is a standard get out clause for a white van on a sarnie run – you just write "we've got a job to do mate" on the form

Error number one; getting caught!
Error number 2; expecting sensible comments from the 'hollier than thou fecktard idiots' on here!

Your defense is this, innocent untill proven guilty, simple. No evidence, no case against you. Enquire about it again, say it's to refresh your memory or something like that.

mrmichaelwright has it. If you try to duck out of it your company will just get the fine. I am sure your boss will be just as evil as any £60 fine and 3pts so it may be worthwhile just taking it. That is unless you 100% think it wasnt you. Otherwise pay up and take your medicine.

Speed tax – Plonker tax

I speed regularly on dual carriageways.

I wouldn't be trying to find a get-out on here if I got caught though – I'd be guilty and I'd admit my guilt, not ask for it to be proven.

the company will get a lot more than a £60 fine

i believe it's up to £5000

OP- what was the limit and your recorded speed?

For the record, I try to never go over 30 in a 30. On a local dual carriageway though I must admit I do regularly go way over the limit.

MidLifeCyclist – Member

Try here for an answer – http://www.pepipoo.com/

Handy tips…

Hora don't look, MIKA is an Administrator

Quote from the Western morning news a couple of years ago:
Speeding Charge Dropped After Photos Demanded
Police have withdrawn a speeding prosecution without explanation after a driver asked for photographic evidence of the 'offence'. Whilst driving through roadworks on the A30, driver Martin Shirley was surprised to see a speed camera flash as he was carefully observing the 30mph speed limit. When a notice of intended prosecution arrived he asked to see the photographs. The police responded by saying they had made a mistake, and dropped the charge.
The moral of this story is simple: always ask to see photographic evidence of any alleged speeding offence.

I still can't work out who stole the speed camera??

speed tax

c**t tax, more like.

**** sighs heavily******
reading this on holiday and it makes me sad…
surfs flat as a pancake…..
some bloke asks for some friendly advice and gets……well you know!

it's not looking good for this "friendly & sociable" lifestyle is it!
lets just hope some of the more negative fecktards on here get honourable mentions at the next Darwin awards!

I think if the OP hadn't given the impression of disliking the speeding laws and their implementation by referring to it as 'speeding tax' then the reaction would have been a little different.

I think I read somewhere that they have a legal requirement to give you a copy of the evidence if you request it. If they have lost it, I dont see how they can legally follow through. Thats if I have remembered correctly. There used to be guidence sites on the internet about speed camera fines or give the citizens advice beaureu a ring.

Speeding Charge Dropped After Photos Demanded
Police have withdrawn a speeding prosecution without explanation after a driver asked for photographic evidence of the 'offence'. Whilst driving through roadworks on the A30, driver Martin Shirley was surprised to see a speed camera flash as he was carefully observing the 30mph speed limit. When a notice of intended prosecution arrived he asked to see the photographs. The police responded by saying they had made a mistake, and dropped the charge.
The moral of this story is simple: always ask to see photographic evidence of any alleged speeding offence.

Another advantage to keeping within the limit: if plod try to nick you, they will fail. By contrast, I strongly suspect that the OP knows he was speeding, and is trying to wriggle out of it.

Why not check out the local Safety Camera Partnership website for some more information. They'll have all the laws and many will also have the certifications for all the cameras they operate. They are the ones who process the speeding tickets for these cameras, they should all have photos if there is film in the camera (assuming it's not digital).

You can be a right bunch of cock-ends on here some times!

The law is the law, to be followed by both parties. One aspect of the law is innocent until proven guilty. It means that you are inoccent of a crime, regardless of whether you committed the offence or not if it cannot be proven. If there are no photographs then, in Law, there was no crime.

So the Police/CPS are alledging a crime took place, yet the law says its only a crime if theres evidence, but the signs are that there is no evidence, regardless of how fast whoever was driving. It looks likely that despite all the high-horse bollocks thats been written above that there was no crime committed according to the Law.

Some helpful advice:

If it's not been done already, you do need to admit that you were driving at the time of the alledged offence. If you don't, you'll have to deal with your employer, who would have committed an offence.

Then you need to decide whether to ask to see the evidence or not. If you ask to see the evidence you'll lose the option of paying £60 and taking 3 points. But if there is no evidence you will have fun in court, if it gets that far. If there is evidence, but the NIP says no photos are available, then thats a complicated legal argument for a lay-man to make in court, but possibly not beyond you, though the website mentioned above will be able to help with that.

To the rest of you, stop pretending you never speed, you have. Stop pretending you've never broken any of the laws of the road, you have. Speed doesn't kill, shit driving does, the sooner people stop eating the government revenue-raising bullshit, the sooner road deaths will fall. A speed camera will not protect you from the morons

Speed doesn't kill

Yes it does. And exceeding the posted limit is shit driving.

I've been quite open about the fact I speed.

I've been equally open in saying if he knows it was him and that he was speeding he should pay up and accept it, not try and wriggle.

I speed all the time when i deem it not to be dangerous. If i got caught however i wouldn't feel i was being 'taxed', i'd feel i was being punished for the law i had broken

Here goes my 5-penneth worth/rant…

It is a tax. (full stop) to think it relates to safely is just gullible/naive. Why are there so many speed cameras in 'safe' places like motorways, when there are none outside schools?? (where there bloody well should be some).

Anything (such as speed cameras) which take your eyes off the road is actually dangerous. Stop watching your speedo to keep at exactly 30/50/60/70 and watch the road in front of you !!

The AA say that only 15% of accidents are a result of excessive speed – so what is the rest of the 85% due to ? Shit driving, correct. Any other 'statistics' are government derived propaganda.

Also…
Motorway speed limits were derived in 1965 when driving at 70mph on the motorway (in your pram-wheeled Austin something-or-other) was actually damgerous. If you take the view that the more speed the more dangerous, then why don;t we all drive at 20mph? With regards to safety, as cars are waaaaaaay more safe than they were in 1965, the speed limits should have been raised appropriately in line with car safety. Speed limit should be dependent on what cra you're driving, Top Gear showed a thing a while back where a top car (911 or Merc, can;t remember) went from 120 to 0 in less distance than the highway code says should take a car from 60 to stop in…

Need I go on?

A work colleague of mine asked to see the evidence (all based on the various interweb whinge pages he viewed, filled with people trying to dodge the points and the fine), instead of offering up the evidence the filth offered him a £70 speeding awareness course and no points as he was obviously too much bother to convict…

He took the £70 course as it kept his licence clean, but you are chancing it by challenging the fixed penalty notice in this way, they like to threaten extra points and fines for contesting, but it all comes down to which force is bollocking you and weather they need money or convictions to keep their Bosses happy…

Best solution is not to speed in the first place, but anyone who claims to always drive within all posted limits at all times is either a liar or stunningly dull… FACT!

Speed doesn't kill, shit driving does,

Breaking the speed limit while being unobservant enough to know that there is a speed camera is shit driving.

Speed limits are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand, to say that driving a fraction above the line is shit driving, while a fraction below isn't is complete idiocy.

I'd say that the person looking at the road, other road users, checking their mirrors etc is less likely to have an accident than the person who spends half their time looking at the speedo and the other half checking for cameras.

i'd say if you are an even vaguely capable driver then doing all of what you say whilst maintaining a consistent speed should come pretty damn easily to you

Stop watching your speedo to keep at exactly 30/50/60/70 and watch the road in front of you !!

If you can't keep within the limit, and observe the road at the same time, then I can only assume that you haven't passed your driving test.

It is all getting a bit Paul Smith here, isn't it?

Top Gear showed a thing a while back where a top car (911 or Merc, can;t remember) went from 120 to 0 in less distance than the highway code says should take a car from 60 to stop in…

That's all very well when you're all prepared to brake the moment you pass a couple of cones. In reality you have to factor in reaction time – if that other car pulls out in front of you, the distance travelled at 120mph while you're reacting and getting on the brakes is a lot more than it is at 60.

You also brake exponentially, so your rate of speed loss is much greater as you slow down. So 40mph as opposed to 30mph can actually make a huge difference in an accident.

This talk about car safety misses the rather important point that people haven't improved commensurately. Pedestrians and cyclists still squash just as easily, and people still take just as long to hit the brake pedal. There are also rather more cars on the road than in 1965. In any case, arguing for a speed limit increase because fewer people die on the roads these days, doesn't sound like much of an argument to me.

40 vs. 30, 30 vs. 20 etc – yes, absolutely WHERE NECCESSARY/SENSIBLE, outside schools, built up areas, estates etc , but on dual carriageways/motorways, nooooo, it's just taxing the British motorist and has nowt to do with speed. The Autobahns (with no sped limits in certain sections) have vastly superior safety records.

Speed is not the killer, it's the difference in speed which causes a crash. If everyone is toddling along nicely at 90, where's the problem. If someone is toddling along at 90 in the night, when it's wet, in fog, they're just a tw*t and deserve to crash (injuring no-one else of course)

Of course, the reaction time is going to be the same as it always was, but (this is a hypothetical debate of course as no Govt will ever implement it) if common sense were to be the driving (pardon the pun) factor, speed limits would be car/driver specific. This is part true – I remember the case a few years back where a guy got off a fine doing 90+ on the motorway because he's passed his Advanced Driver course.