Speed camera question time

[Gully]

There is also the theory that the NIP (Notice of intended prosecution) has to be served within a certain time, if you send it back unsigned and outside the limit they can't prosecute, don't know if this is true though.

 

[Zed Seagull]

Ive got six points! Both driving to games within a fortnight of each other ( Leeds and Burnley )

Wish i'd known of any loopholes then!!

 

[moggy]

this may help


http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/rules.htm#7

 

[goldstone]

So you just refuse to pay the fine? Does that work? Has anyone done that?

I avoided one a few months back. I was driving my company car. Although it's allocated to me (not a pool car) I responded to the ticket saying that it was a company car and that we didn't keep records of who was driving it. They wrote back and said that by law a company had to keep records of who was driving a company car. I ignored the letter and never heard any more.

And all that earllier crap about ... "you should obey the speed limits" ... bollocks. The police should concentrate on the real speeders and dangerous drivers. The ones whose driving really is likely to kill. Not waste their time prosecuting drivers who exceed the speed limit by a few miles an hour. And as for killing a child by driving at 31 mph ... lets be honest, if you hit a kid at 20 mph there would probably be a fatality.

 

[moggy]

you can also use what i think is called the hamilton approach.

this was successfully done by christine hamilton and her husband when caught on a gatso speed camera.
if you and you're wife (providing you're married of coarse and both insured) drive the car then you can refuse to pay any fines or accept points.
let the case go to court and obviously you use your rights not to have to testify against you're partner.
they can't prove which one of you were driving hence can't prosecute.

 

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

Just aquired myself a speed camera detector, works a treat too. Well worth the £60 if you think of all the possible fines you'll save yourself.

Shame I now have no car to use the frigging thing in cos Adam El-Abd's little brother might well have written it off

 

[Uncle C]

Which cameras does it work on? static, mobile etc

 

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

All.... although my one can't say for definite if there's a mobile camera around, just that you're in an area where they're used.

 

[Uncle C]

All.... although my one can't say for definite if there's a mobile camera around, just that you're in an area where they're used.

Sounds good. What make is it and can you transfer it between cars easily - mine and the wifes?

 

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

Mine's a Talex Lite.. £60 from Somerfield in St James' St reduced from £80. I'm guessing it's the most basic you can get.

Yep, you could do that as it doesn't have to be registered to a certain car you just mount it on your dashboard and away you go, it works via satellites so it's automatically progammed with all the camera info and every so often you hook it into the internet and downloaded the newest.

 

[kalinski]

i had a simular situation on the london road opposite preston park on Christmas day. We were on our way out of Brighton, but the camera on the opposite side went off with no other traffic around. We were confused as well. Is this a new type of camera?

 

[glosterseagul]

i had a simular situation on the london road opposite preston park on Christmas day. We were on our way out of Brighton, but the camera on the opposite side went off with no other traffic around. We were confused as well. Is this a new type of camera?

I stopped and asked a camera bloke filling the camera and I asked him... he told me that when there is no film the cameras are set to "go off" in either direction - and when they are "set" for nabbing they only take from behind. (not meant to sexual...)

that was three years ago and it was in Gloucestershire...so no help at all really

 

[moggy]

the only camera as far as i know that can catch you when you're driving towards it is the truvelo cameras, very different from the gatsos.
do a search for them if you don't know the difference.

 

[Mr Burns]

So you just refuse to pay the fine? Does that work? Has anyone done that?

Many have done it, but its hassle. You need to go to court, they'll find you guilty. Go to court of appeal, they'll find you guilty. Go to European Court of Human Rights, they will throw it out as 'no case to answer'.

One of the other ways, ie dont answer letters, seems the easier way to go.

 

[PC BHA]

The above about infringing human rights has been a myth for many years, challenged at all levels of court and failed.

If you fail to give details of who was driving when a summons is sent through, you commit a further offence of failing to do this. The person who then gets prosecuted is the registered owner of the vehicle.

In answer to the first question at the star of this thread. Currently there are no fixed cameras in Sussex which take pictures from the front, although some do flash you, if you are going towards the camera too quickly.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

The above about infringing human rights has been a myth for many years, challenged at all levels of court and failed.

If you fail to give details of who was driving when a summons is sent through, you commit a further offence of failing to do this. The person who then gets prosecuted is the registered owner of the vehicle.

You're right of course and I don't condone speeding. However my objection to this is the presumption of guilt until proved innocent. If I claim that I didn't know who was driving at the time, the burden of proof should rest with the police. It goes against all the principles of British justice for me to have to prove that I wasn't there.

 

[Dave the OAP]

And all that earllier crap about ... "you should obey the speed limits" ... bollocks. The police should concentrate on the real speeders and dangerous drivers. The ones whose driving really is likely to kill. Not waste their time prosecuting drivers who exceed the speed limit by a few miles an hour. And as for killing a child by driving at 31 mph ... lets be honest, if you hit a kid at 20 mph there would probably be a fatality.

I think you will find that statistics do not bear that out.

I think on reflection I would follow the views of our honerable officer of the law about this rather than an "urban myth"

 

[Collar Feeler]

Did you know speed cameras are illegal, they infringe your European human rights.
Bottom line is you are admitting to a crime (abiet not a very serious one) by signing the form and taking the fine and points. It's down to the police to prove it was you driving (a photo of the back of your car and the back of your head wouldn't stand up in court). Admitting to an offense of any nature, whether it be dropping a crisp packet to mass murder, is against your human rights. Innocent until PROVEN quilty.

Just tell them to f*** off, but in a nice way!!

Actually that's bollocks in a word! British Law supercedes and takes precedence over and above any European Human rights law. British Law almost across the board complies and goes beyond the scope and compliance of the ECHR law. Also there is nothing specifically in the ECHR stating that Speed cameras are illegal. And to correct you with regards to admitting to a crime that also is incorrect. You are admitting to an offence not a crime. A driving offence and a criminal offence are two very different things, you generally don't have to be interviewed about most driving offences therefore there is no real requirement to prove any guilt on anyones part rather it is down to you to prove you didn't do it rather than the police prove you did. And since when was admitting to an offence against your human rights? If you want to have your day in court and contest it then fill your boots. I don't know many magistrates that will have much sympathy with you if you refuse to name the driver or can't give a good reason why you won't.

In relation to the Brighton & Hove speed cameras, only around 25% of them have any film in anyway and they all operate on traffic moving away from the camera. There are no cameras that operate of traffic moving towards it as yet in Brighton. Those types of camera are quite distinctive too. The reason the cameras go off when you drive towards them is that the radar inside registers the speed of a moving object and not what direction it is going in so unless there are markings on your side of the road and the camera is behind you you needn't worry.

 

[Pat McCrotch]

The following is not a boast....but i once got flashed by a GATSO doing 115mph on the A30 between Bodmin and Okehampton. I was on work duty which involved a fair bit of travelling by car in those days. I was shitting myself for about 6 months after that day thinking that a summons could drop through the letter box at any time.

Luckily it never appeared but the worry made me change my ways.

 

[beorhthelm]

Did you know speed cameras are illegal, they infringe your European human rights.
Bottom line is you are admitting to a crime (abiet not a very serious one) by signing the form and taking the fine and points. It's down to the police to prove it was you driving (a photo of the back of your car and the back of your head wouldn't stand up in court). Admitting to an offense of any nature, whether it be dropping a crisp packet to mass murder, is against your human rights. Innocent until PROVEN quilty.

Just tell them to f*** off, but in a nice way!!

hmm, yeah, nice story but not remotly true. For starters, in the EU there is no specific concept of "innocent until proven guilty" as we would nkow it. The French legal system is pretty much the opposite of this, and they are fairly influentual in matters of the EU.

If you refuse to admit the offence, they will take you to court. there they have enough evidence in the photo to convict. so you loose. you have to prove that it wasnt you in the car as saying "it wasnt me driving guv" doesnt constitute resonable doubt.