Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: ukdriver1981 on October 26, 2025, 12:56:27 pm
-
Drivers fined after speed camera issue across major A-roads and motorways | UK News | Sky News https://news.sky.com/story/drivers-fined-after-speed-camera-issue-across-major-a-roads-and-motorways-13483868
[mod edit: The next person to helpfully post another link to the same story, without indicating what new information that outlet's parroting the same press release brings to the table, as regards the OP's case. will be taken outside and shot]
-
Dunno if the OP is still around, or receiving notification for responses, but this thread jumped immediately to mind when I looked into the Cancelled speeding NIP (https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/cancelled-speeding-nip/) thread.
Whilst this does not change the advice given, or provide the OP with a defence per se, it seems plausible that there might be some fall-out that would at least give some degree of credence to the OP's evidence, or possibility that police might change their stance.
-
Someone switches it and the automatic grace period doesn't apply for the obvious reason that there is an imminent danger.
Having though about it, I believe there would be absolutely no point in doing that. It is quite obvious that a vehicle almost upon the gantry (or indeed just beyond it, as you claim) cannot possibly reduce speed in an instant. The purpose of reducing the speed limit is for safety.
The only reason to reduce the "grace period" to zero would be to prosecute drivers who had no chance of complying with the reduced limit and that would be malicious. It would do nothing for the primary aim of safety.
I may appear naive but I do not believe the police or the Highways agency would be complicit in imposing such a system and for that reason I believe you may be mistaken in your assumption. But so might I.
-
Why isn't there a photo of my vehicle passing underneath is the question and answer to all of this.
The Crown will say that no such evidence is required, HADECS 2 cameras didn't have any gantry photos at all and plenty of people were still found guilty. The technical answer is probably that the camera is triggered by a speeding vehicle, and they don't constantly film the gantry just in case a speeding car goes past.
Yes it did happen in seconds and I would say a couple because we have travelled about 40 metres in that time.
If the Crown presents credible evidence as to how the system works, and expert evidence that the system was working at the time, the court will presume that the system was working correctly and it will be your burden to show that it wasn't.
There is either an issue with the grace period not being implemented on the particular roundel/ gantry camera, or and I have read that the speed limits can be switched manually by an actual person yes a person
The Crown will simply argue that you are mistake or are lying, saying you've read something somewhere won't get you far. If you want to pursue this line of defence, you need to instruct an expert witness who can back up your hypothesis with some solid science.
As noted above it doesn't matter what we think, we're not the ones you have to convince. But if you try arguing a defence like this without expert evidence to back it up, your chances of success are remote in the extreme unless the CPS doesn't present any evidence or the police miss the six month prosecution deadline.
-
So, your explanation for how your version of events differs from the evidence disclosed is that there was manual intervention due to a perceived serious danger (as opposed to reducing the speed limits because the operator is bored), *and* that due to the perceived serious danger, the 10 second grace period enshrined in statute was over-ruled because the most effective way to convey an immediate threat is to issue an illegal NIP through the post. And to falsify the logs as to when the limits changed.
Lets assume for a moment, that the evidence was falsified, and that those who falsified it have evidence that they did so. How are you planning on getting them to pony up that evidence?
And perhaps more importantly, who do I invoice for the popcorn?
-
It’s not us you have to convince.
-
"Yes, smart motorway speed limits can be changed manually by staff in the Regional Control Centres (RCCs), as well as being set automatically by computer systems."
"Manual Intervention: Operators in the Regional Control Centres also monitor the motorways via CCTV and data from the sensors. They can manually intervene to set speed limits and display warning messages or "Red X" lane closures in response to real-time events like accidents, breakdowns, or roadworks, overriding the automatic system when necessary."
This is what has happened I feel because someone has panicked that three lanes ahead are closed and all traffic has bottlenecked into the slip road. However even at 50 it wasn't an issue as there was plenty of distance in which to slow down and react.
If it was not due to an imperfect automated system than this is the only explanation left. Someone switches it and the automatic grace period doesn't apply for the obvious reason that there is an imminent danger. Don't forget a car behind us was also flashed - why would he be doing over 40 when it was likely the change came into his view - it's because he either did not have time to react and the grace period was not afforded to him either.
-
Well, ignore any offers, go to court, plead not guilty and see what happens.
-
The photographic evidence does not showing us prior to or passing under the gantry. That evidence they have in their possesion - it is a full defence to this.
How do you know what they have?
The photographs you’ve posted here are the standard set for those detected speeding by HADEC3 systems: two photographs of the vehicle after it had passed the gantry and one taken almost simultaneously of the gantry display (to show the limit that was displayed). There is sometimes a fourth showing close-up of the vehicle for identification.
Why would they have – or require – photographs of your vehicle prior to you passing the gantry? The offence is only committed when you pass the speed limit sign.
From what you have shown us, the offence seems complete. What you will be suggesting to the court is that the gantry display changed between the time you passed under it (when you claim it was showing “50”) and the time your vehicle was snapped and a photograph of the gantry display was taken simultaneously, probably about a second later. On top of that you will be arguing that (a) the delay in enforcement of at least ten seconds (I think the delay is actually a minimum of 60 seconds, but no matter) after a change of limit failed and (b) that the system showing that the lower limit had been imposed for more than an hour prior to your arrival was also faulty.
If your contention about the "manual override" of the system overcoming these constraints is sound you will need to get some evidence of that. I don't know whether such a difference in operation exists but my instinct would suggest to me that it does not.
What you are asking for on here is concurrence with your line of defence. Going on what you have shown us I cannot concur and I doubt the court will unless you come up with some other evidence to show that the system had failed - or had been overridden as you describe.
If you do find out that anything was amiss with the system do let us know. I, for one, am intrigued.
-
their second photo shows the roundels being on 40 long after we passed them - not before, or just as we went under. Why not?
The first photo of the car is timed 19:54:26 and the photo of the gantry is timed 19:54:27, so I'm not sure "long after" is accurate. These cameras have a minimum 10 second delay in enforcement after a speed limit change, and if challenged the police will turn up with expert evidence to show how the equipment works. The record also shows the 40 mph limit had been in force for over an hour at the time when you went past the camera.
Are you basically saying that the sign said 50 mph at 19:54:25 or 19:54:26 when you went past it, and it changed in the split second between 19:54:26 and 19:54:27, and the system that is meant to pause enforcement for 10 seconds was faulty, and the record showing when the limit last changes was also faulty?
You can advance that as a defence if you wish, but you will probably want to instruct an expert who can provide expert evidence about how the system could have malfunctioned, because the Crown Prosecution Service will undoubtedly instruct an expert of their own if challenged.
This can be an expensive approach though, see this case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063
Thank you for your reply.
Whilst it may seem implausible yes I am talking about finite moments here, as there is no alternative. Their photo of the roundels is at 19:54:27. Of course they will show my vehicle at the exact same time in support of that. Why isn't there a photo of my vehicle passing underneath is the question and answer to all of this. Yes it did happen in seconds and I would say a couple because we have travelled about 40 metres in that time.
There is either an issue with the grace period not being implemented on the particular roundel/ gantry camera, or and I have read that the speed limits can be switched manually by an actual person yes a person - remember there was a far worse incident (of the two we had come through) up ahead and I think someone has panicked and grace period has not operated (perhaps this does not happen when a manual override occurs). The entire motorway was closed off ahead and everyone was forced to slip off. A serious incident had taken place ahead and yes the speed ought to have been 40, but it wasn't. None of what had happened ahead could be observed until passing under the gantry as you can see yourself from the bend in the motorway.
-
You said our 'collective' observation skills are poor.
He originally suggested that a plausible explanation was that your observation skills may have been poor. That's not the same as saying your observation skills are or were poor (although on this occasion it does seem that what you saw is not the same as what Southpaw actually wrote...).
What happened, what plausible explanations there may be, and what can be proven in court may all be different things. As has already been suggested, the most important one is the latter.
-
No the only thing that is bull about this entire thing is that their second photo shows the roundels being on 40 long after we passed them - not before, or just as we went under.
Except that all all the photos you have posted here - those of your car and of the gantry - were taken at the same site within a second of each other. That is the evidence the police will use to convict your partner.
By all means persuade your partner to plead Not Guilty. You can both give your evidence that you saw the gantry sign displaying "50". The court will have to decide whether to accept your testimony (your recollections of the event) or that of the police (consisting of timed photographs). If convicted your partner is unlikely to see any change from £1,000.
The photographic evidence does not showing us prior to or passing under the gantry. That evidence they have in their possesion - it is a full defence to this.
-
So what are you actually telling all three of us - that we made it up?
Your observation skills are quite poor it seems because I never said that. It appears that the 40 mph limit had been in place for about an hour before you activated the camera.
The real point you ought to think of is what can be proven in court.
You said our 'collective' observation skills are poor.
I appreciate what you are saying about speed limit duration not changing. I have been aware of this from the off. It is not correct. I would not write to the Highways Agency, the Ticketing Office and on forums if I had any doubt whatsoever that we even might have been slightly wrong about what we saw. We discussed it immediately and kept discussing it. I predicted that something had gone wrong with the roundel/gantry and we would get an invalid NIP. When we got it there was no shock, no oooh what the hell is this? or surprise - I just knew it was coming and it would be wrong. That is why I am here.
-
We are both professionals......
That should give your advocate something to work with in court.
???
-
their second photo shows the roundels being on 40 long after we passed them - not before, or just as we went under. Why not?
The first photo of the car is timed 19:54:26 and the photo of the gantry is timed 19:54:27, so I'm not sure "long after" is accurate. These cameras have a minimum 10 second delay in enforcement after a speed limit change, and if challenged the police will turn up with expert evidence to show how the equipment works. The record also shows the 40 mph limit had been in force for over an hour at the time when you went past the camera.
Are you basically saying that the sign said 50 mph at 19:54:25 or 19:54:26 when you went past it, and it changed in the split second between 19:54:26 and 19:54:27, and the system that is meant to pause enforcement for 10 seconds was faulty, and the record showing when the limit last changes was also faulty?
You can advance that as a defence if you wish, but you will probably want to instruct an expert who can provide expert evidence about how the system could have malfunctioned, because the Crown Prosecution Service will undoubtedly instruct an expert of their own if challenged.
This can be an expensive approach though, see this case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063
-
No the only thing that is bull about this entire thing is that their second photo shows the roundels being on 40 long after we passed them - not before, or just as we went under.
Except that all all the photos you have posted here - those of your car and of the gantry - were taken at the same site within a second of each other. That is the evidence the police will use to convict your partner.
By all means persuade your partner to plead Not Guilty. You can both give your evidence that you saw the gantry sign displaying "50". The court will have to decide whether to accept your testimony (your recollections of the event) or that of the police (consisting of timed photographs). If convicted your partner is unlikely to see any change from £1,000.
-
So what are you actually telling all three of us - that we made it up?
Your observation skills are quite poor it seems because I never said that. It appears that the 40 mph limit had been in place for about an hour before you activated the camera.
The real point you ought to think of is what can be proven in court.
-
It was neither poor memory or observation. We have 20+ year licences. We are both professionals we have no points and never had them. We both saw the limit and it was 50. Our child even saw 50. So what are you actually telling all three of us - that we made it up? No the only thing that is bull about this entire thing is that their second photo shows the roundels being on 40 long after we passed them - not before, or just as we went under. Why not?
-
The only plausible explanation
Or your (collective) observation skills are poor. Or your (collective) memories are poor. Or…
So not the only plausible explanation really.
There’s a principle used in the civil courts called Gestmin. Its basic tenet is that documentary evidence is superior to witness recollection. Case in point.
-
Is that not your vehicle in the top 2 photos?
To explain, the top 2 are taken beyond the gantry (where your speed is measured) and the bottom one is taken at the same time by another camera sited prior to the gantry to show the speed limit displayed. All these photographs were taken at just before 7:55pm.
If that is your vehicle the chances of your wife successfully defending a charge in court is virtually nil. The police have a photo of the car, they have measured the speed by means of an approved device (which you don’t seem to dispute anyway) and they have a photograph taken at the same time of the gantry displaying “40”. The system’s records indicate that the reduced limit had been displayed for 1h40m.
She would have to convince the court that her recollection of the event is more reliable than that photograph of the gantry and the system's record of how long the lower limit had been displayed.
-
The picture of the gantry is taken from a distance back, at the same time your vehicle was detected speeding by the gantry in question. So recollection of the speed limit being 50 would seem to be incorrect. Taking this to court wouldn’t be a sensible thing to do.
-
The only plausible explanation is that it has changed incredibly quickly underneath us and reacted in split seconds instead of allowing a grace period of 10 or more seconds to move away from it.
The photo details show that the limit changed over an hour before the (alleged) offence.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QHtyVs5G/temp-Imagee-L2hm-Q.avif) (https://postimg.cc/QHtyVs5G)
I hope this works!
-
The gantry shows 40. It's just not right. Our vehicle is not in the image. There were hardly any cars around - no distractions no noise just us looking forward.
The only plausible explanation is that it has changed incredibly quickly underneath us and reacted in split seconds instead of allowing a grace period of 10 or more seconds to move away from it. Another car was also flashed moments after - I kept saying we need his details as he must have seen the same thing! Incredibly frustrating.
I will try to post the photo.
-
Yes I have the photos. Saved as a photo on my computer and phone. I cannot post it on here it seems.
Post them on a hosting site and provide the links. The photos should have one showing the actual gantry, does this say 50 or 40?
-
Sorry yes and to your further point of course no issue with identifying and responding to the NIP- we intend to do so, it was just that I wrote to the ticket office first to try and have it cancelled and see what evidence they had. They sent the photos and what seems a generic response to everyone who contests anything.
-
Yes I have the photos. Saved as a photo on my computer and phone. I cannot post it on here it seems.
-
Did your NIP include any accompanying photographs or an indication of where you might view them?
Regardless of any issues you may have with the speeding offence, whoever the NIP is addressed to must respond to the accompanying "Request for driver's details" within the 28 days allowed. Failure to do so will see a separate offence committed which attracts six points.
-
Hello all,
Please can anyone help with suggestions for this as it is extremely frustrating.
Basically we were on the M60 (a stretch of motorway and journey we do a lot) and for a sunday evening had already passed what was very unusually two incidents with speed changes on the overhead gantries (smart motorway in operation).
We then proceeded on the motorway and ahead was another speed limit which my partner (who was driving) and I observed to clearly be 50mph in a red circle ahead in the distance. It remained as this limit until we passed it. Prior to this due to the previous incident we were only doing mid fifty so it was a case of slowing a little.
Nevertheless after we passed we saw a flash much to our astonishment. My immediate reaction was that it was the motorway below (as this part after is a bridge). There were no cars there and very few ahead or around us and so I realised we must have been flashed and the limit must have changed to 40 while we passed underneath without any knowledge. I could not accept this and immediately checked with partner and she said she saw 50 all the way, and I even asked our child in the back who also repeatedly said "it was 50!" My child looked behind and saw another flash so another car must have also been incorrectly flashed. I said I bet we receive a NIP saying it was 40 when it clearly was not. Lo and behold we did. This shows we were doing 51, which shows sticking to the 50 as observed, which the NIP however says we did this through a 40 limit which was simply not the case.
This is simply not right and unfair. We complied with the limit we saw (albeit 1mph above which within fair discretion does not lead to a NIP) yet the NIP received says falsely we did this through a 40 limit. Now if we were breaking the 40 limit it would be more like 47-49, not 51, and even I would hold my hand up and tell my partner it felt too fast. This was not the case.
If it helps after this gantry there was an incident ahead in the distance, which was not observable before the gantry. In any event at no point did the limit change down from 50 to 40. Even if it did it we should have been given time beyond the gantry to not be flashed as we had no knowledge of it changing. What can we do about this? The photo sent to us of the gantry whilst showing 40mph does not show us prior to it or after. I think we were flashed around 10 seconds after passing it.
Please can someone advise how I can upload a photo of their evidence (redacted)?
Many thanks