Free Traffic Legal Advice

There probably is a higher resolution photo of the offence. The camera record will be.

It is entirely up to them what - if anything - they publish.

I imagine it would be hard to convince a bench the second image is not the same vehicle.

You should get a course offer if not done on in 3 years or 3 PTS and £100 fixed penalty offer. (These options would normally be on the NIP for Avon and Somerset).

You can of course refuse those and elect for court where it will be more expensive (if pleading or found guilty). 

Whatever you decide to to, you still need to reply to the NIP. Failure to do so will result in a £600 fine, 6 points and a nasty endorsement code that will bump up your insurance costs by a lot.

Will they have video? The stills they have shown you are captures from a constant video. Sharing that video with you so you can make up your mind is unlikely. Being captured at 81 and then passing the van at 71 proves nothing. Plenty of people brake when they see the van but by then it is too late.

If you take this to court and plead not guilty it will cost somewhere in the region of £600. A contested trial where you plan to prove the inaccuracy of the device or errors in its operation will cost you more than that.

When you send off your driver nomination you will get back the offer of a fixed penalty + 3pts or speed awareness course.

Thanks folks - sounds like they're certain to have a continuous video of it so removes all doubt = fair enough!

If it was just the 2 stills then I'd have thought they'd struggle to prosecute to be honest; isn't the burden of evidence supposed to be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt?

Quote from: HammyTheHamster on August 02, 2024, 10:03:39 am

Worth requesting or a waste of time?

It appears from the data shared you braked heavily - possibly having seen the van - something you would probably remember, if that's the case you probably know you were speeding...

Hah it's more memorable the days you DON'T see the vans on the M5, but sadly I have to cover it very frequently for work.
Not that my remembering anything or not has any relevance to their burden of evidence - otherwise we'd all have amnesia...

Quote from: HammyTheHamster on August 02, 2024, 12:42:17 pm

Thanks folks - sounds like they're certain to have a continuous video of it so removes all doubt = fair enough!

If it was just the 2 stills then I'd have thought they'd struggle to prosecute to be honest; isn't the burden of evidence supposed to be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt?

Why? Both stills show you exceeding the limit.

These mobile cameras are only certified to a calibration tolerance of +/- 1mph, so a reading of anything less than 2mph over the limit isn't evidence of speeding.

I don't know if other cameras have the same tolerance, but I'd imagine so as the courts presumably don't want to bother with cases that could be reasonably dismissed as a rounding error.

These mobile cameras are only certified to a calibration tolerance of +/- 1mph, so a reading of anything less than 2mph over the limit isn't evidence of speeding.

But they have two strands of evidence. The first is the opinion formed by the operator that the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. The second is corroboration of that opinion which is a measurement showing the vehicle travelling at 81mph.

I'm not too sure what the basis of your argument is. From the title, are you suggesting that the vehicle is unidentifiable because you cannot read the number plate from the image you have been provided with? They clearly have identified your car and you do not seem to dispute you were there police have no obligation to provide that image, so how would you proceed if you didn't have it?

If you take this to court, make sure you take your cheque book. The police will produce evidence of the operator's opinion and of the measurement taken by an approved device operated in the correct manner.

So case closed as far as I'm concerned, have accepted the NIP online.

Maybe, maybe not.

You cannot "accept" or decline a NIP.

Some forces allow the driver to admit to being the driver online - either by scanning the signed s. 172 response, or by completing a section that is clearly intended to be taken as a signature. Either way, the s. 172 requirement will require a "signature" of some description.

Most forces don't. Some allow the recipient of a NIP who was not the driver to nominate the driver online, as after 30+ years they have finally grasped that a signature is only relevant when the recipient of the notice admits to being the driver. We have seen cases where the driver somehow managed to nominate themselves online through such systems only to be prosecuted for failing to name the driver.

A&S used to issue what is referred to as a SuperNIP - a combined NIP/s. 172 requirement/COFP (and possibly offer of SAC). Presumably when you say that you have accepted the NIP online, you mean that you have accepted either a COFP or SAC online?

I would strongly suggest reading the form thoroughly and ensuring that you have complied with the s. 172 requirements to name the driver.

As I said, case closed - thread can be too if anyone mods this forum.

As a general rule, threads being closed tend to coincide with posters being banned.

A&S used to issue what is referred to as a SuperNIP - a combined NIP/s. 172 requirement/COFP (and possibly offer of SAC). Presumably when you say that you have accepted the NIP online, you mean that you have accepted either a COFP or SAC online?

They still were around this time last year.

You could confirm self as driver and pick an option. That needed an envolope.

You could nominate somebody else on line.

There was a link provided to book a SAC, obviously in addition to posting the response.