Editor's Blog1 min ago
Speeding Ticket, Should I Contest?
19 Answers
I have recently got a speeding ticket from a mobile camera, it says i was going 36mph in a 30. I have viewed the calibration certificate and it was due for renewing in 3 weeks after my time of offence. Does this make it less accurate? I have also read that 36 mph is the minimum speed that they will prosecute so is it worth me contesting? This is my first speeding offence so i have also been offered a speed awareness course, should i just take this?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Do yourself a favour and take the course. If you go to court you will have to plead not guilty. The issue will be that you believe the measuring device was not accurate enough to record your speed with any degree of certainty. Your basis for this will (presumably) be because its calibration certificate was about to expire. The onus then shifts to you to produce...
14:46 Sat 27th Jun 2015
You were 1 mph over the minimum limit for fixed penalty notice. The cameras are calibrated regularly and they will insist it was correct when tested 3 weeks later and on previous test. If you try and contest you will end up with a big bill and very unlikely to win. At that speed you will be given option of a course and no points on your licence, slightly more expensive than the fine but worth it.
Do yourself a favour and take the course.
If you go to court you will have to plead not guilty. The issue will be that you believe the measuring device was not accurate enough to record your speed with any degree of certainty. Your basis for this will (presumably) be because its calibration certificate was about to expire. The onus then shifts to you to produce evidence that the machine was indeed inaccurate (the prosecution discharged their responsibility by having supplied you with the details of its calibration). Are you confident that you can do this?
Your contention that 36mph is the lowest speed that action will usually be taken is correct. The Association of Chief Police Officers’ guidelines say that a margin of Limit +10% + 2mph is allowable. However, this is allowed precisely to avoid frivolous challenges (such as you are proposing) to prosecutions on the basis of inaccurate measurements. The limit is still 30mph which you have exceeded by 6mph (20%). You will have to show that it is more likely than not (“on the balance of probabilities”) that the machine was not sufficiently accurate to prove that you had exceeded 30mph, not 35mph.
If you are convicted (which is almost a certainty) you will face a fine of half a week’s net income, prosecution costs of around £350, a victim surcharge of 10% of the fine and (if the offence was committed on or after 13th April 2015) a “Criminal Court Charge of £520. Oh, and of course three penalty points.
If you go to court you will have to plead not guilty. The issue will be that you believe the measuring device was not accurate enough to record your speed with any degree of certainty. Your basis for this will (presumably) be because its calibration certificate was about to expire. The onus then shifts to you to produce evidence that the machine was indeed inaccurate (the prosecution discharged their responsibility by having supplied you with the details of its calibration). Are you confident that you can do this?
Your contention that 36mph is the lowest speed that action will usually be taken is correct. The Association of Chief Police Officers’ guidelines say that a margin of Limit +10% + 2mph is allowable. However, this is allowed precisely to avoid frivolous challenges (such as you are proposing) to prosecutions on the basis of inaccurate measurements. The limit is still 30mph which you have exceeded by 6mph (20%). You will have to show that it is more likely than not (“on the balance of probabilities”) that the machine was not sufficiently accurate to prove that you had exceeded 30mph, not 35mph.
If you are convicted (which is almost a certainty) you will face a fine of half a week’s net income, prosecution costs of around £350, a victim surcharge of 10% of the fine and (if the offence was committed on or after 13th April 2015) a “Criminal Court Charge of £520. Oh, and of course three penalty points.
Ask for photographic evidence so you can identify the driver, as you can't remember who was driving at the time.
You might get lucky, like I did a few years ago - the sun was shining directly on to my windscreen and the photo just showed a blurred face with the reflection of the sky .... I got off scot free, as it was impossible to identify the driver :)
You might get lucky, like I did a few years ago - the sun was shining directly on to my windscreen and the photo just showed a blurred face with the reflection of the sky .... I got off scot free, as it was impossible to identify the driver :)
There is no obligation on the prosecuting authorities (usually a "safety camera partnership") to provide photographic evidence to assist you to identify the driver. Some do as a courtesy, others do not.
The registered keeper (RK) has a responsibilty to provide the drivers' details when requested. If he does not do so (within 28 days) he can be charged under S172 of the RTA (Failing to provide driver's details). If he cannot provide the details it is up to him to go to court and enter a not guilty plea. He will have to show that he could not, after exercising "due diligence" provide the details and it will be up to the court to decide whether or not to accept his defence.
I would not recommend going down that road.
The registered keeper (RK) has a responsibilty to provide the drivers' details when requested. If he does not do so (within 28 days) he can be charged under S172 of the RTA (Failing to provide driver's details). If he cannot provide the details it is up to him to go to court and enter a not guilty plea. He will have to show that he could not, after exercising "due diligence" provide the details and it will be up to the court to decide whether or not to accept his defence.
I would not recommend going down that road.
Just to clarify, me and my friend drove down the same stretch of road, using my car, as we were working together on a property. The times were prob in the region of 15 - 30 minutes apart, so we couldn't remember who drove the car at the specific time of the alleged offence.
We explained our predicament and requested photographic evidence which they duly provided.
We explained our predicament and requested photographic evidence which they duly provided.
The picture was of no use, as it showed a reflection on the windscreen.
We explained our predicament, giving evidence of where we were working and where we both went on the specific day.
We asked what else we could do to try and identify who was driving.
Their response - they let us off with a warning :)
We explained our predicament, giving evidence of where we were working and where we both went on the specific day.
We asked what else we could do to try and identify who was driving.
Their response - they let us off with a warning :)
Got me wondering now ... what would happen in the unlikely (but possible) event, that the registered keeper of the vehicle didn't have a licence ??
If they couldn't identify the driver, would they put points on the RK's licence (even though they might not have any intention of passing their test) ... even though they obviously wasn't driving at the time ??
If they couldn't identify the driver, would they put points on the RK's licence (even though they might not have any intention of passing their test) ... even though they obviously wasn't driving at the time ??
And the S172 offence is nothing to do with driving. You could go to court when charged under S172 and prove conclusively that you were not driving. But that is not what you would have been charged with and the court would not be interested. It is the failure to provide details of the driver which constitutes the offence.
1 to 19 of 19
