Sped Camera

[patelriley]

I was recently caught by exceeding to 36 mph in 30 mph limit. CPU provided the photograph and a calibration certificate for a camera ser.no. 449186. There was no reference of this camera on the photograph provided and I had no way to establish that the photograph was taken by this camera or any other. When I enquired about this they only provided the site log which had 449186 completed by the officer at the time. when I raised with them again that the photograph does not indicate that the photograph was taken by the camera no. 449186 they advised that I will have to raise that in a magistrates court. Am I right to challenge this.

[shoota]

Are you going to suggest that the officer used a camera other than 449186 and then lied about it in order to 'get' you for doing 36mph?
All that will happen is that the court will call the officer who will take an oath and swear that he used camera 449186, as he said in the log, and you will get hit for court costs as well as the speeding fine.

[woofgang]

were you speeding?

[TWR]

If you feel this was an injustice, I would take your car to a HGV Testing Station & ask could they check your car's speedo reading, the rolling road they use are Calibrated often due to their use, It is said that all Car Speedometers are not accurate.

[Prudie]

Was the photo of your car and were you doing round 36 and you're trying to get off on a technicality - or are you saying it wasn't you at all?

[Baldric]

Ok, so he gets his speedo checked, then it's his word he was driving at the limit, against a sped camera photo that says he was exceeding it + in the first line of the OP he says "I was recently caught" which I read as an admission he was speeding.
Just because his speedo is accurate doesn't mean he was taking any notice of it.

[retrocop]

Usually 10% speedo error was TIC for motor vehicles due to slight calibration inaccuracies but I believe electric pulse speedos afford,now, a more accurate reading in modern motor vehicles so 36mph is 3mph above the leeway once given. :-(

[TWR]

I can remember someone on here coming out with a statement of speeding in Kent a while back! can't remember who that was.

[retrocop]

TWR
I think most of us are guilty of nicking a few extra miles on the clock whether knowingly or unwittingly. :-)

[Baldric]

Yes it was me, but what that has to do with this post I have no idea, I have not suggested he was right or wrong, I did query how/why having his speedo checked would help.

[TWR]

I would think that if the poster could prove that his speedo was out & was not doing the said Speed, then the Speed Camera was not calibrated up to date.

[Baldric]

And of course the Police wouldn't then dream of charging him with driving a defective vehicle, would they?

[TWR]

Whatever.

[Hymie]

See this post in relation to calibration of speed cameras.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Law/Question1299687.html

[thesecondlaw]

I'd pay the fine and move on.

[malagabob]

Trust me it's your word against theirs. And I know who would win. Pay the fine

[woofgang]

seems like the OP doesnt like our answers....he has given a best answer and vanished....

[New Judge]

Quite honestly and to be blunt you are peeing in the wind.

The prosecution has no responsibility to prove the accuracy of the speed camera unless you are intending to suggest it is inaccurate. All they need to do is show that you were detected by an approved device exceeding the speed limit. If you raise a defence that the device was inaccurate the burden shifts to you to prove it. As far as I can see you have not got that far. You are only suggesting that the calibration certificate you have been provided with (which has been provided as a courtesy, not a right) may not be the one relevant to the camera that detected you. To succeed in your defence you will have to prove that the camera was inaccurate, not simply that the paperwork you have been provided with is deficient.

Now a bit about what will happen if you fail. You will be convicted and face a fine of half a week’s income and three penalty points. However, that will be the least of your worries. In addition you will pay a contribution towards prosecution costs (probably about £450) a Victim Surcharge (10% of the fine with a minimum of £20) and – assuming the offence was committed on or after 13th April – a “Criminal Court Charge” of £520. So you face a fine and other costs of well over £1,000.

It seems you were guilty of the offence (nowhere do you suggest you were not). In trying to avoid a conviction using a defence that is almost bound to fail you are risking the fixed penalty of £100 against a fine and costs of more than ten times that amount if you take the matter to court. Of course only you can decide what route to take. I know what I would do in similar circustances.

[Bazile]

NJ
//..I know what I would do in similar circustances. //

What , see if the prosecution lawyer is in my lodge ?

I'm joking , honest - i couldn't resist :-)

[Bazile]

So this victim surcharge applies to all convictions , irrespective as to whether or not there is a ' victim ' ?

[Prudie]

I'd also admit it and would expect to get offered the speed awareness course - still costs but no points. Cynically I might wonder if you've already queried it with them they may not now offer the course just to pee you off.