Safe Speed Forums

A member of my family recieved an NIP notice today, so i went on the website to look at the photo they took of them speeding. From the photo you cannot see who is driving but that is another matter.

My question is: there is only one photo of the speeding car, i seem to recall that there needs to be two photos to ensure a prosecution.
Does anyone know whether this is correct?
Your help would be greatly appreciated

Depends what you were caught with.

Handheld/mobile (laser/radar): 1 photo with speed stamp for evidence, usually another for car plate details
Gatso: 2 photos
Truvelo: 1 photo
SPECS: 2 of your plate, usually another 'overview' photo of the car/driver
I'm not sure about RedSpeed (Monitron)

Oooer, that's a bit misleading. The evidence in such cases is video and one or more stills MIGHT be copied from it. But the stills are NOT the evidence.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Sorry, badly worded; I meant the 'speed stamp' as the evidence.

However, you bring up an interesting point. I've heard on PPP of an LTI case where the video recorder wasn't used at all, the printer simply printed the still in real time. Technically, would that be a wrongful conviction? (I can't remember if that case went to court)

Wouldn't be a Truvelo then.

Chances are you'll have to admit speeding but not knowing who was driving in order to get full evidence.

I've answered my own question:

I've found the case. A single LTI photo - no video at all - was deemed to be admissible and used as evidence in a case, one which the defendant lost.

That happened to me. All there was was a single photo and no video evidence. Therefore I had no way of calculating my speed from the photos, as you could with a video. I lost the case despite no valid evidence being offered, even though the pictures showed a lorry passing in front of my car. The system is completely corrupt, the police, CPS and mags are all in it together and I was not given a fair chance of defence. I wasn't even given the chance to offer evidence. (I was doing 25 in a 30 limit, but accused of doing 36).

I wrote to my MP, but he basically said there's nothing he can do about court cases. I can't afford to appeal, so I just have to leave it and moan a lot about it!

I get the impression the police purposely don't record video evidence with the LTI detectors now as they can give a truer picture of what's really happening, such as inconsistant speed readings. The less evidence they produce the more chance they have of getting a conviction.

Basically you are now guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.