Safe Speed Forums

Speeder's 'no beep' satnav claim thrown out
Published Date: 20 November 2009
A former chauffeur convicted of speeding claimed speed camera evidence was false because his sat-nav had not beeped to tell him he was driving too fast.
Richard Temple, aged 47, was found guilty of travelling at 36mph in a 30mph zone on the A361 Banbury Road, near Byfield, at a hearing at Daventry Magistrates' Court on June 1.
He told an appeal hearing at Northampton Crown Court yesterday that evidence provided by the speed camera in question at the time of the offence was wrong because his company car would have warned him if he were driving too fast.
The court heard Temple had been working for a chauffeur company in West Drayton, Middlesex, at the time of the offence, on September 14, and he had travelled to the Banbury area to pick up a client who was heading to Heathrow Airport.
Justices were shown photographs taken by the speed camera on the road at 6.50pm which showed a recorded speed of 36mph.

Temple did not dispute he had been the driver of the car, or that he had been in the area at the time.
He said: "With the cars we had if you went over a certain limit it gave an audible warning. In a 30mph zone I think it gave a warning at 33mph or 34mph.
"It had the speed limit of particular roads programmed into the system and warned you if you were approaching a speed camera."
Under questioning he added: "I remember the stretch of road and I remember my passenger warning me there was a camera.
"I had been through it on my way to pick up the passenger. I was travelling at maybe 30mph or 31mph. I was definitely doing less than 36mph because there was no beep. I'm adamant I didn't do 36mph."
Temple denied suggestions the sat-nav system could have been inaccurate, claiming he had never experienced a problem before, and the cars were all less than a year old and well-maintained.
Upholding the original verdict, justices said Temple, of Albert Square, Lambeth, London, had been inaccurate rather than dishonest. He will now have to pay the original £110 fine, costs of £400 and a £15 victim surcharge.

That is a pretty terrible defence. It's basically impossible to prove and thus is no more valid than turning up to court and saying "no I didn't"

That said I also have a problem with the way "justice" has been served in this case. For daring to even try to defend himself, he's been fined £525, that's nearly 10 times the amount of a fixed penalty. If that arrangement isn't designed to stop you trying to get justict, I don't know what is.

His defence was that his car was fitted with a warning system which made a warning sound at about 33 or 34 MPH in a 30 limit. In other words no defence at all to the charge he was facing.

The other problem is over-reliance on the equipment.
It is hardly hard work to look for speed signs....

Fisherman, the fine ended up at £525 IIRC.

Not strictly true, the absence of the beep would indicate that the speed was below 33/34mph, which of course encompasses 30mph and below.

No. The fine was kept at the level imposed in the magistrates court. £110. The total, including costs and victim surcharge was £525. He brough most of the costs upon himself by pursuing a non defence.

Also, the "discount" you are giving is so people will come quietly and not question our masters, right?