banaaana
The previous posts have identified many good points.
You should consult a solicitor, as I am a lawyer and so cannot advise you.
see :
pepipoo.com and their forums where several legal advisors visit or any of the criminal solicitors who specialise in road traffic law ...
banaaana wrote:
I have received a letter of intended prosecution for doing 62 mph in a 50 mph zone which is monitored with average speed cameras ....
I have logged in to the west yorkshire Police website to view the photographic evidence which does support the prosecution, although it doesn't show who was driving the vehicle as it was dark.[/quote]You are legally obligated to provide 'every best effort' to try to provide the ID of the driver.
banaaana wrote:
Although ... driving ...There was no roadworkers at that time of night and I don't believe ...an excessive speed.
Is there any way ... ?
Be cautious about how you phrase things on a public forum, even adding the time and location will not take much for the prosecution, were they to see this, to help them 'prove' their case. Be aware that many legal persons do visit this site as with many road safety forums. Some editing of your post is advised.
We disagree with speed cameras for many reasons, but to start with see our negative camera effects page
here. We don't ever 'encourage' people to disobey the law, but we recognise that the real world and the research shown clearly demonstrates that when some travel faster than the posted limit it might be still safe. We need proper research and science to help form the best road safety policies.
We do recognise the 'fact of life' that when people consult a good lawyer they might be able to help them in Court.
The Council and authorities may make mistakes including providing the correct road Orders to set the legal speed limits and signage which can render all fines illegal, and so on.
Since the ruling was made a requirement to fill in the NIP and return - if it arrived within the 14 day minimal time frame, (6mths if your car is registered to a Company), sadly an EU ruling backed the signing of said documents but Hong Kong agreed with the UK case and ruled in favour, so no NIPS can be sent in Hong Kong.
banaaana wrote:
I have had a simalar case like this with a rear facing gatso, but I appealed ...and the appeal went in my favour and the case was dropped.
(see above posting advice) I hope that this was the case. If it later evolved that someone had previously lied to a Court, that is perjury and a serious offence. Always be honest or state as much as you know or can be sure of and if you are not sure say so.
banaaana wrote:
Could I use the same loophole in this case with it being a forward facing one (although you cant identify the driver) or is there any other loophole i could use?
It is never good to just look for loopholes, but to ensure that you observe everything on the road in the first place and learn from mistakes. You absolutely need to ask this of a solicitor to discuss the case in full and in as much detail as you can honestly provide.
banaaana wrote:
Also, I was told that with average speed cameras on a motorway, to prosecute you, the vehicle must remain in the same lane, so it the camera can measure between point a and point b in one continuous flow. is this true ?
The original L1 SPECS could only prosecute vehicles that remained in the same lane by there are few L1 models about now as they have been superseded with L3 which can use any lance over any camera within the system. Whoever told you that is now out of date, and the fact that you have a NIP shows that they have evidence against your vehicle.
I would ask to see all the evidence immediately and continue to ask too.
banaaana wrote:
Any advice would be appreciated , as we have just had our second child and need all the money we can get !!
Sadly unless you are in Court only then can welfare be taken into consideration, which might see your fine be paid off slowly.
Some solicitors will give some initial advice to help you to decide if you wish to go ahead with a case.