# Caught speeding twice within 15 seconds(page 3 for result!)



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

Help!
I have received 2 NIPs for different speeds but at the same recorded time 17.10pm on the same day on the same dual carriageway. I have questioned these NIPs as I couldnt have been doing 94mph and 92mph at the same time.
The delightful speed camera people have now responded by saying they had 2 camera vans on the same road at the same time, etc. 
They have very kindly sent me the photographs too! These indicate a difference in time of 15 seconds between photos! What is strange is that one photo shows only the front of the car while the second photo only shows the rear of the car!!??  I am suspiscious about this! Was there only actually one spped camera?

The speed people also claim in their reply that they have calculated that I had driven 636mtrs in the 15 seconds.
They now are going to prosecute me for both offences!
What can I do? 
Are they allowed to position 2 cameras close together?


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

I recall a stretch of road with around 7 cameras situated on it, a mna was caught by all 7 cameras and was being prosicuted 7 times but in the end was only done for one as the the speed was within 10% on all cameras and this is the +- tollerance for camers.
I would seek legal advice
Jonah


----------



## Major Audi Parts Guru (May 7, 2002)

Paula, have a look at www.pistonheads.co.uk


----------



## ttimp (Jul 9, 2003)

Whats to stop them putting 4 cameras up, 3 points for each 'offence' and a ban for everyone caught?
I seem to recall this came up in the early days of fixed cameras, maybe somewhere like Southsea, and someone was done for 3 seperate cameras, from memory it went to court but only the one offence was judged to have been commited as all the cameras caught the same offence.
If this new situation does end up as 6 points from two offences then shirley a whole new dimension has been added to whole 'business' of speed cameras. Can't really see it myself, drivers would revolt - I certainly would / will (!).

Scucking Fandal.


----------



## Widget (May 7, 2002)

ttimp said:


> shirley


Don't mean to be a pedant, just made me laugh


----------



## sattan (Sep 10, 2002)

Yeah I'd post your query up on Pistonheads under the Speeding, Plod & the law section (may need to register for it to be visible)

there are a couple of real traffic cops and lots of people who can advise on that kind of thing.

sounds a bit iffy to me - twice in 15secs????


----------



## ttimp (Jul 9, 2003)

Widget said:


> ttimp said:
> 
> 
> > shirley
> ...


You don't think that maybe, just maybe I did it on porpoise?


----------



## David_A (May 7, 2002)

Yeah check out pistonheads sp&L

IIRC they treat it as one offence.

Just get legal advice you could play one off agasint the other and get both cancelled!


----------



## ttimp (Jul 9, 2003)

sattan said:


> sounds a bit iffy to me - twice in 15secs????


How can it be anything other than the same offence - if it's genuine then it ought to go to the press - someone would have a field day with this. Also if it is genuine (and I can see no reason doubt it) then it's a very sinister twist in the whole speed, sorry 'safety' camera saga.
I've upgraded my curse too- they're now: cucking funts!


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

For it to be two offences you would of had to of gone below the limit for that road and then back up again to above the limit all in the 15sec space that the pictures were taken otherwise its just one offence.


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

Thanks for the advice!
I think I will have to invest in Road Angel or similar as this is not the first time I have been caught!


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

jonah said:


> For it to be two offences you would of had to of gone below the limit for that road and then back up again to above the limit all in the 15sec space that the pictures were taken otherwise its just one offence.


I'd say so. Unless they had evidence otherwise. 
And I thought you couldn't be prosecuted for the same crime twice in this country. :?


----------



## ttimp (Jul 9, 2003)

phil said:


> jonah said:
> 
> 
> > And I thought you couldn't be prosecuted for the same crime twice in this country. :?


Not noticed the new gummint since '97 then? :wink:


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

Hi Paula,

I have seen this a few times and the offence is the same even though the police may portray it as two offences.

My advice is to see a solicitor and make sure you appear in court yourself.

You would be amazed at how many people just accept the offences in absentia and get the full 6 points.

Mind you, 94 and 92 is getting close to dangerous driving territory so I would watch your speed in future.

Jim.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

jimfew said:


> Mind you, 94 and 92 is getting close to dangerous driving territory so I would watch your speed in future.


Huh? You think 94 is dangerous driving? On a dual carriageway? Er, what speed to you normally drive on a dual carriageway / motorway? Do you honestly think the difference between 80ish and 90ish is that significant?

If you mean "dangerous driving" as defined by the law, then fine, but I hope you weren't being literal in which case your post comes across as being inappropriate and sanctimonious IMO.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

raven said:


> jimfew said:
> 
> 
> > Mind you, 94 and 92 is getting close to dangerous driving territory so I would watch your speed in future.
> ...


I think what jimfew means is that at 96mph+ there is no option of fixed penalty etc. You have to appear in court. Whether it is on dangerous driving charges, I don't know. My interpretation of his quote anyway.


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

paulatt said:


> The speed people also claim in their reply that they have calculated that I had driven 636mtrs in the 15 seconds.


The calculation is about right for your speed, but what relevance does this calculation have? Are they basing their evidence on this distance, if so, by what calibrated device was this distance measured and where is the calibration evidence of this device/measurement?

If they are basing their evidence on this calculation (why quote it otherwise) they must have "precisely" measured the distance between the 2 points. If they cannot provide evidence of their "precise" measurements, a small deviation in distance may have far reaching effects (a 10% inaccuracy, though travelling at 85mph, may not have incurred a penalty on the day).

Best of luck :?

Pete

p.s Totally agree with you Raven, sure paulatt needs sanctimonious comments right now :x


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

BreTT said:


> raven said:
> 
> 
> > jimfew said:
> ...


I didn't know it was 96mph and above. I always thought it was 100mph upwards. Hence the theory that the "true" speed limit on a motorway is 99.9mph. Anyway, I still think it came across as patronising. Maybe it was just me. :? :roll:


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Jim's post didn't come across that way to me :?


----------



## pumaro (Apr 17, 2003)

My advise would be to get a very good barrister, even better a recommended one who specifically deals with cases of this nature. The money spent will be worth it in the long run. As he/she will be able to dig into the actions of the prosecuting lawyers case :wink: .

P.S
That was kinda fast as I assume you must have been in a hurry to get somewhere early, all same though you should get some kit that protects from this type of situations in future. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

This road is a dual carriageway near Brecon in Mid Wales. We had been to visit friends and were 'cruising' home at the time on a Sunday evening.

Anyone who has driven the roads around this area will know that they are great driving roads! There were lots of bikers and similar car drivers just enjoying the driving experience.

Anyway, Hubby and I counted 5 speed camera vans along just one stretch of road that is a popular 'driving route' . The cameras were obviously put there deliberately, to try and catch the Sunday drivers like me - and they were successful!

To be correct, hubby was actually driving at the time of this offence! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2004)

paulatt said:


> Help!
> I have received 2 NIPs for different speeds but at the same recorded time 17.10pm on the same day on the same dual carriageway. I have questioned these NIPs as I couldnt have been doing 94mph and 92mph at the same time.
> The delightful speed camera people have now responded by saying they had 2 camera vans on the same road at the same time, etc.
> They have very kindly sent me the photographs too! These indicate a difference in time of 15 seconds between photos! What is strange is that one photo shows only the front of the car while the second photo only shows the rear of the car!!??  I am suspiscious about this! Was there only actually one spped camera?
> ...


  That's terrible how can they get away with that :x I hope you're going to appeal :?

What a sh*t end to a great day  Men always manage to spoil things some how :roll: I would ban him from driving your car for six months as punishment :wink:


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

paulatt said:


> Thanks for the advice!
> I think I will have to invest in Road Angel or similar as this is not the first time I have been caught!


It amazes me that people drive around without "protection" if you like!!

Yes i know it's a funny term, but we all drive fast cars, and there are so many cameras out there, mobile or not, how are YOU supposed to know where they all are?

I've driven with a Morpheous Geodesy ever since i got the TT, and it has warned/saved me on numerous occassions.

You may also want to look into getting a garage door opener, so you don't need to open it manually :wink:

Definitely get a lawyer and see if there is some technicality that you can get them on as a lot of people get off this way.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

I've never had "protection" as such. Am I in the minority? I do drive fast, but generally keep my eyes open for cameras, and so far I have not been caught once. I've always thought that having a device to warn of cameras would make me too complacent, not to mention focusing on the device rather than on the road. :?


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

raven said:


> I've never had "protection" as such. Am I in the minority? I do drive fast, but generally keep my eyes open for cameras, and so far I have not been caught once. I've always thought that having a device to warn of cameras would make me too complacent, not to mention focusing on the device rather than on the road. :?


My experience with an Origin B2 is that it makes me more aware of the speed I am doing and gives a good audible warning for Cameras so there is no excuse for 34 in a 30 flash.

However I am well aware that it only acts as a pre "Notice of Intended Prosecution" for a mobile laser trap as to quote the Traffic Cop at Brooklands they "can catch and photograph at up to 999m". Also he reckons that they can tell if you have a "garage door opener" and will come knocking on your door at 4am with the appropriate search warrant and if brough before the court it is a criminal not civil prosecution.

However from the above could it be deduced that Paulatt was nabbed from the front then the rear by the same laser/camera?


----------



## justinp (May 7, 2002)

Hi

You probably have legal advice thrown in with one of you insurance premiums (car or house) if so give them a call as they should be able to give you some professional advice on this matter, not just opinions which is what you will get from pistonheads.

Piston heads used to be a great place, but now its overrun with pro scamera police, and even some safety camera operators.

I agree thats its worth talking to the daily mail.

Cheers

Justin


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

mighTy Tee said:


> Also he reckons that they can tell if you have a "garage door opener" and will come knocking on your door at 4am with the appropriate search warrant and if brough before the court it is a criminal not civil prosecution.


Which is exactly why i would only have a "garage door opener". :?

Mine is broken at the moment, and i keep on having to open it with a key!


----------



## ttimp (Jul 9, 2003)

mighTy Tee said:


> raven said:
> 
> 
> > ... to quote the Traffic Cop at Brooklands they "can catch and photograph at up to 999m".


That must be one hell of a camera/ lens system - I find it pretty hard to believe, although saying that those Canon Image Stabilising binoculars are pretty damn impressive. Any camera buffs / mathematicians care to comment on ability to photograph a fast moving 80mm number/letter at a distance of 999 meters using a vehicle / tripod mounted platform?


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

When using a reflecting laser device 999m is not far at all, you can do it at far greater distances but you should start having to apply corrective measures for air refraction. On the other hand one of my little devices will not work in the rain because it will measure the falling raindrops instead of the objects I want it to.

If you know a speed and a time you can calculate the distance without any problem or need of a calibrated measuring device.
The distance a vehicle will travel if at speed between 92 and 94 mph over a time period of 15s is 623.63m with a decelleration rate of 0.06m/s/s.
At a constant speed of 94mph the distance is 630.33m. 
For a distance of 636m the constant speed must be 94.85mph. 
For a distance of 636m at a 0.06m/s/s decelleration rate the time should be 15.3s
Their add-ups don't quite add-up as they should but they will be subject to rounding.

Paula,

Have a look at the printing on the photographs. It should show the speed, the times, the location - probably as a site number, the camera serial number, and operator i/d. If you can find the camera serial no that will tell if it was 1 or 2 cameras.

IMHO it will be classed as 1 incident although there may be some wittering on about it. Please consult a solicitor or if the Daily Mail is the paper for speeding headlines, consult them and get them to pay for a solicitor - or they may know who is a good one for this subject.

Good luck.


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

I'm gutted for you. That is the pits!

It sounds like one guy sat in the front and one in the rear of the van catching same car!

I would appeal. Say you admit to speeding but double jeopardy is wrong. Worth a try :?

I remember someone else on the forum ages ago who got done by a static camera and a cop car on the same stretch (and same time). (could not appeal and had 2 speeding points fines in one hit. They were gutted as they took the cop nicking them on the chin then found a fixed pen notice on the door mat 10 days later aswell!


----------



## ttimp (Jul 9, 2003)

Guy said:


> When using a reflecting laser device 999m is not far at all, you can do it at far greater distances but you should start having to apply corrective measures for air refraction. On the other hand one of my little devices will not work in the rain because it will measure the falling raindrops instead of the objects I want it to.


My concern wasn't over the accuracy of measurement it was the taking of a photograph at that distance.


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

raven said:


> jimfew said:
> 
> 
> > Mind you, 94 and 92 is getting close to dangerous driving territory so I would watch your speed in future.
> ...


Raven,

Wasn't intending to be santimonious or inappropriate but, if that is your judgement then so be it. I have some experience in these matters though.

There is a mandatory requirement for anything that proves a speed over 30mph over the speed limit (i.e. a 60mph speeding in a 30mph area) is treated as dangerous driving and "might" invoke a custodial sentence. I have seen several 7 day sentences handed down for this (as well as a fine and a ban from driving).

Whether its 80ish or 90ish both are over any UK speed limit on public roads and Paula looked like it was getting close to a situation she might not be happy with. However, as always it's up to the individual. I was trying to be helpful here but regret if any offence was taken.

If you drive at any time on UK roads at 100mph or over, they will "throw the book" at you. If you do it on a non-motorway dual carriageway, then a custodial sentence is possible. That's all I meant.

Jim.


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

what a total waste of resources putting more than one van on a stretch of road... total waste of time and our bloody taxes.
Instead of keeping several roads 'safe' they overkill the one road.... its total nonsense......


----------



## ttimp (Jul 9, 2003)

jonhaff said:


> what a total waste of resources putting more than one van on a stretch of road... total waste of time and our bloody taxes.
> Instead of keeping several roads 'safe' they overkill the one road.... its total nonsense......


Agreed but you can bet the anti-speed zealots will have more sway than any of us could ever muster. I'd have no real concerns over a multitude of cameras in 30/40/50 stretches but can't accept it in the NSL


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

Today, hubby received a reply to his letter regarding these 2 speeding NIP's.

They have officially withdrawn the lower speed NIP and have given him a Â£60 fine and 3 points for the higher one (94mph on dual carriageway). 
I think it is a good result all things considered.

Thank you to everyone who gave advice on this issue. :-*


----------



## justinp (May 7, 2002)

Was there any explanation about why / how they managed 2 photos / Nips


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

paulatt said:


> Today, hubby received a reply to his letter regarding these 2 speeding NIP's.
> 
> They have officially withdrawn the lower speed NIP and have given him a Â£60 fine and 3 points for the higher one (94mph on dual carriageway).
> I think it is a good result all things considered.
> ...


Thats the best you could hope for I guess


----------

