Got myself a NIP in Northamptonshire
 

I got myself a NIP on a stretch of the A5 in Northants on my way to watch Challenge Cup final last saturday :( .

On the NIP it says it was on the stretch just near a truck stop at Lilbourne, and that I was caught at 69 in a 60. Just wondered if anyone knew this area and whether there are speed cameras or police sat in vans with guns as I was only passing through and cannot remember.

I'm also pretty certain that I wasn't speeding at this point as I'm always careful when I don't know the area and I was being followed by my dad at the time, who later told me I was indeed riding rather slow at times. My dad who was following me on his bike, follows fairly close (closer than I would) and he's also not got a ticket which seems somewhat strange as he'd have probably been in the same picture.

Not had one of these NIP's before either, so just wondering what to do at this stage? I know I need to complete the form that's attached to say who was riding, jsut wondered if I should accompany it with a letter and ask for the evidence to show that I was speeding as I intend on contending the NIP?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Cheers
Jase

Seems a bit harsh..... use of the ACPO guidelines will have drawn the threshold at "speed-limit + 10%", ie 68mph.

If you are in any doubt then ask to see the picture.

surely that's 66 mph for the limit & 10%?

Wot he said :)

Ahhh, welcome to Northamptonshire = Home of the Speedcamera. :roll:

I don't really know that bit of road - but if you check out HERE then it should tell you if it was a fixed or mobile at that location.

I always thought the threshold was 10% + 2mph (hence the " in Jabbas post) . Which would make it 68mph :(

Hope you get it sorted anyway Jase mate.

Cheers for the link, suggestion that it could have been these two, which are mobile cameras.

I thought 69 was a bit harsh too, also doubt that I'd have been going that fast. I'll be asking for the picture deffo, think I can also ask for:

Calibration Cert
Type of camera
Locaiton of camera

According to that Northants police site, there's not any fixed speed cameras on the A5 at all, so looks as though it was someone in a van.

Unfortunately, the monthly listings of mobile locations only run for September, but on 1 September it says they were at Lilbourne on the A5. Likely they were there on 26th August when I went past also.

Can't think why I posted what I did when I really meant to type the 10% + 2mph bit ](*,)

Actually, the threashold should be written as "110% of speed limit plus 2mph".

It's still 68mph and a NIP for 69mph is still harsh in my view.

Have a look on www.pepipoo.com. I sent a PACE statement, which allows to give the details required by law but in a way that means they can't use the info you provided as evidence against you...

they sent me a court summons anyway. :evil:

[quote="Jabba"]They have to draw a line somewhere! If it was 10% +4 mph i.e 70 in a 60 and you got caught at 71, you would still think it's a bit harsh!

try asking for the photograph but sometimes they say we will only issue the photograph as evidence in court.

try asking if it is one opf those cameras that dont work on bikes properly?

other than that bad luck dude, but join the club!

Ask for the evidence before completing the form, don't give in on that point.

Beside that then delays when you have to make payment - you may as well claim the interest on the funds!

Bad luck hun, its why for the next 2 years i have to ride like a snail as if i get 6 points in those 2 years i lose my licence and have to start all over again.
I have to live in northants dont i. :roll:

I requested the pictures, and the police were very helpful saying they'd get the pictures to me that day. The pictures arrived this morning, I've yet to have a look at them myself but my mum has and she assures me that you can easily tell that it's me which is the first bummer.

Second one being that there are 2 photos. I assume that I'm doing the correct speed in the first one, then the second one 5 seconds later shows me overtaking a range rover so I may well not have a leg to stand on.

Looking like I'll just have to go cap in hand and hope they're kind and offer me 3 points and a £60 fine. I'm not up for an appearance in Northants court anyway given that I live in Yorkshire!!!

I could still try argue that hand held radar guns are inaccurate on bikes i suppose and that said range rover was going slow so I overtook.

I'll also be asking for a calibration certificate for the camera, I am advised that the camera needs to have been calibrated that morning for the registered speed to be valid. Can anyone confirm if this is urban myth or is true?

www.pepipoo.com


Enjoy!!

:)

Calibration requires the unit to be sent back to a manufacturer, and IIRC, is only required every 5 years or so. Checking invloves the operator pointing the targeting mechanism at a wall, which has to be a known distance away, and ensuring that it reads 0mph (since walls don't move - not the last time I checked anyway).

Checking has to be done daily, calibration doesn't. However, having said this, there has to be evidence that the unit was checked that day. This could be a note recorded in the officers little book etc, but there has to be SOMETHING.

Jase

There are things to check on the photos like where the cross hairs are and distances etc...

If you haven't already do a post at pepipoo as mentioned already, there are some real experts there.

If you can, scan the photos and post them here (suggest you erase yer plate first)
If nothing else it will be entertaining :wink:

Here is some useful reading for you.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/nav?pa...DVICE-AND-TIPS

Good Luck!

I'll post them up once I've seen them to provide the entertainment for you lot don't worry!!!

I'll have a look at the pictures tonight and see if I can work out whether my speed is accurately calculated for a start.

I'm just bothered that one picture shows me overtaking, which would imply that I'm going faster than 60 at that point. I'll do my homework and double check though.

Under test conditions, so long as it is safe to do so and you remain within speed limits, you are expected to overtake slower moving vehicles.

Under instruction, I was told that the same applies even if it means you go 10mph or so above the limit. So long as you slow down again straight after the manover & it's again safe to slow down again.

I think you could have reasonable justification for exceeding the speed limit. But that will only count if the vehicle you were overtaking was doing say 55mph or less and you were close to the limit.

Sounds like a viable argument I'd not thought of. I don't remember the exact situation, hopefully the pics will jog my memory but could well have been that he was going slower so I overtook.

for any other offence I would say own up but with speed cameras I say fight it all the way! Don't fill in the form as that is tantamount to a confession which you are not required to do under English law. They have to prove your guilt. If you are time consuming to prosecute, i.e. just an awkward so and so, you are more likely to have your case dropped.

I wrote 3 letters denying any offence and stating the mitigating circumstances (illegal signage, fog, darkness) for doing 36 in a 30 and I got off. When I pointed out that the view of the 30 sign was impeded by a lamp post, i.e. a permanent structure, the case was dropped within 3 days. Go back to the site of the camera and check the legality of the signage against the requirements. You can find the info on the association of british drivers website.

Don't just give in, it only encourages them to put more cameras up!

Don't want to be a prophet of doom, as every case should be judged on it's merits, but that was the mitigation used by the pensioner William Shaw who was famously outed by Richard Brunstrom in a press conference. link His conviction stood.

I have one problem with that case. He pleaded guilty.

I won't be admitting guilt, especially as the photos suggest I was in the right in my maneuvre. The Range Rover has actually moved over to the left side of the road to give me space to overtake, which I performed promptly and safely in the circumstances.

There's a slight issue with the signage though, it just so happens that Mr Plod has managed to get a picture of me "apparently" doing 69 with a speed camera sign in the background. There's also a sign for a junction just as I overtake, but the road is sufficiently clear for me to have seen ahead.

I forgot the pictures today so can't load them up, d'oh, but will do tomorrow.

It's very suspect and sneaky the way that I've been snapped by the camera IMO, which has made me more inclined to fight the charge since it suggests this is about making money and isn't about penalising people who are driving unsafely.

Quite true and that was of course his main problem. It was after pleading guilty that he learned that speeding briefly to overtake was ok, but it was too late by then. Also the later footage revealed that he did not slow down again (it was a van, not a camera, so they had video)

My point was that as our laws are interpreted by precedent, this case might be cited.

What I forgot to mention is that if you do decide to fight it you have to be prepared to go to magistrates court and represent yourself. This requires preparation and evidence and you will have to pay court costs if you lose, as well as getting the £60 fine and 3 points. There is also the chance that they would punish you slightly more for appealing. I was prepared to do this as I felt that the increase in insurance from going to 6 points from 3 would be more than the costs of losing the case so it was worth the risk. It paid off for me as it never got to court.

My mum is a magistrate and I've briefly seen her guidance cards on speeding and it does have a list of mitigating cirumstances for reducing or exonerating people's prosecutions. I'm not sure if overtaking was one of them but they are instructed to take valid reasons into account. If you genuinely think it is an unfair prosecution I think it's worth fighting and if you're lucky it won't even get to court! A well worded letter to the relevant person is the first step.

Here's the pictures of me. Not particularly flattering as I was wearing my winter gear due to the lengthy ride from Bradford down to Twickers and then back, but unfortunately there's no denying it's me.

http://w1.bikepics.com/pics/2006/09/...73741-full.jpg

And this one is intended for use to identify the bike apparently. Pretty obvious that it's my bike too, shame.

http://w1.bikepics.com/pics/2006/09/...73735-full.jpg

Jase

I think you have a very strong case for getting this dismissed.

Cant see any cross hairs so what have they clocked - you the car a bird?

Also if they had to blow up the photo to id your plate its inadmissible

Plus the defence mentioned above.

If you havent already, post these picks at the pepipoo forum for the best advice.


I feel for you this is exactly why people hate these scameras.

Good luck

Scubini

That high-levels not looking bad mate :thumbsup:

The Rangie looks to have moved over for you to get past, no oncoming traffic. you were simply passing to allow the rangie to pull back out weren't you. If it's not on video then you could claim he indicated in aswell indicating he wanted you to go round as he was slowing down to pull into a that junction 50 yards ahead :roll: . worth a try.

Cheers Luke

Can should look a bit better once I get exhaust sytem cut in the right place, at the minute it sticks out a little bit too far at the back.

The Range Rover did indeed move over and slow so that I could overtake, also intend on pushing the argument regarding the inaccuracies of those radar guns on bikes.

I reckon the main reasons for me being snapped by the gun are:

1. I'm a biker
2. I've got a loud can

Incidents like this aren't helping the police's reputation one bit, I was riding safely and pulled off an effective overtaking maneuvre. I'll have to get involved on pepipoo and see if they can advise.

I don't fancy court, so am hoping that with a couple of well worded letters the plod will drop the charge.

Looks like an LTI 20-20 laser which there have been many mistakes made by operators and as you say issues with bikes.

Hmmmm.

Two wrongs don't make a right, however should they have released the reg number of the Range Rover to you? Not sure that I would want the police digitally recording my reg and giving it out to other members of the public.

Have just looked again at the second pic, and it is possible that the crosshairs are actually targeted on the rear of the RR (i.e. in the gap between your left leg and the bike itself) - therefore, it would be interesting to see where the crosshairs are in the second picture. I believe that the laser should only be pinged at a flat vertical surface???

PS - I wouldn't mention the loud can bit in any letters to plod or in court :wink:

The 2nd pic has crosshairs on. Just a thought, but that looks like it's from a video (hence why they have you before the "offence"). Maybe the gun removes crosshairs at the point when they pull the trigger? Copper saw you overtake & was curious about speed, so pulled the trigger?

Also, from the images, your defence may be weakened. Obviously I wasn't there, so this is purely negative speculation (always better than positive reinforcement):

How close were you following the 4x4 before the overtake? It could be argued you were so close because you were rushing, therefore riding fast. It could also be that you were part way through the overtake of course.

Also, it looks to me that before the overtake, you would of been able to see the sign warning of a junction (and camera), yet the bushes & 4x4 itself obscured the view of potential traffic in the junction. Was the overtake conducted safely?

Just because the driver of the 4x4 moved to the left of his lane, does that mean it's safe for you to overtake? Granted the photos do clearly show the 4x4 moved over.

Good luck with the case, but prepare yourself for the above just in case!

It's always good to have negative and positive views, give me a good idea of how the situation may have been viewed. I also thought the cross roads sign may have been a bit of a downfall for me, but the road was sufficiently clear to enable me to see that it was clear enough to overtake.

Not entirely sure how close to 4x4 I was at the point, but point taken it does look bad. I think that I was mid overtaking maneuvre. I'll see what they say to my letter anyway, one can but try.

unlucky there!

Just noticed in the second pic you posted you can just start to see a oncoming white car/van which would have blocked the camera / laser and maybe affected how it measured your speed when the second pic was taken.

ie the laser was on you... ran down the side of the oncoming white car/van and then back onto you, could be of some use to you???

Good luck!