I thought it was like this:
You don't get prosecuted by the police. They enforce the law.
Its the courts that prosecute you and they need evidence to do this.
The evidence here is a speed camera van film and a written note recording the plate.
That proves that a bike with that plate was exceeding the speed limit at that time.
It's at this point that I think that we arrive at the real problem people have with speed cameras.
In the old days you would have been stopped by a real policeman and known you'd been done.
As regards the 'dont know who was driving' issue.
If hovis had a pal with identical leathers who rode his bike and they swapped frequently during ride oputs he could quite properly say he was not sure who was riding and the onus would be on the courts to prove which rider it was.
As it is; the courts seem to be able to say *you* have to prove it wasn't you riding.
This would not happen if you had actually been stopped instead of having your bike photographed.
Edit: I am NOT reccomending this as a course of action BTW.
Just a bit sore about it all after being the one half of the 'husband and wife' situation last christmas....
