Notice of intended prosecution.

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
fungus
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:26 pm
Location: Dorset

Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby fungus » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:55 pm

In my wifes mail this lunchtime was a notice of intended prosecution from Dorset police for exceeding the 30 limit in Wareham Rd Corfe Mullen.
The alleged offence took place on Thursday the 27th july at 09. 00.01hrs and the alleged recorded speed was 37mph.

This supprised my wife, as I was driving and I am carefull not to exceed red ring limits. Neither of us can think where this happened, but I wondered whether another vehicle could have triggered the scamera. The reason I ask is that approaching a speed camera as you leave the village a dark coloured four wheel drive caught me up. The road is lined with small trees and hedges and the camera is positioned partly out of veiw and would not have picked out the other vehicle utill it was realy close up behind me as it came down the hill. I am also baffled, as I am acutely aware of what 30mph sounds,and feels like as I can not see the speed on my speedometer from the passengers seat untill the needle is on 80.

The evidence is backed up by photographic and video evidence so could I ask to see this? After all I am being accused of this so is it unreasonable to ask to see the evidence?

If the evidence shows no doubt, then I will just have to take it on the chin , pay the fine, and take the points. Then inform the DVSA and insurance company.

Here is where the four wheel drive caught me up. The speed camera is on the right beyond the van.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.76051 ... 312!8i6656

Nigel.

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby Strangely Brown » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:08 pm

Were you travelling northeast or southwest?

User avatar
angus
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: Colchester - Oldest Town, oldest roads

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby angus » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:15 pm

Have circumstances changed? when my wife was done some years ago, you could only ask for the evidence if you pleaded not guilty. And then if the evidence showed you were then the penalty was harsher (but that may just be Essex)

Incidentally, I believe that style of (s)camera can be triggered by vehicles going in the opposite direction

It might also be worth measuring the distance between the white lines

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby Strangely Brown » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:45 am

angus wrote:Incidentally, I believe that style of (s)camera can be triggered by vehicles going in the opposite direction


That was why I asked the direction. The camera as seen on streetview looks like a Gatso to me and, AIUI, they are not type approved for forward facing use.

Anyway, if fungus is confident that he was not speeding then, assuming the lines are painted at the correct distance apart, the photographic evidence will confirm that.

fungus
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:26 pm
Location: Dorset

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby fungus » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:22 pm

Thanks for the replies.

Discussing this with my wife, I think that I have the wrong Thursday. I thought it was the Thursday that we took the dog out into the Wareham Forrest which would tie up with my post. However. she checked her mobile to check the date as we had to call the vet as Eric, being his usual excitable self whacked his head into my knee. Seconds later there was blood all over his beard, so my wife called the vet. As it happened we didn't need to take him. Any way her phone showed that this was Thursday the 20th not the 27th.

On the 27th we went in the opposite direction to Badbury Rings. There is no fixed camera in that direction leaving the estate, but there is a camera just to the left of Phellips Road. Often when turning right there are limited gaps and you have to accelerate very firmly to take the gap. This can be made more difficult because drivers from the left start to acceleate as soon as they clear the camera, whils drivers from the right are slowing. It's quite possible that I floored it which took me over the speed limit fairly quickly. I can only think that there was an officer with a hand held device hidden away as the camera van is easy to see. In 35 years I have never seen a speed trap at that end of Wareham Road. I know they use the vets car park when they are running speed checks. Just have to be more carefull in future.

Nigel.

fungus
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:26 pm
Location: Dorset

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby fungus » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:29 pm

My wife recieved another NIP yesterday. Aparrently the location stated on the first NIP was incorrect. The offence took place in Wimborne Rd not Wareham Rd. So we were traveling North out of Corfe Mullen, not South. It seems as if Dorset police are now using vehicles that look like builders vans. This was parked in a lay by just before the speed limit changes to 40.

Nigel.

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby Strangely Brown » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:17 pm

Isn't that now outside of the two week window?

fungus
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:26 pm
Location: Dorset

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby fungus » Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:29 pm

Yes, but as we had recieved a NIP within the two week window and returned the form we were informed that it was a clerical error and didn't alter the situation.

Nigel.

mainbeam
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby mainbeam » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:09 pm

Misinformed is a better word. The place mentioned on the NIP cannot be amended. That is why another one has been issued. The relevant question is was the registered keeper misled by the original NIP? If so it is invalid. If the alleged offence could be identified notwithstanding the incorrect road name then it is valid. It's a matter of fact but if it is the Police who have misinformed you it is likely they will pursue it to court.

Looking at what you have written and the map it is arguable as you seem to have had genuine difficulty in working out the location of the alleged offence.

martine
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:26 am

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby martine » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:53 pm

But rather than trying to avoid a penalty on a technicality, why not face up to a simple error and learn from it? You can request photographic evidence.

If you're offered a speed awareness course, take it!
Martin - Bristol IAM: IMI National Observer and Group Secretary, DSA: ADI, Fleet, RoSPA (Dip)


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest