Camera not pointing at car

[CarHabit]

Hello

Received a NIP for 40mph in a 30mph

I recall seeing the camera and thought I was doing less than the 40mph indicated on the NIP

I’ve looked at the supporting evidence and have access to the below two photos. The first one that is being used for the NIP has cross hairs not actually pointing to the car

The second one has cross hairs pointing to the car and a much lower speed

Does anyone have any experience of how relevant the cross hairs are to determining the speed? Are there reasonable grounds for challenging this NIP?

Thank you

[2020vision]

It s pointing at you in both images

[E-bmw]

CarHabit said:

Hello

Received a NIP for 40mph in a 30mph

I recall seeing the camera and thought I was doing less than the 40mph indicated on the NIP

I ve looked at the supporting evidence and have access to the below two photos. The first one that is being used for the NIP has cross hairs not actually pointing to the car

The second one has cross hairs pointing to the car and a much lower speed

Does anyone have any experience of how relevant the cross hairs are to determining the speed? Are there reasonable grounds for challenging this NIP?

Thank you

The first pic is of the camera "line-of-sight" showing your vehicle doing 40MPH (they aim at the area of the reg plate to get a good reflection).

The second pic is after you slowed down (feeling guilty perhaps) to show the reg. in better detail.

Good luck getting out of that one!

[rhamnousia5]

CarHabit said:

Hello

Received a NIP for 40mph in a 30mph

I recall seeing the camera and thought I was doing less than the 40mph indicated on the NIP

I ve looked at the supporting evidence and have access to the below two photos. The first one that is being used for the NIP has cross hairs not actually pointing to the car

The second one has cross hairs pointing to the car and a much lower speed

Does anyone have any experience of how relevant the cross hairs are to determining the speed? Are there reasonable grounds for challenging this NIP?

Thank you

Are you claiming that road was doing over 40mph as that’s where the middle of the cross is focussed? I’m not sure that will work out well for you as a defence.

[John D.]

Clutching at straws on this one I think.

[ridds]

You have the information in the images to work out your average speed between the two pictures.

That will tell you a fair amount.

[Mandat]

Based on the available (limited) information, your average speed between the two images was between 17.6 - 20.1mph.

Unfortunately, the camera is measuring instantaneous and not average speed, so the above average is not really relevant.

Do you believe that you were not doing the claimed 40mph?

There is a potential for the camera to record a wrong speed due to slip error, but you would need to do a technical review of the whole footage, and even that might not be sufficient to form a defence.

[CarHabit]

Hello everyone

Thank you for taking the time to respond

Responding to the comments / questions

The cross hairs are pointing in the approx area of the car. However the middle of the cross hairs is not on the number plate (which would be typical to get the required reflection). It’s pointing beneath the car

I’m not claiming the road is doing 40mph. I’m claiming the photo does not provide reasonable evidence that I was doing 40mph

Average speed isn’t a defence as far as I know. It’s the speed at a point in time

As initially stated, I do not believe I was doing 40mph

[CarHabit]

… to also add, in the view supporting evidence section of their website relating to this, it says “This page shows all the evidence and documentation relating to this offence”

Taking it at face value, there is not further evidence available, including an image where the cross hairs are actually pointing to the car or video footage

[LunarOne]

You could try claiming that the section of road surface under your car was doing 40mph. That will definitely work.

[paul_c123]

CarHabit said:

Hello everyone

Thank you for taking the time to respond

Responding to the comments / questions

The cross hairs are pointing in the approx area of the car. However the middle of the cross hairs is not on the number plate (which would be typical to get the required reflection). It s pointing beneath the car

I m not claiming the road is doing 40mph. I m claiming the photo does not provide reasonable evidence that I was doing 40mph

Average speed isn t a defence as far as I know. It s the speed at a point in time

As initially stated, I do not believe I was doing 40mph

I think the way they technically work is that the cross hair doesn't mean anything except to indicate the direction the camera/gun is pointing in. What actually happens, is there is a sweep of an area (on which the crosshair is centred) which detects many readings of speed in a very short space of time (like, hundredths of a second) and it filters out 0mph objects such as the road, street furniture, etc.

So long as there's no other moving objects in the general direction the cross hairs are pointing, I think they are happy it is sufficiently robust to be used for evidence.

For example, if it were vaguely aimed and there were 2 cars in the picture, you could argue "it wasn't me".

[skyebear]

You could always ask them for the video, pointing out that the supplied picture doesn't have the centre of the cross hairs on your car.

Worst case they tell you to sod off. Maybe it lands with an overworked admin who cancels the NIP.

Shy kids don't get any sweets.

[2020vision]

CarHabit said:

Hello everyone

Thank you for taking the time to respond

Responding to the comments / questions

The cross hairs are pointing in the approx area of the car. However the middle of the cross hairs is not on the number plate (which would be typical to get the required reflection). It s pointing beneath the car

I m not claiming the road is doing 40mph. I m claiming the photo does not provide reasonable evidence that I was doing 40mph

Average speed isn t a defence as far as I know. It s the speed at a point in time

As initially stated, I do not believe I was doing 40mph

The laser beam is wider than the middle of the cross hairs, so it is pointing at your car.

[E-bmw]

LunarOne said:

You could try claiming that the section of road surface under your car was doing 40mph. That will definitely work.

Especially when you tell them you were reversing at 25MPH at the time.

[Cat]

paul_c123 said:

I think the way they technically work is that the cross hair doesn't mean anything except to indicate the direction the camera/gun is pointing in. What actually happens, is there is a sweep of an area (on which the crosshair is centred) which detects many readings of speed in a very short space of time (like, hundredths of a second) and it filters out 0mph objects such as the road, street furniture, etc.

So long as there's no other moving objects in the general direction the cross hairs are pointing, I think they are happy it is sufficiently robust to be used for evidence.

For example, if it were vaguely aimed and there were 2 cars in the picture, you could argue "it wasn't me".

That's not even close to how it works.

Cat

[paul_c123]

Cat said:

That's not even close to how it works.

Cat

You forgot to say how it does work

[steve2]

15 seconds to do 120metres, now where is my calculator

[rhamnousia5]

skyebear said:

You could always ask them for the video, pointing out that the supplied picture doesn't have the centre of the cross hairs on your car.

Worst case they tell you to sod off. Maybe it lands with an overworked admin who cancels the NIP.

Shy kids don't get any sweets.

Or they say “thanks for your reply selecting you want to go to court”. You’ll get all the evidence they have then and if you don’t win you’ve got the worst penalty of the three options initially offered. For clarity if you go to court you won’t be offered a speed awareness course if you lose, nor will you be given 3points and a £100 fine. You might only get 3 points, but you could get more, you will also get a bigger fine then £100.

Cue agtlaw to make some sort of snide comment.

[TheRainMaker]

Something doesn't add up if the time at the top and the distance from the van are correct.

It shows an average of 18.7 mph between the two points.

[Yellow Lizud]

TheRainMaker said:

Something doesn't add up if the time at the top and the distance from the van are correct.

It shows an average of 18.7 mph between the two points.

Yes, that's what I made it. But surely you can't have an average speed slower than the slowest speed registered?
(unless you stop, have a picnic and then speed up again before the second image)