Speeding Ticket, Should I Contest?

[Jonno13452]

I have recently got a speeding ticket from a mobile camera, it says i was going 36mph in a 30. I have viewed the calibration certificate and it was due for renewing in 3 weeks after my time of offence. Does this make it less accurate? I have also read that 36 mph is the minimum speed that they will prosecute so is it worth me contesting? This is my first speeding offence so i have also been offered a speed awareness course, should i just take this?

[Baldric]

If you contest and lose, it could be expensive and you still get Points.

I'd opt for the SAC.

[cupid04]

If you contest it you could lose and end up with a heavier fine.
Swallow your pride and take the course.

[ubasses]

You were 1 mph over the minimum limit for fixed penalty notice. The cameras are calibrated regularly and they will insist it was correct when tested 3 weeks later and on previous test. If you try and contest you will end up with a big bill and very unlikely to win. At that speed you will be given option of a course and no points on your licence, slightly more expensive than the fine but worth it.

[woofgang]

the fact that the cert is due for renewal means nothing. If you were speeding man up and pay the fine.

[Peter Pedant]

speed awareness course

they are quite useful having done one myself

[MallyJ]

You were not speeding then contest.... you were speeding and breaking the law pay up. It really is that simple.

[grumpy01]

Yes I agree Peter.I attended one just before Easter 2014 and it certainly makes you think.

[Maydup]

Another vote for the SAC, its all over in a day and no points. No insurance premium increase either.

[New Judge]

Do yourself a favour and take the course.

If you go to court you will have to plead not guilty. The issue will be that you believe the measuring device was not accurate enough to record your speed with any degree of certainty. Your basis for this will (presumably) be because its calibration certificate was about to expire. The onus then shifts to you to produce evidence that the machine was indeed inaccurate (the prosecution discharged their responsibility by having supplied you with the details of its calibration). Are you confident that you can do this?

Your contention that 36mph is the lowest speed that action will usually be taken is correct. The Association of Chief Police Officers’ guidelines say that a margin of Limit +10% + 2mph is allowable. However, this is allowed precisely to avoid frivolous challenges (such as you are proposing) to prosecutions on the basis of inaccurate measurements. The limit is still 30mph which you have exceeded by 6mph (20%). You will have to show that it is more likely than not (“on the balance of probabilities”) that the machine was not sufficiently accurate to prove that you had exceeded 30mph, not 35mph.

If you are convicted (which is almost a certainty) you will face a fine of half a week’s net income, prosecution costs of around £350, a victim surcharge of 10% of the fine and (if the offence was committed on or after 13th April 2015) a “Criminal Court Charge of £520. Oh, and of course three penalty points.

[New Judge]

And you should have posted this under "Criminal" as motoring offences attract criminal convictions.

[Gizmonster]

Ask for photographic evidence so you can identify the driver, as you can't remember who was driving at the time.
You might get lucky, like I did a few years ago - the sun was shining directly on to my windscreen and the photo just showed a blurred face with the reflection of the sky .... I got off scot free, as it was impossible to identify the driver :)

[New Judge]

There is no obligation on the prosecuting authorities (usually a "safety camera partnership") to provide photographic evidence to assist you to identify the driver. Some do as a courtesy, others do not.

The registered keeper (RK) has a responsibilty to provide the drivers' details when requested. If he does not do so (within 28 days) he can be charged under S172 of the RTA (Failing to provide driver's details). If he cannot provide the details it is up to him to go to court and enter a not guilty plea. He will have to show that he could not, after exercising "due diligence" provide the details and it will be up to the court to decide whether or not to accept his defence.

I would not recommend going down that road.

[Gizmonster]

Just to clarify, me and my friend drove down the same stretch of road, using my car, as we were working together on a property. The times were prob in the region of 15 - 30 minutes apart, so we couldn't remember who drove the car at the specific time of the alleged offence.
We explained our predicament and requested photographic evidence which they duly provided.

[New Judge]

And what happened next (Bearing in mind that it is the duty of the Registered Keeper to identify the driver, not the prosecuting authority)?

[Gizmonster]

The picture was of no use, as it showed a reflection on the windscreen.
We explained our predicament, giving evidence of where we were working and where we both went on the specific day.
We asked what else we could do to try and identify who was driving.
Their response - they let us off with a warning :)

[New Judge]

Then you were extremely lucky, GM. The RK should have been prosecuted under section 172 (which, incidentally, carries a much heavier fine and a minimum of six points). Hence my warning to Jonno not to consider this course of action.

[Gizmonster]

Got me wondering now ... what would happen in the unlikely (but possible) event, that the registered keeper of the vehicle didn't have a licence ??
If they couldn't identify the driver, would they put points on the RK's licence (even though they might not have any intention of passing their test) ... even though they obviously wasn't driving at the time ??

[New Judge]

Penalty points go onto a person's "driving record". It is not necessary to hold a licence to incur points. Their licence is just a convenient method of informing anybody that wants to know (such as employers or car hire firms) what their record is.

[New Judge]

And the S172 offence is nothing to do with driving. You could go to court when charged under S172 and prove conclusively that you were not driving. But that is not what you would have been charged with and the court would not be interested. It is the failure to provide details of the driver which constitutes the offence.