speed camera can they get you from the front?

[shellinch]

i was driving on a motorway and saw a speed camera ahead on a bridge. can they catch me going towards it? i had slowed down by the time i got under the bridge and have been told that you can appeal a speeding fine as they cannot take a picture of a front viw of your car as they cant take a picture of your face? is this true? i was doing about 85 on the motorway but slowed down to 60 by the time i got under the bridge. please help!

[treacle-tart]

I use the M4 a lot and all of the mobile cameras I have seen have been taking pics of the front so I would bet that its legal.

I remember reading a couple of month ago that the equipment is now so good that they can get a good picture of the driver thereby reducing identity avoidance.

Think you might have to wait for the post! Sotty.

Bekki

[naz_nomad]

They can also see if you were on the mobile, therefore getting 2 for the price of 1.

[shellinch]

do you think i had enough time to beat the camera if i got my speed down to 60mph by the time i got under the bridge?

[treacle-tart]

Ivery much doubt it - if they did get you it would have been as you came around the bend ! Sorry.

Bekki

[ThisSpace]

Yes, they can get you if you are going towards the bridge. This is how I got my first and only set of points during a temporary limit towards Norwich last August.

Trouble is, it doesn't matter how fast you were going by the time you were under the bridge, it's a question of whether you had sufficiently reduced your speed at the point where the camera can snap you.

It is unfortunately a question of waiting for the post.

[ugly_bob]

Some cameras take pictures from the front, some from the back.
There have been many cases of motorcyclists being snapped swearing at the camera, knowing they couldn't be caught because they don't have number plates on the front!

[JudgeJ]

I think your question has been adequately answered by others, shellinch. However, I am interested to understand why you (or whoever told you) believe that you cannot have your face photographed.

One of the strongest forms of evidence in court where identification is an issue is photographic evidence. In relation to allegations of speeding which have been detected by automatic camera, the police have to ask the registered keeper of the vehicle who was driving at the time of the alleged offence. One useful loophole which has been successfully exploited by some defendants (and their advocates) is that they �cannot remember�. If this can be successfully shown in court, the prosecution cannot proceed.

Advances in technology have now made available equipment which can provide photographs, taken from the front of a vehicle, which are good enough to provide evidence of identification of the driver. Your belief that such photographs cannot be taken seems to be part of the general confusion into which people have been led by inappropriate talk of things such as Human Rights and data protection legislation and this often overrides plain common sense. Any thoughts?

Also, beware of the use of the term �appeal�. You have no right of appeal until you have been convicted. If you accept a fixed penalty offer that is the end of the matter (you pay a �60 penalty and get 3 points). If you wish to have the matter heard in court you have two options when you get there. You can plead guilty but offer mitigation. In this case you will be convicted and sentenced. Or you can plead not guilty, will face a trial, and if found guilty you will be convicted and sentenced. Only after a conviction has been registered can you appeal against either the conviction (if you have been found guilty at trial) or against the sentence imposed.