YOUR LEGAL DEFENCE AGAINST SPEED CAMERAS

Motorists who think they are wrongly accused of speeding have been urged to demand photographic evidence after a freak flaw was discovered in traffic cameras. Vibration from slow-moving and even stationary lorries has caused static roadside Gatso cameras to flash innocent motorists stuck in traffic jams and record them at speeds of up to 80mph. The problem came to light after incidents at one site in Lancashire. But motoring groups fear that phantom flashes could affect most of the 6,000 speed cameras around Britain.

This follows a Daily Mail investigation which revealed that thousands of motorists could already have been wrongly fined for speeding because of flaws in the hand-held laser guns which raise serious doubts about their accuracy, including one which recorded a wall travelling at 44mph. In the latest disturbing development, a camera on the A59 in Penwortham, near Preston, was set off by the vibration of roll-down shutters on the back of large lorries. It snapped hundreds of slowmoving motorists last month, leaving them in line for a £60 fine and three points on their licence.

Serco, the company whose Gatsos account for 85% of all speed cameras in use on UK roads, said, "We recognise that occasionally, an unusual combination of circumstances can trigger a false positive reading by the Gatso radar, triggering the camera's operation." It was claimed that 'fewer than 20' cars were flashed and no one was wrongly penalised. But speed camera officials in Lancashire said Serco technicians had told them there was a widespread problem with cameras across the UK.

Solicitor Clive Burton, who has handled numerous traffic offence cases, said, "I would urge everyone to demand the photographic evidence. There are, I'm afraid, some quite unreliable devices around." Speed camera expert Dr Michael Clark said, "There have been a number of incidents where someone successfully contested a case by insisting on seeing the pictures." (Source: Mail on Sunday)

This is the method adopted by Chief Police Constables and recommended by serving Police Officers themselves. It is a matter of keeping your nerve in the face of the intimidation and threats.

When faced with completing the two parts of the form sent to you remember two things:

Part One - Nominating a Driver: You must nominate a driver because they have changed the law to compel you to do so. You will be crucified if you don't. BUT, just because you confirm who was driving (or nominate your wife!) for the date/time in question, this automatically means that you are guilty. That is why they have part two....

Part Two - Admitting the Offence: For the speeding offence, you are actually innocent until proven guilty and they must produce enough evidence to prove you are guilty. This is where you stop them speeding to take you to court.

Completing Part Two of the Form:
Do NOT complete it as doing so admits guilt and you do NOT have to admit that you are guilty, this is the law of the land. Write a covering letter stating:

i. I am unable to complete part two of the form and admit guilt because I have no recollection of being in that location at that time and date.
ii. I request that you provide a copy of the available photographic evidence which confirms that I am guilty of the offence.

Post the letter using recorded delivery so that your letter probably gets mislaid along the way.

Wait for them to provide the evidence. Just wait because the onus is now on them and a Police Officer must now be taken off crime fighting duties in pursuit of your £60. This is were economic and common sense takes over in many instances, and, you may hear nothing more.

If presented with the evidence is it conclusive? Does it clearly identify you (and no-one else) as the driver? If not, it might be a car the same make/model/colour as yours and have the same registration number, a lot of cloning goes on these days. Don't be threatened and intimidated by them, stand your ground and point out that it is inconclusive. If they persist and take you to court, it is just as inconclusive in your case as is it for your local Chief Constable.

If you were caught driving at an inappropriate speed or dangerously in a built up area, you deserve to be shot. However, for us all, the law of the land is the law of the land and you are entitled to defend yourself.

When you are successful in defending yourself in this way, send a cheque for £60 to the local Police Benevolent fund. Most serving officers feel exactly the same way you do about this and need your support.

(Source: www.ukgatsos.com)

Car owners will get six points on their licence if they fail to reveal who was at the wheel of a vehicle caught speeding. Tougher rules which take effect on Monday will see a doubling of the current penalty. Failure to supply details in time to the prosecuting authorities, whether deliberate or due to forgetfulness, means the registered keeper of the vehicle will be penalised. The change to the Road Safety Act 2006 for the offence of "failing to identify the driver" has been introduced partially in response to the increasing number of speed camera offences.

The Government is also seeking to close other loopholes by increasing the fine for failing to stop for police and introducing a road ban for those convicted of "furious driving" on private land. Prosecutors will also be able to offer "alternative verdicts" of death by dangerous driving and careless driving if a driver has been cleared of manslaughter. Paul Smith, founder of the pressure group SafeSpeed.org.uk, said, "This change has absolutely nothing to do with road safety. The authorities have forgotten that driving licence points were supposed to help identify risky drivers."

He added, "Vehicle owners have no obligation to 'name the driver' if they do not know who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence and cannot discover the identity of the driver using reasonable diligence. It's crystal clear that speed cameras haven't made our roads safer." Drivers do have a legal defence if they can prove they genuinely do not recall who was at the wheel of the car when the alleged speeding offence took place.

In November 2003, Christine Hamilton escaped a speeding fine by claiming she didn't know whether she or her husband Neil, a former Tory minister, was driving at the time. She told a court one of them was behind the wheel of her car when it was snapped by a speed camera at 63mph in a temporary 50mph roadworks zone on the M62. District Judge Alan Berg accepted her explanation and threw out the case. (Source: Daily Mail, Sep/07)