kart_man

A friend of mine was recently caught on film by one of our Gatzo friends, and has asked for the picture to verify who was driving. StrathClyde police have replied saying that the won't supply the picture !
Surely they have to produce it when asked to ??? Anyone had any similar experiences ?

nom

Er, yup, I thought that they had to as well.
There's a site around somewhere that details all this stuff.
Nope, can't find it ;
Fat lot of use, I am

Octane Man

If you are not sure if you were speeding, then you should have been sent or will need to write and ask for a copy of both of the photographs that were taken of you by the Gatso. You should also ask how far apart in time the pictures were taken. When you have the pictures back from the police (they are required to provide them to you), then look at the lines that are painted on the road and you can see how far you have travelled in the time it took to take both pictures - typically the pictures are taken 0.5 second apart. You will need to revisit the camera site and carefully (dont get snapped again! or run over) measure the distance between the lines. Then you will know how far your vehicle moved in the time period and from this you can calculate your speed. If it matches the speed you are accused of - then it would appear to be a valid accusation.

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk

O.M.

[Edited by Octane Man - 4/9/2002 2:51:13 PM]

sillysi

A m8 of mine asked for the pictures and the police told him that he could only see them if he took the case to court, his solicitor confirmed this so he dropped it.

chris singleton

I think that the police are supposed to provide a copy of the picture on request although if it's taken from behind will it identify the driver? Normally the picture is only used to identify the vehicle and registration and not the driver. If you do go to court I think the picture can only be used for this purpose.

If you genuinly don't know who was driving the vehicle (company car, various drivers, long journey etc) you can sometimes fight these although the police have obviously by now heard every exuse in the book.

It's tricky because it is an offence for the registered keeper not to know who was driving the car.

On the other hand it is violation of the human rights act to incriminate yourself and it is up for the CPS/Police to prove beyond doubt who was driving.

If you do dispute who was driving whether or not the matter will end up in court could depend on the actual speed you were doing. Small margins over the limit are not always pursued, if you were 100+, 50+ in a 30 etc, they will probably want a conviction.

I've strayed from the original point a bit but hope this is of some help.

sillysi

There is an article on ukspeedtraps.co.uk regarding self-incrimination. It basically states that you would have to go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights to test the waters on this one. As you are challenging it with the hope of getting off a criminal offence the chances are you would not get away with it.

kart_man

OK, thanks guys. I'll pass all this on. I think it was 50 in a 40 or similar, nothing too silly, but he's had 2 in the last couple of months !! (and didn't dispute the first). He's not even a scooby driver !!!

eyeMAJIC

Was done by Strathclyde in July 1999.

They told me the only person who could legally view the photographs was the Procurator Fiscal.

The (very helpful) woman on the phone at their camera dept. described them to me (great!) down to the luggage visible in the boot! Thank God the Boney-M CD on the back seat wasn't visible...

SP30 (3 points & £40) which was lucky, 45mph in a 30mph
(That famous camera on the northbound A82 near the Forth & Clyde Canal that's hidden behind tress, for all you locals....)

neilc

surely it'd be an infamous camera?

i know the type though - if there are a lot of leaves/branches/****ty foliage in the way does it take a clear picture?

[Edited by neilc - 4/9/2002 7:00:41 PM]