Good grief, what bad advice! :eek:

Any material fact must be notified to your insurance company as soon as reasonably possible, failure to notify them can result in your insurance being void. Never ever give any insurance company an excuse not to pay-out!:(

1x SP30 will have little or no effect on your insurance, unless you're with a cherry-picker insurance company like eSure or whatever.

[QUOTE=Nick]Good grief, what bad advice! :eek:

Any material fact must be notified to your insurance company as soon as reasonably possible, failure to notify them can result in your insurance being void. Never ever give any insurance company an excuse not to pay-out!:(QUOTE]


Here here!!!

CLASSIC

nice to see a post thats not winging, you knew you were in the wrong so you accept it

i had the same attitude both times i got my points, really wound the coppers up lmao

no attutudes like that dont wind coppers up at all!!!

not wanting to hijack the thread but insurance companies really wind me up!

If you turn 25 mid insurance term do they give you money back as you are now older and safer? - NO!

So if you get points and tell them mid term will they sting you for more cash? i would think so!

Next gripe, i have 2 cars and 2 policies, they won't give me any credit for my full no claims on my first car so if i prang one of the cars do i have to tell the other insurance company i have made a claim even though its not on their policy? YES, then they sting me more cash

no wonder people drive about uninsured i pay nearly £3k per year on insurance and they sting you for everything - kiss my swingers thats what i say

I'm off to buy some fruit pastils and chill out

Ray

did in both of my cases ???

"so your gonna struggle to insure your car now then ehh son??"

"nope i earn more money then you mate"

:D

Got an NIP last week too, first offence ;) for 15 years :eek:

Am asking for photo evidence - expecting to see a picture of me, mouth open, wondering that that van is doing, or mouthing 5hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

:D

LOL @ Craig. :D:D

Craig - lol :D

See link: http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=1968

When the NIP arrives you might want to consider sending this letter to the Chief Constable:


Date:
NIP Ref:
Vehicle Registration:

Dear Mr [Chief Constable],
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution for an alleged motoring offence: I have been informed that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights indicates that the fundamental and enduring principle of a person’s right to silence and avoidance of self-incrimination is applicable to Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988.

I would like to exercise my fundamental right to remain silent, and draw your attention to Appendix I of this letter, which contains the case law upon which my defence will rely.

Yours sincerely,
++++
Appendix I

Section 3(1) Human Rights Act UK

Kremzow v Austria 1997 ECR 2689

Regina v Lyons and others

House of Lords

[2002] UKHL 447, [2003] 1 AC 976

Brown v Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and another

Privy Council [2001] 2 All ER 97

Saunders v UK (ECHR 43/1994/41990/572)

PR and H v Austrai ECHR (nos 15135/89, 15136/89 and 15137/89)

Tora Tolmos v Spain ECHR( no 23816/94)

John Murray V UK (ECHR 00018731/91)

Case of Funke v France (Application No 00010828/84) ECHR

JB v Switzerland- (Application no. 31827/1996) ECHR

Heaney and McGuiness v Ireland ECHR (Application no. 34720/97)

Report of the Secretary General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993) concerning the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Report submitted to the UN Human Rights Committee dated 11 April, 2000 with reference to the ICCPR

Case of Weh v Austria- (Application no. 38544/1997) ECHR

Those people facing NIPs would do well to read the info above closely. It looks like the camera scam may be over for them, at least for a little while, and that Europe may have ruled against the cameras.

There should be a few test cases soon so if you are unwilling to send the letter try and hold on to your NIP for as long as possible, you have 28 days to return it.

If you are not willing to go the route of sending the above letter, and for some reason many people seem very reluctant to defend alleged speeding cases, then at least demand disclosure of all their evidence and see if you can make some independant judgement of your speed. There was a chap done recently for 54 in a 30. He had to fight long and hard to get the 2 photos from the Gatso but when he did, and calculated his speed using the lines on the road, he found that he was doing 13mph.

Remember that the scamers are in a money making business and sending you all those videos and photos costs them time and money. If everyone demanded the evidence the business would soon become unprofitable and they would move on to some other way of persecuting motorists.

Camera vans are different though aren't they? Was told today they use dvcams so they can zoom in and see exactly who was driving etc.

May try the above though - can't believe all the cars I've had, I get a speeding ticket in a poxy LX auto mondeo :D

no they wont charge you for mid term points

Craig,

The camera vans can not zoom in to see who was driving. The video from camera vans CAN ONLY BE USED to identify the vehicle. Even if the picture is o clear that the driver can be identified, this can not be used in court. (Rules of Evidence)

Group buy on Tony Blair masks anyone :D

I was just done by a camera van in Dundee and the cameras CAN be used to Identify the driver........ the pictures are VERY clear. I got the police to send me the picture and it was a screen capture from a PC with full colour/zoom functions on the software. If you push it they can use the video to identify you.

The purpose of the cameras is not to identify the driver but to identify the vehicle. The keeper of the vehicle is then sent the NIP and "forced" to identify the driver, ignoring the fundamental right to silence and to not incriminate yourself. So, there has been no need for the cameras to identify the driver except in cases where the driving was shared and the possible drivers can't remember who was at the wheel at the time of the offence.

There has been some debate on the matter but I suspect that if the photo clearly showed you then, certainly in a magistrates court, this would be sufficient to secure a conviction. I'm not saying this is right, just that this is what would happen. Such photos are also being used, on what looks like an increasingly regular basis, to convict drivers who wave, with two carefully selected fingers, as they pass a camera. It seems that the operators of the cameras are very annoyed and disturbed by these actions and so the courts are having to take action. The police really know how to make themselves popular with the generally law abiding citizens who pay their wages but I'm sure the overtime makes it all worthwhile.

However, all this depends on the magistrate actually knowing what you look like. If, on the day, you don't turn up in court but send a representitive then they might find themselves a bit stuck.

With the current problems the scamers are having with EU legislation (i.e. what they are doing is illegal) they are working hard to install forward facing cameras designed to take a picture of the driver. In turn this will probably be accompanied by legislation to make it illegal to wear sun glasses or use your sun visor while driving. Another useful contribution to road safety by the cameras.

So the bottom line is that cameras were not designed to identify the driver but they have been used for that purpose in the magistrates court. However, soon the NIP will be illegal and so they are in a panic to find other ways to keep their little empire afloat. They are about to become much more keen to capture your picture and to stop you doing anything that might interfer with that process.

Soon police will be stopping you at the side of the road and measuring your nose to make sure it complies with the height regulations.