my husband and i got a speeding ticket 41 mph in a 30 mph zone we didnt know which of us was driving so i filled in the form with all my details but put in a note saying that i would take the blame even though we truthfully cannot remember who was driving we have been told we are being taken 2 court

orpington, bromley, england

My husband has just received a speeding ticket for doing 37mph in a 30mph on the Farnborough Rd, carrying a load of turf in his boot. He swares he wasnt over due to turf plus we are both well aware about these roads. How do we get photographic evidence or does it have to go to court.
Pree Alders

Pree , Aldershot, England

Ive just been ndone for doing 112 mph on a dual carriageway showing a 60 limit..wots the chances of a not guilty?

Danny, london,

Its a crime in itself that these unmarked vans park themselves in awkward positions, most of the time not in an accident blackspot, and mostly about 50-100yds from a speed change (i.e 30mph to a 40mph). It is very silly that the police should decide not to send any photographic evidence in the first place with the intial inttention to prosecute, whether your guilty or not. i have been caught 4 yrs ago, 100metres from where a 60mph zone changed into a 30mph zone.... 100metres!.... my argument is, if the road has a chevron zone (like in F1 when they enter the pits and exit) it will further remind you to slow down for the new zone speed. i was guilty of doing 44mph.
it is im afraid a purposeful, profitable tact the police has, to loiter very close to speed zone changes, to further pocket themselves money... and this loitering infuriates us all so much, that i'm afraid with the way the speeding issues are right now, this government WILL FALL

tone, leics,

With regard the requirement to inform who was driving a vehicle caught speeding on camera. This would appear to only apply to the public as demonstrated by inspector Adrian Roberts of Cleveland Police who successfully stated to his own Force that as the camera photograph did not show the driver he could not supply the name of the person driving.
I believe Mr Roberts is now Chief Inspector Roberts.

Jack, cleveland,

speeding is a money generator. the limit was introduced a very long time ago, 1932 in scotland, and so is antiquated and should be revised or even removed entirely. speed itself cannot kill. it is impossible as speed has no control over itself. it is airheaded inconsiderate dopey drivers whose tiny minds have trouble with dealing with the large amounts of information required to be processed to drive a car safely and they then become absent minded. these airheads are the true killers on the road. just PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE DOING and be courteous to others. If a new BMW travels at 110mph why is it deemed unsafe? even if an f1 driver was driving it? Why it is unsafe is because some other absent minded fool is also on the road at this time. Make the test for driving about driving. how can a written answer about two sign postings stop your car sliding in the wet at 50mph sideways because you were looking at yourself in the mirror? stop the whingeing blamers and fix the root cause

g henry, aberdeen, uk

Rich, Birmingham - if the driver is not named then the person speeding may get off with it, but the person who failed to name the driver will be summonsed to Court for failing to furnish infomation which carries 3 points (soon to rise to 6) or a discretionary ban and a fine of up to £1,000.00

David, Chester,

Like many, I support the principle behind speed cameras - namely making roads safer. Despite this, I also find myself resenting the arbitary nature of the cameras, and the number of loopholes people can use to get off should they wish.

The worst loophole must be the requirement to 'own up'. Many people have insurance that covers them (3rd party only) for driving any car with the owner's consent. This means that when a car is snapped over the limit, there are millions of potential suspects.

A poster has suggested that we must do the honourable thing, and own up even if we're not sure by the time the speeding ticket arrives who was in fact driving. He may have a point, but the effect will be that 'honourable' people are consistently fined and eventually disqualified from driving, while the dishonest get off as the CPS by itself has no prospect of determining who was driving.

The only people left on the roads will be either sneaky cheaters or using false plates.

Rich, Birmingham, UK

if speed cameras were for "safety" then they would be placed on accident blackspots..very few are..they are used for revenue....they have no excuses or arguments on this as the sites of cameras speak for themselves..and what of the ones that are "removed" after some months??surely its not suddenly become a NON blackspot??or is it that the camera isnt making enough revenue so they move it elsewhere..THEY should be the ones prosecuted for not actually siting cameras where they can actually save lives.rather than trying to sneakily catch people 4 miles over the limit..which can easily be done whilst having to scan the road for craters and holes (which we also pay for to have repaired but seldom see)rather than watching the speedo...we cant do all things at once,we only have 2 eyes......people should start a website of where cameras SHOULD be and where they are stupidly situated..who decides where cameras are sited anyway???the council?what do they know of road safety??

mole, luton, beds

I posted a reply saying that a neighbour had been fined for 32 mph in Luton and a colleague for 41.2 in a 40 limit in Nottingham. The later was from an average speed camera. The fines were real enough, and the reply was accurate. One of the informants was a home office official returning from a police conference. I agree about the margin of error, but these cases show that it is not always applied.

John Bald, Linton, Cambs

Well, good for him!

Marie, London, UK

Julian, you say that speeding by a few MPH is 'a minor offence'. When does speeding become serious enough for you? We all know that the probability that a person will survive an accident decreases exponentially with speed. 35 MPH gives is signicant increase in stopping distance and impact over 30 MPH.

I don't get why anyone can think that speeding is a minor offence, or why so many people hate cameras. They are obviously there because people do speed. Our law states what the speed limits are on particular roads. Why do people think they shouldn't be prosecuted for breaking the law?

If the cameras were not there, they would not be replaced with police officers. People seem to stupidly think it's a choice.

If you don't want to be fined, the answer is easy; don't speed. My wife was recently fined (for doing 39 MPH on Cambridge ring road). It was a fair cop. We're not going to pathetically contest it. We'll both just make sure it doesn't happen again. We're not above the law.

Martin, Cambridge,

the reply by john bald is wrong the margin of error is 3 MPH +1 MPH therefore it is impossible to get fined unless you are actually doing 35 mph likewise the figur for 40 mph is 45 mph you should not put errorenous statements in a reply

w brooke, sheffield, yorkshire

First, the presumption of innocence: Mr Ives didn't get off with anything. If he'd been found guilty and not punished that might have been a valid description.

Second Mr Ives "made a fuss". Is that the official position on preparing a legal defence these days?

Third, his "fuss" was actually a rock solid defence: if a representative of the camera manufacturer stood up in court and confirmed that the accuracy of the unit could not be guaranteed beyond 100m, the prosecution would have to fold - where a just outcome is required of the court!!

Fourth, the question of the requirement for a just outcome is the area that's problematic. Mr Tidey's attitude would appear to indicate - if he has been accurately represented - that justice isn't a big issue for him and presumably the system of which he is a senior representative. His response was damagingly casual, and seems to be typical of many in his profession on both sides of the fence, as if justice has been reduced to a game!!

jim , Paisley, Scotland

I personally support Mr Ives. The issue for me is the points on the license, especially when the the offense is not too much over the limit. In the past a patrol oficer would have issued a warning. As one comment points out, we now have the same punishment for very many grades of transgression.

Also, the matter of self-incrimination has never yet been resolved in the UK - being forced to say who was driving the car, probably in contravention of the European Convention. Many European countries get around this with the Anonyme for speeding where cameras are involved. You can simply accept the 40 Euro fine and send in the money, or you can go to court to fight it. Points only come into play in the latter event.

Unfortunately our authorities want their cake and eat it. The result is legislation that is rapidly becoming unenforceable, and is making the law look more assinine every day. It needs to be re-thought, with swingeing penalties for the worst and repeat offenders.

Tom, Bedfordshire,

Mr. Ives actually IS fortunate in one respect.
Had this been in the U.S., he'd have been pulled from his car and beaten, charged withg resisiting arrest and other offences due to certain evidence mysteriously appearing in his car.
The persecutor(sic) is typical in that they will NEVER admit to anything so mundane as an error on their part.
We have criminal cases here in the U.S. where the person who had been sent to prison has neem totally cleared by incontrovertible DNA evidence, yet the persoecutors will NOT admit the truth.

For those who ask, "What is this world coming to?', it already has gotten there.

AMERICAN VTERAN, WAUSAU, USA

Is this world mad?. Can anyone disagree that a cretinous motorist doing 70mph in a 30mph urban area, with parked cars along the roadside, who caused a very serious accident but lucklily only hurts himself, gets off with a few points, but should be banned for several years, while the person involved in your story potentially gets the same punishment for being a few miles over the limit?. This is not a scenario but a genuine local case.

Fred Groves, Weston super Mare, UK

There is no prosecution limit. A neighbour has been fined for doing 32mph in Luton, and one of my wife's colleagues was fined for 41.2mph in a 40 limit in Nottingham.

John Bald, Linton, Cambs

Whatever they may say, sooner or later, every driver breaks the speed limit on occasions. Indeed, I think a case may be made that it is safer to occasionally exceed the limit than to endlessly be looking away from the road to check the speedo. I believe that the "health &% safety" brigade have so hijacked reasonable thought that only the elimination of speed-trap cameras can save us from living in a motoring straitjacket. However, it is the law. If the authority thought that it had a proper case, it should have gone ahead, irrespective of the cost. Where next? If evidence in a rape or assault case is vigorously contested should it likewise be abandoned to save expense? This situation is the same as when those who shout and whine the loudest and longest get treated quickly by the NHS whilst those that make little fuss are fobbed off. It happens, but it's wrong and should be resisted.

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

I am sending the ticket to the judge to come to Tanzania and then to China. WE have wheelbarrows and plenty of cyclist who jump red. 10,000*7= Gee I am scared. Is this judge sober or was the man his relarive an inlaw or outlaw?

Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

To A. Wilkes from Worcester. Speak to the papers, publish your full story with the name of police force and prosecutors. Police corruption is not only when cops take bribes or collaborate with criminals, it's when they abuse the power too. Thus our UK democracy is turning slowly into bully police state, where the country will be run not by a Prime Minister but a Police Chief. How many of us want that?

theodor, Nottingham,

Peter Tidey obviously knows very little about the law, it is clearly inexcusable to pass comments as "Mr Ives is a fortunate individual" this imply's an assumption of guilt or is that he is fortunate because the prosecutors are so incompetent?. What is the world coming to when people can "Just challenge things and get off with it" (perhaps its because they have no case to answer). If i was Mr Ives i would be considering a civil action against P Tidey for defamation.

Phil, leeds, u.k.

Thanks for the important information about the origins of Mr. Ives wife

Francis, Colchester, UK

To Brian Vallance. Construction and Use Regs allow the speedo to over read but not under read. The tollerance is minus zero to plus 10% plus 6.25mph. If you are travelling at a true 30 mph the speedo can read between 30 and 39.25mph. At a true 70 mph the speedo can read between 70 and 83.25mph.

Whether the driver in this case was speeding or not can't be determined if the speed camera was not used according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Frank, Winchester,

You have to give credit where credit is due,the police having given up on catching "real" criminals (drug dealers, burglers, muggers etc) have deciced to take a different tack and criminalise those people they can catch.Hence the persecution and demonisation of any motorist committing even the pettiest of misdemeanours. Well done Mr Ives for not going to the slaughter like the rest of us sheep

steve berry, manchester, england

I wish I'd known about that. The distance seems to be important then. Mind you, I am a mire hardened criminal than Mr Ives, I was doing 11mph over the limit. Allegedly. I loathe cameras, cash cows for the local police so-called safety camera unit. But then again, considering the terrible state of resourcing most police forces have to put up with, I can't blame them for fleecing motorists at every opportunity I suppose. We are, after all, easy targets.

Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, England

Kim Sang,

You quote, "What is this world coming to when anyone
can escape conviction just because police equipment
is not accurate"

Erm, are you for real?

John, Chichester, West Susex

Why do you claim that the 'Court' gave up on the case when it was the prosecution? Shoddy...

Chris Jackson, London,

"Firstly, he was speeding and as such broke the law.
A few intersting things:

dachaidh, rhu, scotland"

No, he wasn't speeding. He was accused of speeding. Big difference in England.

Jonathan Wilton, Singapore,

Interestingly the Chief Crown Prosecuter did not say that the camera should be used in its reliable range or criticise the speed trap operators for improper procedures. This gives a clue to the casual attitudes to justice for motorists in the Criminal Justice System.

Philip Hutchinson, Wantage, UK

Be very careful approaching motorway bridges. They will use a laser video camera to detect your speed when you are 1000m away (it is accurate at that range and too far for you to see the operator). They will keep the video trained on the vehicle until you are close when the driver is clearly visible. So although you may slow down when you see them you will be too late. This is the sort of underhand way they catch people to make money to pay for all the operatives. I was caught like this exactly. Watch out for a van on the bridge even far away.

Richard, Norwich,

Clearly anyone going one mile over the speed limit is an incorrigable renegade who deserves to tarred and fearthered
without a trial. What is this world coming to when anyone
can escape conviction just because police equipment
is not accurate. Everyone knows where there is smoke
there is fire. The police would not have issued him a
ticket if he wasn't guilty. Yes, this man was very lucky.
In my country, he would have been shot on the spot.

Kim Sang, Pingp'yŏng Upyr Yinyang , N. Korea

This guy should get a life

Alice, Manchester,

In the USA you can get off with a local radar problem simply by obtaining a copy of the most recent calibration certificate, and they have to give you a copy under the freedom of information/sunshine laws.

Either they don't have the certificate (you're off), or the certificate does not have the radar's microwave frequency listed (you're off), the person signing the certificate does not have a Federal Communications licence (you're off). It all comes to this "certificate." Get it.

Simon Lockhart, Toronto, Canada

The speed of light is constant in a vacumn? Some variations in speed occur due to a number of natural phenoma such as density of air, temperature of air , moisture content of air, etc..

John Badger, Perth, Australia

Firstly, he was speeding and as such broke the law.
A few intersting things:
1. The 'prosecution limit' is 10% + 2 for any speed restriction, however the police in 'general' only issue tickets for 20% which guarantees conviction.
2. CPS will only prosecute driving offences when winning is definite [hence police officers issuing tickets at 20%].
3. If you have not been stopped immediately after the offence, very hard to prove it was you, without photographic evidence. Assuming of course lots of people are insured to drive your car, think about it.
4. They have to provide photographic evidence before the case reaches court.
5. The distance for the type of camera, not sure but Pro Laser is 999.9m
Finally, as for speed cameras. Keep to the speed limit and they will not be able to finance the upkeep of the cameras

dachaidh, rhu, scotland

I don't know all the facts of the case. I think that it is shocking that many seem to think that being accused amounts to guilt. The CPS are most unlikely to drop a case that they think they can win, but who knows. The man shows no faults, so far as I can see.

N Coelho, Carvoeiro,

So, the last author fought 2 cases of speeding and "got away" with it.
Were you really innocent of both? If so, you were truly unfortunate.
You are legally obliged as the registered keeper to provide the drivers details at the time of offence.
Do the honourable thing, stop tying up Police and court time fighting your offence and admit your guilt.
Face it, like the lead story, you just did not like being caught because you were not paying due attention on the road.
Shame on you.

T Gillon, Ilkley, West Yorks

I also was "caught on camera"doing 36mph in a 30mph area!talked to a taxi driver who said he was detected on camera at 1am doing 32mph !he said he just ignored the letter to pay up and has had no further correspondance!the cameras are positioned in lucrative areas thats for sure!my fine of sixty pounds and three points on my licence was infuriating for one who has driven for many years.

olivebranch, brighton.Sussex, UK.

Corey from Minnesota - That's not quite true. Where I live in Virginia if you contest and lose you are charged an additional fee, ostensibly to prevent frivolous complaints. Of course the real result is it discourages all complaints, frivolous or not, much like the "wasting police time" rule you mentioned.

Tom, Virginia, USA

I live in the USA and this info will be very usefull

Dick Fitzwell, florence, kentucky

Once again a prime example of the CPS taking the easy option. Unfortunately that's what we must expect when we have a government that prefers technology to Policemen on our streets.

Andy Myers, Shrewsbury, England

Peter Ward ...Home office 999.90 mtrs Some forces have limited its use to 610 mtrs (For other reasons)but able to work upto 999.9. The CPS.. Messed up ...not the kit. LTI 20/20 cal infomation as follows. The LTI 20.20 is a linear measuring device utilising the speed of light as the constant value for calculation and employs the same calculation processes whatever the range and speed, be it 0 mph and 20 metres or 160 mph and 999 metres. Therefore if accurate at one measured point it will be accurate throughout the whole range. Thus three measured points are effectively a triple assurance. This is a well accepted scientific principle.HOPE this helps Again the media not giving or getting the full story. Which shocks me when in comes to the Times.

J.A.Guide, UK ,

“This is an isolated case and Mr Ives is a fortunate individual.”

No he is not just 'fortunate' he is NOT GUILTY (from the published information).

A further little detail, it is effectively impossible to prosecute within 20 percent of the limit.
Under the Construction & Use Regulations, your vehicle's speedometer has a permitted error of +/- 10 percent. The enforcement device also has an error of +/- 10 percent. Therefore, to achieve 'beyond reasonable doubt' the magistrates must give you the benefit of both errors together. ie. in a 30 mi/hr limit - no conviction under 36 mi/hr. In a 70 mi/hr limit - no conviction under 84 mi/hr.

Mind you your speedometer may be displaying a false reading already! Have you calibrated it recently. British Police Cars and speed enforcement instruments are required to be re-calibrated daily at least.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece

The LTI 20 20 is a very common laser speed gun used in the UK. It's use was discontinued in certain states of America due to it's innaccurate readouts. British safety camera partnerships like using it because it provides a speed reading in less than half a second.

The only injustice here is the man in question being penalised for such a minor morotoing offence in the first place. I am delighted he got off! One has to ask the question: Is prosecuting people for such minor motoring offences really in the public interests?

Julian, Bath,

ok, we all know the speed limit and sometimes we go over the speed limit, either intentionally or unintentionally, so if you speed and get caught then its only right you pay up and take the points,
However i wouldnt cry if they got rid of all the cameras!!!

Diane Jewkes, Chesterfield,

Resistance is not futile.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan

“As far as I’m concerned, Mr Ives is the fortunate one and if it was a case that people thought that they would challenge things and would just get off with it, the public interest would soon demand a different reaction.

I beg to differ. The court is the fortunate one, and made the expedient decision. That old man would have died with his hands around their throats before he gave up. I doubt that he's happy that it ended this way. And Public Reaction would certainly be on his side if some dummy from the court 'leaked' the case to the media. Notice how many Friends of Radar Cameras have stood up to defend them? Yeah, he'd have eaten the court alive, one gummy bite at a time.

Garrison, Fremont, Nebraska

Mr. Brian Marsden, where do you live?

[quote]
Indeed there are warnings that if a conviction is contested, there is a risk that the fine and points will be increased for "wasting police time"[quote]

This is facism at it's purest form! If police hear ever threatened that, I would try to get it on an audio recording. That 'threat' alone is enough to have all charges dismissed. Contestion is your right, and they can not threaten you against it!

Corey, Minnesota, USA,

I'm afraid I have to take issue with the comment: "I’m really proud of him. He is a good citizen and he doesn’t like breaking the law. He wouldn’t dream of speeding.”

The subtext of this article reads Mr Ives was caught speeding and managed to find a hole in the Prosecution case. Should his wife's comment not read "He doesn't like breaking the law, but what he dislikes further is being caught!"

And as for the public interest test, does this decision not 'open the flood gates' and therefore invite others to attempt to get away with speeding or appeal their case at the expense of the taxpayer!

Louise, Leeds,

My husband and I recently successfully fought 2 cases of speeding. We asked for photos, close up photos, camera calibration details (they say it cannot be provided until the court hearing) etc. We provided evidence for them to prove we were not there at the time. (They refused to check it - we were told to go to the shop were we were and ask for the car park videos which would prove we were there at a certain time. The shop were, of course, unwilling to provide us with the video tapes). We were persistently BULLIED (no other word for it) by threating police letters telling us to pay up, or face further fines and punishment. In the end they decided to prosecute us because we could not/would not name the driver.

In the court hearing, the prosecution offered to try and get us off with the one lot of points/fine if we agreed that one of us was guilty for one offense. We refused.

Long story short, the judges ruled in our favour. What a waste of police time and effort.

A Wilkes, Worcester, UK

LTI20/20 is accurate up to 999.9m.
CPS say its not worth the bother?
The cost should/bother should not have been taken into account.
What about the shoplifter who only steals a pen worth £5, are they not going to bother?
What price is justice, just goes to show what a Crap Prosecution Service we have.
They only take on the easy ones.

John Harris, Wolverhampton,

It would be very interesting to know who was the manufacturer of the device was who offered Mr. Ives the advice under the FOI Act.

JB, Coventry,

Very interesting news indeed. Having been similarly convicted in north Wales for allegedly doing 35mph in a 30mph area - bang on the threshold - the camera would have to have been very accurately calibrated for them to be able to prove that speed without reasonable doubt. However - until now - I, like the vast majority, would have felt it pointless to contest the case. Indeed there are warnings that if a conviction is contested, there is a risk that the fine and points will be increased for "wasting police time". Now we know the way to proceed. First, demand complete details. Second, argue that the conviction is unsafe because the accuracy of the camera is not sufficient to prove that the speed was as high as stated. Just demanding details in every case (which is our right) would probably snarl up the system so much that it would grind to a halt. Then perhaps these people will spend their funds on real road safety issues.

Brian Marsden, Stockport,

I think Mr Ives needs a life.

starling, Lancaster,

I am fighting a case in Norfolk at this time. The distance was 745.4m. I'm convinced I was not doing the speed that the camera says I was but it's taken over 1 year so far and has still not even come to a court hearing! Please can someone tell me more about the information used by Mr Ives that the camera is only accurate up to 100m, as the camera manufacturers claim 610m at a minimum and some Partnership websites state 999.9m.

Note to Times journalist Michael Horsnell: I would be delighted to tell you more about my case and the behaviour of CPS towards me. Please contact me!

thanks!

Peter Ward, Warwick, UK

This is interesting indeed. A friend of mine had a similar situation back here in Toronto, Canada. He tried to appeal this case in court based on pics he took of the site, where he was tickted. He argued that speed gun data may not be accurate while clocking speeds around a curve. He decided to discontinue the case when he was told that those pics are not valid since they were taken a day after the incident.

May be, he should have pursued this angle of distance and would have won. Sure to let him know about it.

Le0

Leo, Toronto, Canada