Any lawyers on here?

[Andre]

Your also aloud to see that officers training record the maintaince and calibration record of the camera equipment and the Corroboration of all of those records .
And all the people involved in those records ect can be called as witnesses to prove they have all of these paper records .
So the person looking at the camera and there training record .
The person in charge of that person's training and thier qualification to oversee the training.
The person calibrating the equipment and thier training record .
The person who coborated the calibration of the equipment and there training record.
The calibration certificate and calibration records.
The person who keeps all these records and thier training record up make sure everything is done correctly.
The person who is in charge if the notice of intent to prosecute paper work and their training records and finally the person in charge of the person who deals with the training of that person.
My lawyer had questions for all these people and they weren't at court so thier evidence couldn't be cross reference so not acceptable by the court .
There are many other things that the prosecution get wrong but yet are the start of my defence .

Yes, the law is complicated

A good thing if you have the money or insurance to fight... and a good lawyer.

[mikesaa309]

There are lots of other things the prosecution gets wrong including not sending any witnesses to court .
The whole system is really set up to have people plead guilty by post and admit things with out being proved to be at fault even if you are at fault .

To true they've even kindly put on the paperwork that if I plead guilty I get a whopping 30% fines  Just to make it seem more tempting to enter a guilty plea. I'm not condoning speeding but it's one of the few offences where the punishment doesn't fit the crime. If you get caught speeding you risk losing licence, therefore potentially job, insurance premiums go up and costs a fair amount in fines too, all for doing something that quite frankly isn't that dangerous providing it's in the right place and time. Doing nearly 70 in a 40 on a town road is far more dangerous than doing 70 in a 40 on a dual carriageway where it's not near the road works. Guess though can't really prove you're capable of reacting quick enough or that you're alert enough to be speeding. I think Germany have got it right with the speeds on the autobahn. There's advisory speed limits in place but it's not illegal to exceed them, however if you're in a crash and found to be exceeding the advised limits then you're at fault iirc. This sort of system should be in place everywhere.

[Mick_J]

Something else to consider.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-spends-30000-childrens-inheritance-20192681

[mikesaa309]

yep no guarantee that you'd win a case and then you'd lose out on thousands in legal fees. My other concern in insurance. Even if I get points it's going to massively increase insurance premium let alone disqualification. 

[Taniwha]

google Brynmor Carlyon -

I did. Poor unlucky bastard. But good on him for putting it back on those pricks. Shame you can't claim expenses from the crown.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2006/feb/05/motoring.shopping

[Batkwaka]

I beat this speed camera photo because there is a wheel of a second vehicle in the target box frame. Police took it to court for a trial date because nobody can fight speed traffic cameras, they dropped the case after I told them "I'll be back".
Fight them in court, at the very least it cost them more money and used their resources to tax the roads.