Quick question regarding Speed Camera vans

[renegadeimp]

A woman i work with called me this morning to tell me that she thinks(knows) she was caught by a speed camera van doing 50 in a 40 mph area this morning on her way in. The area is not residential and is fields on one side and a van sales garage on the other.

 

The reason for posting is she has asked me, but im not too sure, if/when she gets a speeding ticket through the post about this offence, will it be treated the same as a ticket from the police/courts and would she have to declare it on any future insurance applications? I ask because with some traffic stops by police themselves, i notice how they get a simple ticket, but the officers state that it doesnt have to be declared. It's more or less a slap on the wrist and "dont be naughty". Only if its not paid will it then be sent to court and be declarable.

 

 

I told her i would ask here for advice, as she's pretty concerned about it.

 

 

Edit: She has every intention of paying the ticket amount if/when she gets it, she just wants to know if a momentary lapse in concentration on her way to work will cost her years of increased premiums?

Edited January 13, 2013 by renegadeimp

[renegadeimp]

The road in question is the A5104 and goes from 30 near Saltney Ferry Road, to 50 until you reach the "slow" markers on the road, where there is now a 40mph limit and sign in place until the roundabout (Google maps is almost 4 years out of date). The camera van was located at the bus stop at the junction with Bretton lane.

[scoobied]

If she was caught by the camera van she'll get points and a fine that will HAVE to be declared to insurers. If she's lucky she may get offer of a speed course which costs roughly same as fine and doesn't come with points. That doesn't need to be declared. Most insurers won't be too concerned with 3 points but may increase premium by a few quid unless she's recently passed test and is fairly young in which case it'll be a bit more.....

[renegadeimp]

I have a bit more info off her, and some conflicting info reading around various sites.

 

The front of the van was facing her, with the blacked out windows facing away in the direction she was going. Some sites say that they only catch speeding vehicles travelling towards the rear of the van, and not the ones that were driving towards it in the opposite direction. How accurate is this info?

[scoobied]

Not a clue regarding direction of travel - but she'll know one way or another in 21 WORKING days from date of offence. If no fine by then she's ok

[renegadeimp]

I thought it was 14 days? Well, not exactly 14, but they had to send the NIP or whatever its called now and show that by all reasonable methods it would have been delivered in 14.

[scoobied]

Could be 14, I thought 21 but always willing to learn. However usually turns up in less than a week

[renegadeimp]

Thats cool. I'll pass along the info. Thanks. The funny thing is, she's a good driver too. Never speeds either. She was probably just going by the road conditions and this time her speed crept up. But as they say, all it takes is one error of judgement.

[Aretnap]

NIP must be served (ie delivered) within 14 days. If it's posted in good time but arrives late due to a postal delay the offence cannot be prosecuted - Gidden refers (assuming it was sent by first class post, as most are). The catch is that in that situation the onus is on the defence to prove that it arrived late.

 

Some vans only have cameras pointing out of the back door, others are adapted so you can point a camera out of the front as well. Time will tell whether this one saw her.

 

Any policeman who told you that you don't have to declare a speeding penalty to your insurers was talking rubbish. Possibly you're thinking of endorsable offences (ie those which attract penalty points) vs non-endorseable ones. Speeding is an endorsable offence and a conviction (whether by way of court or a fixed penalty) will always have to be declared to insurers. Some offences (eg broken lights, no MOT, no seatbelt) are non-endorseable and while in theory there's no reason why insurers couldn't ask for details of those tickets, in practice they only tend to be interested in endorseable ones.

 

That said, if she was only 10mph over the speed limit or so, and this wasn't in Scotland, she will likely be offered a speed awareness course instead of a fixed penalty. This would cost her a few hours of her time, but it would avoid points on her licence, and it doesn't count as a conviction and most insurers won't require her to declare them - though a few (Admiral spring to mind) do so she should check the small print of her policy carefully.

[belfast4]

just for information the speed awareness course that can be offered instead of 3 points and a £60 fine costs £86.95. it is a 4 hour course sitting listening to someone telling you why you should not be speeding.

[MaisyMouse]

The funny thing is, she's a good driver too. Never speeds either.

 

She should see a solicitor then as there is something definitely wrong.

[renegadeimp]

She should see a solicitor then as there is something definitely wrong.

 

She was the one that told me she thinks she was doing 50 in a 40 zone. Thats why she asked me if i knew how the camera vans worked. She has no problem if she got caught. She's a very fair and down to earth woman who wont lie. She just wants to know IF she got caught. I know none of us know for sure, but more-so the chances that she got caught by one of the GoSafe vans. Hence my reason for asking about the direction they faced.

 

Again, the van was facing towards her on her side of the road, with the camera window facing her direction of travel. I'm fairly sure she did get caught, she just wants to be sure, so she can expect the letter and deal with it promptly.

[crem]

The police would normally apply the ACPO guidelines of 10% plus 2 before procecuting, I think the vans are supposed to use this too but I have heard of many people being procecuted for smaller transgressions! 40 limit would mean procecution wouldn't come in till 46mph. If she is right that her speedo was showing 50mph, then her true speed would be 46 - 47mph. This puts her at the borderline ofr procecution.

 

I'm afraid all she can really do is wait the 14 days now. (assuning the V5 is in her name and address?)

[renegadeimp]

Yea, its all in her name. She was the one who called me saying that she thinks she was caught as she looked at her speedo and it said 50. As i said, she's a good woman, if she did speed, then i know she'll take it in her stride. The reason she was asking me to find out, is her husband is pretty ill right now, so she wants to make sure its dealt with as far as possible so he doesnt have to worry about it.

[ericsbrother]

You may be fretting over nothing. These vans are more commonly doing ANPR surveillance than speeding, they want the speed traps to be visible as a warning/deterrent and almost always have a police car/motorcycle further up the road to do an on-the spot ticket and telling off. However, your car may now be recorded on their computer as being one to watch for speeding so getting cought twice may get you a ticket through the post.

[renegadeimp]

Like i already stated, she's willing and ready to admit it if/when she gets the ticket. She just wants to know the chance of being sent a NiP, so she can get it and pay it/do the awareness course before her husband sees it. As i said before, her husband isnt well at all and is due to have surgery in the next couple of weeks, so she wants to catch it and avoid any stress to him. Her husband hs always been the kind of person that worries about police presence etc, due to some incident a LONG time ago when he was a teenager.

[Aretnap]

You may be fretting over nothing. These vans are more commonly doing ANPR surveillance than speeding, they want the speed traps to be visible as a warning/deterrent and almost always have a police car/motorcycle further up the road to do an on-the spot ticket and telling off. However, your car may now be recorded on their computer as being one to watch for speeding so getting cought twice may get you a ticket through the post.

Eh? A speed camera van will almost never be associated with a stop - you'll get a postal NIP from them. An ANPR van looking for insurance/tax dodgers may have a couple of uniformed plods stopping miscreants up the road though. And Either the van recorded her speed or didn't. If it did she'll get a NIP. If it didn't how are they going to know to record her on their computer? And in any event a computer record of cars to watch for speeding would achive? Do you think when the van operator sees a car coming towards him he punches the reg number into his computer to see if he should point his speed gun at it?

 

Of is this a variant of the "you don't get a NIP the first time you get caught" myth? If so, file it alongside "you can't get pregnant the first time".

[ericsbrother]

No, it is from knowing the difference between the 2 vehicles and what they do. A spot just down the road from where I live is one of the most common haunts for the ANPR van in the country and for good reason but rarely have other police vehicles nearby unless they are doing a high profile operation like a tax disc dodgers day. However, the speed trap vans are differently marked and have motorcyclists pull over the miscreants (like my daughter). Things may be different in other constabularies but here on the Met/Surrey borders it is rare to get just a letter through the post other than from a hand held device operated by 1 copper and a couple of PCSO's to take down numbers.

[crem]

I have never known the speed safety van (sic) work in tandem with police vehicles. As far as I knew these vans always just zapped you, then you get a FPN next week. Why would they need the offending vehicle to be stopped at the time?

[renegadeimp]

Just a quick update. Saw her this morning and she hasnt had anything at all regarding the speeding. She's going to take this as she's been very lucky and she's watching her speed all the time now.

 

She decided to tell her husband about it, and he's been really calm about it. He was more concerned that she didnt tell him in the first place, as he doesnt like secrets between them.

[sgtbush]

it was more likely an ANPR doing insurance/tax/MOT statuses on cars

[renegadeimp]

Very likely. But it pays to be wary. Especially where North Wales Police are concerned.