unclear speed camera photo

mondeo

Hey,

Relation had a speeding fine sent to their house this morning. The problem is
that one of the digits on the reg plate is unreadable. For example say your car has the reg "03 ww 691" (from top of my head)... The 9 is unreadable in the image due to dirt on the plate, the 9 could easily be a 3 or even an 8 but she still recieved the fine..
I'm pretty sure this can be struck out due to unclear photo evidence even if it was her car and to be honest it probably was as it is same make and model etc.

Does the plate have to be 100% clear prior to a conviction? even if the missing digit is obvious if you done a search on the revenue database...
Seeking a solicitor for advice on this one. Any views? I think it would be
an interesting case to follow up...She does not deny it is her car but under a technicality she may escape this one. Could easily be a car with a false plate etc etc.

Clare_Guy

if she does not deny it's her car, what's the point? she'd have to deny it was her car for there to be any case!...

"ah... yes judge that's me in my car speeding but it's a bad photo... look at it... that 9 could be a 3 or anything!"????


"4 points and €150 euro fine. Next Case..."

Yakult

Is it her car? as in same model and same reg?(bar the "9" been hard to pick out)

Imo she broke the law, she should pay the consequences instead of trying to find a loophole out of it.

mondeo

It is the same make and model of car. She says it probably was her but she is not signing her name to anything...At least not yet anyways. 67 in a 60 zone. Hardly hardcore speeding there now...:rolleyes:

Clare_Guy

mondeo wrote: »

It is the same make and model of car. She says it probably was her but she is not signing her name to anything...At least not yet anyways. 67 in a 60 zone. Hardly hardcore speeding there now...:rolleyes:

simply return it to the sender by registered post saying it's not her car. let them sort out the mess.

mondeo

Clare_Guy wrote: »

simply return it to the sender by registered post saying it's not her car.

I think thats her leed right now. She's a hard women to pin anything on.
She is one of those who can talk her way out of a room with no doors.:pac:

Clare_Guy

mondeo wrote: »

I think thats her leed right now. She's a hard women to pin anything on.
She is one of those who can talk her way out of a room with no doors.:pac:

she doesn't have to "talk her way" out of anything. if the picture is as unclear as you say all she has to say is, "that's not my car"

mondeo

Clare_Guy wrote: »

she doesn't have to "talk her way" out of anything. if the picture is as unclear as you say all she has to say is, "that's not my car"

Okie I'll tell her that. Thanks

Bobo78

I d recommend her to send that back to them and to deny about that being her car.

eringobragh

make a copy before its sent back incase it goes to court and there no physical evidence available

Clare_Guy

eringobragh wrote: »

make a copy before its sent back incase it goes to court and there no physical evidence available

if there's no "physical evidence" how can they take her to court?

Clare_Guy

mondeo wrote: »

Okie I'll tell her that. Thanks

let us know how she gets on...?

biko

So it worked then?

atlantean

mondeo wrote: »

that one of the digits on the reg plate is unreadable. For example say your car has the reg "03 ww 691" (from top of my head)... The 9 is unreadable in the image due to dirt on the plate, the 9 could easily be a 3 or even an 8 but she still recieved the fine..
I'm pretty sure this can be

I see where you are coming from but there is a possibility that even with a missing digit they can identify the car. Using your example 03 WW 691 is a red Ford Fusion. How many other cars with the reg number 03 WW 6-1 are red Ford Fusions? None I would imagine so through a process of elimination the powers that be came up with this car.

Dampsquid

Well if its unreadable, then how did they work out it was her car?
They may have a much better quality photo of the car speeding. Why not just pay the fine and forget about it.

Why go to a solictor, would it not be cheaper to just pay up.

She may also get done for not having her reg plate 100% visible.

Clare_Guy

atlantean wrote: »

I see where you are coming from but there is a possibility that even with a missing digit they can identify the car. Using your example 03 WW 691 is a red Ford Fusion. How many other cars with the reg number 03 WW 6-1 are red Ford Fusions? None I would imagine so through a process of elimination the powers that be came up with this car.

for one thing, the pictures are black & white, secondly, this is ireland, nothing works as efficiently as it should, according to posters on other threads it takes months to process when they have all the evidence they need. they've only got 6 months to convict you. delay, delay, delay. take your chances. if all else fails get relative or friend to take the points for you...

atlantean

mondeo wrote: »

The problem is
that one of the digits on the reg plate is unreadable.

Dampsquid wrote: »

Well if its unreadable, then how did they work out it was her car?

It is only one digit that is not readable so all they need to do is check 10 reg plates to pick the matching car !

alias no.9

Unless she has an extremely common make and model, she should just send back the fine and her license number and save herself the hassle and expense of court. A partial reg combined with make, model and colour will give a positive identification in most cases. It's unlikely that another car that is the same make, model and colour to share all but one digit of a registration. All that is required to discount that possibility is a list of the nine other cars that share all but the obscured digit. How do you think she got the summons in the first place. She may as well be arguing that somebody else must have been driving a different car on false plates.
The other thing to consider is the fact that fixed speed cameras take two photos and gatso vans have a video camera in the front of the van to catch the rear registration plates of motorbikes. Would she still be confident of getting away with it knowing that there is either a second photograph or video clip in the posession of the gardai?

atlantean

Clare_Guy wrote: »

if all else fails get relative or friend to take the points for you...

You have nice relatives and friends - none of mine would do that for me!

Clare_Guy

Dampsquid wrote: »

Well if its unreadable, then how did they work out it was her car?

someone in the dept. processed it, if it's questionable it'll get thrown out.

Dampsquid wrote: »

They may have a much better quality photo of the car speeding.

they send you an exact copy of the only photo

Dampsquid wrote: »

Why not just pay the fine and forget about it.
Why go to a solictor, would it not be cheaper to just pay up.

eh... points.

Dampsquid wrote: »

She may also get done for not having her reg plate 100% visible.

remind us... what is the law against a dirty number-plate?

JohnDigital

Clare_Guy wrote: »

for one thing, the pictures are black & white.

The pictures they send may be B&W, but i'd imagine original image that they have is colour.

miju

I'd suggest going to court trying to lie to the judge and then looking a complete tool (not to mention other possible charges) when the Garda whip out the FULL PICTURE showing the driver. It's easy to compare regs in the NVDB against models as well.


The fine just zooms in on the reg FFS :rolleyes: So just pay up and stop trying to weasel out of it. Their not special , they broke the law and have to pay the penalty like everyone else.

Clare_Guy

atlantean wrote: »

You have nice relatives and friends - none of mine would do that for me!

someone outside of the jurisdiction perhaps?!!... :rolleyes:

Clare_Guy

JohnDigital wrote: »

The pictures they send may be B&W, but i'd imagine original image that they have is colour.

you'd imagine wrong...

Our man in Havana

They are wise to that old trick.

Clare_Guy

miju wrote: »

I'd suggest going to court trying to lie to the judge and then looking a complete tool (not to mention other possible charges) when the Garda whip out the FULL PICTURE showing the driver. It's easy to compare regs in the NVDB against models as well.

it's not Matlock or LA Law, the gardai will not have some "secret" evidence they'll spring in court to catch you out... :rolleyes:

you'd imagine it'd be easy compare stuff against other stuff but the reality is, the system is not that efficient...

Clare_Guy

Bond-007 wrote: »

They are wise to that old trick.

sure, they know about it, truth is, at the moment, as the law stands, they can't do anything to you if someone else is "driving" your car!

Our man in Havana

Clare_Guy wrote: »

sure, they know about it, truth is, at the moment, as the law stands, they can't do anything to you if someone else is "driving" your car!

They may ask for proof that Mr. A Frenchman of 1 Rue de Chancers, Paris was driving.

Balfa

It's an interesting topic all the same. Aside from trying to weasel out of something you know is probably your fault, and assuming there's no secret evidence, I'd still like to know the legality of charging someone with a partial plate, and if the process of elimination is actually valid in court?

miju

Clare_Guy wrote: »

it's not Matlock or LA Law, the gardai will not have some "secret" evidence they'll spring in court to catch you out... :rolleyes:

well the reality is also that your wrong. they do have a full sized photo of the whole car and the driver.

Clare_Guy wrote: »

you'd imagine it'd be easy compare stuff against other stuff but the reality is, the system is not that efficient...

again the reality is your very wrong. it's actually very easy to pull of all different types of info from the NVDB especially when the reg is only going to be a varying 10 numbers at max :rolleyes:

Clare_Guy

Bond-007 wrote: »

They may ask for proof that Mr. A Frenchman of 1 Rue de Chancers, Paris was driving.

they'll ask Mr. A Frenchman...

What happens if someone else was driving my vehicle?

In cases where the driving offence was detected by camera, the fixed charge notice is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. If the registered owner was not driving at the time of the offence they should complete the form attached to the notice, giving details of the person who was driving. This should then be returned to the relevant Garda Station with the original fixed charge notice. (Do not enclose payment). The Gardaí will then issue a fixed charge notice to the driver.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/travel-and-recreation/motoring-1/driving-offences/penalty-points-for-driving-offences

Our man in Havana

Clare_Guy wrote: »

they'll ask Mr. A Frenchman...

What happens if someone else was driving my vehicle?

In cases where the driving offence was detected by camera, the fixed charge notice is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. If the registered owner was not driving at the time of the offence they should complete the form attached to the notice, giving details of the person who was driving. This should then be returned to the relevant Garda Station with the original fixed charge notice. (Do not enclose payment). The Gardaí will then issue a fixed charge notice to the driver.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/travel-and-recreation/motoring-1/driving-offences/penalty-points-for-driving-offences

Of course when the letter addressed to Mr A Frenchman is returned to the Gardaí undelivered or he denys driving the fun will start.

Clare_Guy

miju wrote: »

well the reality is also that your wrong. they do have a full sized photo of the whole car and the driver.

i'm afraid i'm not wrong, i've been in court in a similar situation and i've seen the gardai's evidence, it's exactly the same.

miju wrote: »

again the reality is your very wrong. it's actually very easy to pull of all different types of info from the NVDB especially when the reg is only going to be a varying 10 numbers at max :rolleyes:

again i'm not wrong, i'm not questioning whether it's easy to get this info from a database, the reality is, the prosecuting garda will not go to those lengths...

Clare_Guy

Bond-007 wrote: »

Of course when the letter addressed to Mr A Frenchman is returned to the Gardaí undelivered or he denys driving the fun will start.

the fun will be between frenchie and the dept. of justice...

mondeo

Did I read somthing before that in the UK if a the reg plate is not clear on the original photo that it cannot be pursued by other means to find the culprit?
The original data is the only thing that can be used in court etc etc...
Then again we live in ireland, if a garda says it's you then it's YOU! no questions no quibbling.....

I will post back here and let ye know what route she takes. If it were me I'd
deny it's me.

I was unaware that mobile camera vans took pictures from the front of the van also? I assumed it was just from the rear in which they were taken...
The front of her car was caught on the N81. Maybe they have a rear picture of her car also since they record from the front of the van too?

Clare_Guy

mondeo wrote: »

Did I read somthing before that in the UK if a the reg plate is not clear on the original photo that it cannot be pursued by other means to find the culprit?
The original data is the only thing that can be used in court etc etc...
Then again we live in ireland, if a garda says it's you then it's YOU! no questions no quibbling.....

I will post back here and let ye know what route she takes. If it were me I'd
deny it's me.

I was unaware that mobile camera vans took pictures from the front of the van also? I assumed it was just from the rear in which they were taken...
The front of her car was caught on the N81. Maybe they have a rear picture of her car also since they record from the front of the van too?

if they had 2 pictures (front and back) they'd send copies of both. this really is very simple. if it's questionable what number is shown, question it. what's the worst that could happen? there are no laws against questioning this. if they have a rock-solid case they'll let her know in uncertain terms and she'll be in exactly the same position that she is today, she'll be able pay her fine and take the points.

miju

Clare_Guy wrote: »

i'm afraid i'm not wrong, i've been in court in a similar situation and i've seen the gardai's evidence, it's exactly the same.

You can think what you like but you are very wrong. Specifically the photo is taken at a distance either from the GATSO or fixed camera. The photo shows the full car and the driver clearly. The photo is then cropped , zoomed and rasterised to see the reg even clearer if memory serves me correctly.

Clare_Guy wrote: »

again i'm not wrong, i'm not questioning whether it's easy to get this info from a database, the reality is, the prosecuting garda will not go to those lengths...

Your wrong again as anyone who works in a motor tax office will tell you but believe what you like.

Clare_Guy

miju wrote: »

You can think what you like but you are very wrong. Specifically the photo is taken at a distance either from the GATSO or fixed camera. The photo shows the full car and the driver clearly. The photo is then cropped , zoomed and rasterised to see the reg even clearer if memory serves me correctly.

seriously, i've been in court in a very similar situation, i've seen the picture the garda has in court, it's the exact same as the notification they send the "defendant".

miju wrote: »

Your wrong again as anyone who works in a motor tax office will tell you but believe what you like.

i'm not questioning whether the information exists and in a higher profile case where they were building a block of evidence i'm sure they would access it but the reality is, in traffic offences where it's a traffic camera evidence, the notifications are sent out from a processing office and the ones that end up in court are plonked on some random garda's lap to attend in court with. if something is questioned the case may get adjorned to another date and the garda could go and search out additional evidence but the simple fact is, because of work-load and lack of connection with the case the garda simply won't search for that evidence. i have experience of this.

atlantean

mondeo wrote: »

The original data is the only thing that can be used in court etc etc...

This could still be used against you. Using your example 03WW691. If the 9 is missing but the car is a Ford Fusion all they need to do is look up the other numbers.

601 is a Kia Sedona
611 is a Nissan Primers
621 is a Audi A4
631 is a DAF CF85
641 is a Relault Megan Scenic
651 is a VW Van
661 is a Toyota Dyna
671 is a Hyundai Santa Fe
681 is a VW Polo

Quite easy to tell from a photo that none of the above look anything like a Ford Fusion.

I am assuming the number given was not the actual number of the car so there is an element of a chance that another car of the same make, colour and model could be in the list but I would not like to bet on it!

alias no.9

mondeo wrote: »

I was unaware that mobile camera vans took pictures from the front of the van also? I assumed it was just from the rear in which they were taken...
The front of her car was caught on the N81. Maybe they have a rear picture of her car also since they record from the front of the van too?

Take a look the next time you pass one, there is a video camera sitting on the dashboard.

Clare_Guy wrote: »

if they had 2 pictures (front and back) they'd send copies of both. this really is very simple. if it's questionable what number is shown, question it. what's the worst that could happen? there are no laws against questioning this. if they have a rock-solid case they'll let her know in uncertain terms and she'll be in exactly the same position that she is today, she'll be able pay her fine and take the points.

Fixed cameras take two photos (two flashes in the rear view mirror) to show the change in position of the car over a fixed period of time as they pass the graduated road markings, verifying the speed and identifying the faster of two cars if a second one is passing at the same time. The vans have a video camera in the front as well as the camera in the back, specifically for motorcycles, which can't be identified from the front, but it's running all the time so no doubt it could be used to verify the rear registration plate. Miju is also correct in his assertion that a larger picture of the car that shows the driver is taken by the vans.

mondeo

atlantean wrote: »

This could still be used against you. Using your example 03WW691. If the 9 is missing but the car is a Ford Fusion all they need to do is look up the other numbers.

601 is a Kia Sedona
611 is a Nissan Primers
621 is a Audi A4
631 is a DAF CF85
641 is a Relault Megan Scenic
651 is a VW Van
661 is a Toyota Dyna
671 is a Hyundai Santa Fe
681 is a VW Polo

Quite easy to tell from a photo that none of the above look anything like a Ford Fusion.

I am assuming the number given was not the actual number of the car so there is an element of a chance that another car of the same make, colour and model could be in the list but I would not like to bet on it!

Yes the number I gave was just from the top of my head.. I agree with you that she may be forced to except it. As someone stated earlier it is no harm in questioning the system on this one.

atlantean

mondeo wrote: »

As someone stated earlier it is no harm in questioning the system on this one.

Absolutely

alias no.9

mondeo wrote: »

Yes the number I gave was just from the top of my head.. I agree with you that she may be forced to except it. As someone stated earlier it is no harm in questioning the system on this one.

The worst that could happen would be for her to be done for perjury or contempt of court, not to mind the two extra penalty points and bigger fine.

miju

Clare_Guy wrote: »

seriously, i've been in court in a very similar situation, i've seen the picture the garda has in court, it's the exact same as the notification they send the "defendant".

well i've also seen them when they are being processed so go figure

alias no.9 wrote: »

Miju is also correct in his assertion that a larger picture of the car that shows the driver is taken by the vans.

cheers for confirming what I already knew alias no.9 ;););););)

Eru

Clare_Guy wrote: »

again i'm not wrong, i'm not questioning whether it's easy to get this info from a database, the reality is, the prosecuting garda will not go to those lengths...

What Garda? Its the penalty points office that prosecute these cases. The tax office sends owner information automatically and voila, the information is in the court.

Like its been said, all a Garda need do is ask the motor tax office for registration print out for all possible matches which is less than 10. That will take all of 1 minute, you then hand that into the court with the photo and the judge slaps an increased fine and points on you then the Garda prosecutes you for perjury just because you called him a liar under oath.

Clare_Guy wrote: »

the fun will be between frenchie and the dept. of justice...

Check the law again, if he fails to accept the ticket or its returned it reverts back to the owner of the vehicle. You could also be prosecuted for making a false declaration if the person doesnt exist or he states that he never drove the car.

You honestly think your the first person that has looked for a loophole and an easy way out?

Clare_Guy

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

What Garda? Its the penalty points office that prosecute these cases. The tax office sends owner information automatically and voila, the information is in the court.

Like its been said, all a Garda need do is ask the motor tax office for registration print out for all possible matches which is less than 10. That will take all of 1 minute, you then hand that into the court with the photo and the judge slaps an increased fine and points on you then the Garda prosecutes you for perjury just because you called him a liar under oath.

in court it is a named garda who is giving evidence on behalf of the D.P.P. against you not a "penalty points office". For the last time, i agree, it is easy for the garda to get the required info but the reality is, he will not. If you deny it is your car you are not calling the garda a liar. It is your word against his.

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Check the law again, if he fails to accept the ticket or its returned it reverts back to the owner of the vehicle. You could also be prosecuted for making a false declaration if the person doesnt exist or he states that he never drove the car.

You honestly think your the first person that has looked for a loophole and an easy way out?

I never suggested giving some random name, i suggested that some kind-hearted friend or relative, perhaps living outside the jurisdiction (someone else suggested "Mr. A. Frenchman), would accept the points on your behalf. Read the posts.

Marcus.Aurelius

I have indeed checked some registrations with an unclear digit, and found the correct car by comparing the possibilites with the car make.

OP, I seriously doubt the ticket was 67 in a 60 zone, that's ridiculous.

Mr. Presentable

Not content with speeding, she wants to lie about it being her. She should challenge it!

And take the doubles she has coming to her.

mondeo

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

I have indeed checked some registrations with an unclear digit, and found the correct car by comparing the possibilites with the car make.

OP, I seriously doubt the ticket was 67 in a 60 zone, that's ridiculous.

Your right it is rediculous...

Savman

Well it certainly didn't take the Motors forum long to descend back into this crap again. The OP or whoever it was who received the fine is well within their rights to contest the issue.

Personally I absolutely hate this "you broke the law scumbag" crap that people come out with. Questioning a fairly questionable issue is not calling anybody a liar.

It's entirely up to the person involved to decide whether to follow it up, asking on here is always gonna attract the high horse brigade who are seemingly always waiting to pounce :rolleyes:

I guess it boils down to 2 groups, the camp that would chase the issue themselves and those who say they wouldn't. OP, take each opinion at face value and make up your own mind.

TheNog

Savman wrote: »

Well it certainly didn't take the Motors forum long to descend back into this crap again. The OP or whoever it was who received the fine is well within their rights to contest the issue.

No one siad the OP relative doesn't have the right to challenge it.

Savman wrote: »

Personally I absolutely hate this "you broke the law scumbag" crap that people come out with. Questioning a fairly questionable issue is not calling anybody a liar.

It's entirely up to the person involved to decide whether to follow it up, asking on here is always gonna attract the high horse brigade who are seemingly always waiting to pounce :rolleyes:

I guess it boils down to 2 groups, the camp that would chase the issue themselves and those who say they wouldn't. OP, take each opinion at face value and make up your own mind.

Again no one called the OPs relative a scumbag and as far as I can see no one got onto any high horse except you. The relative has the right to challenge it but people are just giving their opinion on how she could be caught out. Simple as. No need to be junping down anyones neck over it.