Speeding fine. Car was in driveway

goz83

I just got a speeding fine from a week ago. Says I was doing 63 in 50 zone near 10pm. I do drive the road in question, but i'm fairly sure that on the night in question, I was at home with the wife and my car parked outside.

Also the quality if the image is pretty poor. There reg number is 8 digits and 7 of them are clear enough, but one digit seems to be wrong. I have two number 9 digits next to each other on the reg 03-D-XX99X, but the registration seems to be 03-D-XX39X. The number 3 before the 9 looks exactly like the the number 3 in the in the 03D part.

I tried searching the NCTS site for the registration I think it is, but I am not getting any results. Not sure what to do with this.

Here is a scan of the image on the FPN. I have blocked the rest of the reg number. As you can see (or not) it is a poor image.

Del2005

Request the full picture and see if it's the same reg, you could have been cloned.

How are your privacy settings on your phone? I know with Google I can see all the journeys I've made.

Mickeroo

Looks like 99 to me.

Atlantic Dawn

Have you a number plate surround from the dealer or does that one have one? Might be easier to differentiate by that.

me_irl

Just threw down the contrast and up the brightness and it's definitely two 9's. But sure do as Del2005 says.

goz83

Hmmm. The so called 9 looks exactly like the 3 though. It's harder to see on the image I posted above, but you can see the indent in the the number 3 and the right side of the actual 9 is just a straight line with no indent. I'm wracking my brains here now, because I am pretty sure I was not out. Monday is a hectic day for my wife at work and we generally stay home on Mondays, which is why I am questioning it. If I am mistaken, then I will take the slap on the wrist and pay up.



I just took this picture now for comparison

honda boi

To me it looks like 39.
That's just my crappy vision

Gavinz

It looks like 39 to me. But sure, it's your job to convince them.

Triangle

Looks like 39 to me too - there's a light patch on the top left of the first of the two digits. Makes it look like a 3.

goz83

I have sent an email to them to look into it.

What also has me questioning it...is that I would have remembered seeing a speed van flashing me (if a flash was used). I would hazard a guess that the road in question (malahide road) at that time would be quiet of a Monday evening.

goldenhoarde

get on to them for the full image and see what that looks like

Also check out the reg you think it is on cartel.ie https://www.cartell.ie/ to see if

a) it exists
b) make and colour

These details may help when you have the full image or at least have you rethink that opps it may have been me if the reg doesn't exist.

colm_mcm

Looks like 99 to me.

goz83

The registration number I believe it is, does exist. It's a rover, but I don't see the colour on the cartell report. Also, when I check the NCT site, it says the car is scrapped, so i'm at a loss.

goz83

What if the missus was driving it? If she was, do I just fill in the nomination part? Does she have to submit anything else (insurance, or anything)? I'm 99% sure I wasn't driving. If she was, it's under her drive other cars extension.

Mervyn Skidmore

Looks like 99 but I don't see a flake so maybe it is 39.

mgbgt1978

goz83 wrote: »

What also has me questioning it...is that I would have remembered seeing a speed van flashing me (if a flash was used). I would hazard a guess that the road in question (malahide road) at that time would be quiet of a Monday evening.

They don't Flash. It's an infra-red system.

goz83 wrote: »

What if the missus was driving it? If she was, do I just fill in the nomination part? Does she have to submit anything else (insurance, or anything)? I'm 99% sure I wasn't driving. If she was, it's under her drive other cars extension.

If you want to nominate herself just fill out the "nomination" section and send it off. You will get a letter stating that you are no longer being prosecuted for the offence and she will get the same letter that you have at the moment.
Personally I would request the full picture if i was unsure about the Reg. If it looks like your car in the photo then it probably was one of you driving. It will probably be almost impossible to make out the face of the driver though, especially with a night shot.


edit; If you do go down the nominate route, don't worry too much about it. At the end of the day 'they' really don't care too much as long as somebody pays the fine and receives the points. They won't look for Insurance details, etc. just the Driving licence no.

_Kaiser_

I thought it was 99 first but on looking at me_irl's one it could be a 39 alright.

Your dealer surround though should help clear it up if you get a full/better pic from them.

H3llR4iser

I've seen that speed van on last Monday, around 9.30ish pm; Luckily I was in a taxi. Something that is important, however...the van was parked absolutely like sh1te, hanging halfway into the road...if you drove past it, you most likely had to quite literally "go around" it, so there's no way you wouldn't notice it was there. You might have realized it was there after it snapped you, but you'd 100% know it was there...

It's either a wrong reg / cloned car, or it was the wife and she doesn't "remember"

joujoujou

It looks like 39.

goz83

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I've seen that speed van on last Monday, around 9.30ish pm; Luckily I was in a taxi. Something that is important, however...the van was parked absolutely like sh1te, hanging halfway into the road...if you drove past it, you most likely had to quite literally "go around" it, so there's no way you wouldn't notice it was there. You might have realized it was there after it snapped you, but you'd 100% know it was there...

It's either a wrong reg / cloned car, or it was the wife and she doesn't "remember"

I genuinely don't think it was either of us. But based on what I have in front of me, if they insist that they are right, is it even worth fighting? I wouldn't want to end up getting convicted for the sake of €80 and 3 points. I have no points on my license.

It's a very unfair way to process fines. Pay up and get points...you're grand. Fight it and get a judge in a bad mood and get a conviction. :mad:

Plus it's a day out in court!

Isambard

It could be 39 but I wonder what are the odds of a car with such a similar number using a road you use regularly. You need the full photo to see what car it is.

Del2005

goz83 wrote: »

I genuinely don't think it was either of us. But based on what I have in front of me, if they insist that they are right, is it even worth fighting? I wouldn't want to end up getting convicted for the sake of €80 and 3 points. I have no points on my license.

It's a very unfair way to process fines. Pay up and get points...you're grand. Fight it and get a judge in a bad mood and get a conviction. :mad:

Plus it's a day out in court!

You can request the full picture which is usually clearer, they image they post out originally is a zoomed in part of the full picture. Makes you wonder what age the camera is if the resolution is that bad when zoomed in.

As for nominating someone else. I got caught by a camera on my brother's bike. He nominated me and I paid the fine and points, never asked for insurance or was I even licenced.

goz83

Isambard wrote: »

It could be 39 but I wonder what are the odds of a car with such a similar number using a road you use regularly. You need the full photo to see what car it is.

And that's the only thing has has me wondering. Although, it is a road used by many thousands of vehicles. I also don't use the road regularly. Maybe once, or twice a week. The time of it is also suspicious, because the latest I would be on the road is from about 9-9:15pm if I have gone to the gym for 8pm. It's also usually a Tuesday, or Thursday I would be on the road in the later evening.

It doesn't add up.

goz83

Del2005 wrote: »

You can request the full picture which is usually clearer, they image they post out originally is a zoomed in part of the full picture. Makes you wonder what age the camera is if the resolution is that bad when zoomed in.

As for nominating someone else. I got caught by a camera on my brother's bike. He nominated me and I paid the fine and points, never asked for insurance or was I even licenced.

The ask for the license number though

Tried calling them and just getting "the mailbox is full". No reply yet from email sent earlier. Will be seeking a proper photo.

MarkR

Do you have location services turned on in your phone? Your phone stores a LOT of information about you. May be able to tell you if you went out that night.

If you've an android phone, and it's one, try this.

https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?pb

Looks like a 39 to me. Had a similar incident a few years ago. Got a parking ticket from a town near where I live but I know I wasn't anywhere near there on that day, nor would I have parked there. On investigation we found the right colour but wrong make of car. They just dropped it when we pointed this out to them.

goz83

MarkR wrote: »

Do you have location services turned on in your phone? Your phone stores a LOT of information about you. May be able to tell you if you went out that night.

If you've an android phone, and it's one, try this.

https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?pb

I think I do have location services on. Apple though, not android

edited to add: Checked phone location history. Nothing at all from the 30th of Jan. It shows I was out on the 28th and the 31st of January. One was an early day time journey on the malahide end of the malahide road. The "speeding" is alleged to have been in the Donnycarney area.

SteM

Looks like 99 to me if I'm being honest.

Red Kev

Stuff like this is hilarious at times. is it 39 or 99 ? If whoever is responsible had actually decided on one type of font back in the day with clearly distinguishable numbers and letters, then we wouldn't have this problem. Follow that up with obligatory copying of all licences and log books of anybody who needs a new reg plate and we're half way there.

All that would be needed after that is making sure to fine those who go around with filthy, illegible number plates and enforce the whole lot (*laughs) and we'll have something called progress.

I just hate how bloody slack we are at something like this as I've been the victim of a hit and run, which put me about €1000 out of pocket. Camera was there, plate wasn't fully legible, so there was nothing that could be done.

Irony of ironies, the "illegal" German plates are the easiest ones to read.

me_irl

joujoujou wrote: »

It looks like 39.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o

It does actually! This is worse than the blue dress.

goz83

Well I finally got through and had a chat with a nice lady. I explained the situation. She said the print outs are poor quality, but the reg number is clear on her screen. That said.....they needed a specialist to confirm the car using the headlights :pac:

I checked the 2003 Rover 25 and funnily, the headlights are quite similar to an E200.

At first, she said she couldn't provide me with a full picture, but she said she got authorisation to send a picture, which I am happy to wait and receive.

I am pretty sure I wasn't driving on the night in question, because the timeline does not add up to me. I would remember as it was recent enough, as bad as my memory can sometimes be.

Will update when I can.

Del2005

goz83 wrote: »

The ask for the license number though

I had a restricted licence at the time

Del2005

goz83 wrote: »

Well I finally got through and had a chat with a nice lady. I explained the situation. She said the print outs are poor quality, but the reg number is clear on her screen. That said.....they needed a specialist to confirm the car using the headlights :pac:

I checked the 2003 Rover 25 and funnily, the headlights are quite similar to an E200.

At first, she said she couldn't provide me with a full picture, but she said she got authorisation to send a picture, which I am happy to wait and receive.

I am pretty sure I wasn't driving on the night in question, because the timeline does not add up to me. I would remember as it was recent enough, as bad as my memory can sometimes be.

Will update when I can.

Maybe it was because you called rather than posted the request. I got the full picture when I requested it, it was several years ago though.

Have you checked your better half's time line?

Clampdown

It's 100% a 99. You can tell by the stroke on the right side of the 9, goes straight down with no indent like the 3. True there is a gap on the left hand side that makes it resemble a 3, but if you compare the middle horizontal stroke in the first 3 you can see that the corresponding stroke in the questionable number extends much further to the left, presumably bc it then turns up to form a 9.

but you could still chance fighting it.

goz83

They must have broken a few speed limits to get the picture to me this morning

The image is TERRIBLE. It looks even more like a 3 in what they sent me and the picture of the car itself could indeed have been a Rover. I reckon if I fought this, I would win.

However, I was right that it wasn't me driving. I asked herself if we had been at the Gym on the evening in question and she reminded me that it was the evening she attended an academics meeting and that she was driving the car. So, at least now we know that it is my car in the photo and the points and fine will be accepted .......by the wife :pac:

If we were dishonest, it would be so easy to get this one written off. I do think the limit is stupidly low on that road though. Fish in a barrel comes to mind. 63 is hardly fast on a big road like that.

vectra

MarkR wrote: »

Do you have location services turned on in your phone? Your phone stores a LOT of information about you. May be able to tell you if you went out that night.

If you've an android phone, and it's one, try this.

https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?pb

:eek:

I just had a look there at mine
That is crazy

H3llR4iser

goz83 wrote: »

...she reminded me that it was the evening she attended an academics meeting and that she was driving the car...

H3llR4iser wrote: »

It's either a wrong reg / cloned car, or it was the wife and she doesn't "remember"

Ehrm...just sayin'

goz83 wrote: »

The image is TERRIBLE. It looks even more like a 3 in what they sent me and the picture of the car itself could indeed have been a Rover. I reckon if I fought this, I would win.

If the equipment is only capable of producing such bad quality pictures that the reg can't be read easily, especially in weather conditions that weren't challenging (no rain or fog), the suitability of it for the purpose has to be called in question: If the basics (image quality) aren't even there, what else is malfunctioning and/or poorly calibrated?

If it's one of the "private company" vans, the Garda or RSA should be asking a LOT of questions and absolutely demand they got their ****e together, or cancel the contract.

goz83 wrote: »

If we were dishonest, it would be so easy to get this one written off. I do think the limit is stupidly low on that road though. Fish in a barrel comes to mind. 63 is hardly fast on a big road like that.

Yeah, it's a built up area, residents associations and so on; frankly I'm expecting a proposal to bring the limit down to 30, as it is in fashion these days - I can see not only motorists but also users of the 15 and 27 Dublin Bus routes being very happy about that.

The extremely interesting part is that the Malahide road is the scene of a lot of misdemeanor during most of the day: private cars and vans regularly using the bus lane to skip traffic queues, motorists and cyclists breaking orange and red lights, buses pulling out without indicating, pedestrians darting on the road without checking trying to make it to said bus.
During all that, you never see a single van, Garda patrol or anything; Then, at 9-10 pm on a Monday, with low traffic and basically zero pedestrians to be flattened, suddenly the paladins of the 50kph zone come out

goz83

I think it's a private operator. It has the operators name on it (name of person). I'll upload a scan of the photo they sent. You'll see how bad it is.

goz83

I haven't covered any part of the image.

GBX

That's a woeful image.

tanko

That's a joke of an image, I'd take my chances in court with that.

professore

Looks like the guy was using his old Samsung Galaxy S2 without a flash.

TherapyBoy

I'm a believer in taking your punishment, if I was speeding then I accept the fine & points but that image is absolutely ridiculous. How did they even get a valid reg plate number from it? It could be my car based on that photo! If it was me I'd be seriously considering contesting it. They must have a clearer image than that.

goz83

professore wrote: »

Looks like the guy was using his old Samsung Galaxy S2 without a flash.

My Wife got this picture of the operator as she drove by

davo2001

MarkR wrote: »

Do you have location services turned on in your phone? Your phone stores a LOT of information about you. May be able to tell you if you went out that night.

If you've an android phone, and it's one, try this.

https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?pb

True, but this would only prove that the person/phone was not there, not the car in question.

emeldc

goz83 wrote: »

What if the missus was driving it? If she was, do I just fill in the nomination part? Does she have to submit anything else (insurance, or anything)? I'm 99% sure I wasn't driving. If she was, it's under her drive other cars extension.

You do know that the wife is not covered in your car under the DOC extension. Your car is deemed also to be her car as it is considered a family asset. Your insurers will generally cover a spouse FOC but you have to tell them.

Del2005

goz83 wrote: »

I haven't covered any part of the image.

They needed a specialist to see if the headlights were on but could clearly read the registration. Unless they sent you a different picture it's clear that the lights are on but the reg isn't clear.

I wonder if they use crap printers? When I got the picture years ago it was similarly bad quality but as it was day time the reg was clear enough.

challengemaster

Del2005 wrote: »

They needed a specialist to see if the headlights were on but could clearly read the registration. Unless they sent you a different picture it's clear that the lights are on but the reg isn't clear.

Del... I think you need to have a re-read mate. They wanted to use a specialist to identify the car by its headlights - not requiring a "specialist" to determine if the lights were on :pac:

Specialist qualifications - Has eyes.

I wonder if they use crap printers? When I got the picture years ago it was similarly bad quality but as it was day time the reg was clear enough.

This would be my thought. An awful lot of detail can get lost even with high end photographic printers that aren't configured or calibrated right. So you can imagine what happens when you print a photo using a standard office laser B&W printer. I would guess there's an awful lot of detail being lost in the printing process, but in general the whole thing looks awful and the quality of that registration is definitely bad enough to be called into question.

honda boi

This day and age,would it not be easier to email it to you??

H3llR4iser

That picture is an absolute joke - the area is well lit at night (as you can clearly realize by the number of streetlights visible!) and the weather was far from bad last Monday. With all the good will in the world, even abysmal printing quality wouldn't produce such an hideous result if the source picture wasn't bad - I've seen photos printed with a 1980s dot matrix printer looking better than this.

Is there a competent body where a complaint could be filed? Letting this contractor get away with that poor job undermines the whole charade pretense of "road safety" around it...

mgbgt1978

emeldc wrote: »

You do know that the wife is not covered in your car under the DOC extension. Your car is deemed also to be her car as it is considered a family asset. Your insurers will generally cover a spouse FOC but you have to tell them.

Not strictly true. Some Insurers will exclude the "other car" if it belongs to a spouse...many don't.