LPCJr

I am not a lawyer, and I could be mistaken about this, but my understanding of the law is that at least in the U.S., the law says that I have the right to confront my accuser. Since much of U.S. law is based on U.K. common law, I wouldn't be surprised if U.K. law also affords one that right.

That said, my argument would be that I want the opportunity to confront my accuser. Perhaps there's a lawyer on this board who might be able to explain how they can get away with issuing a ticket based on a camera, since I obviously cannot "confront my accuser" - which is a camera.

medic

this comes up a lot as more and more locations get photo radar and other traffic cameras. it varies on the judge, but most don't buy the confront your accuser claim. however, in the US you do have a right to review all the evidence against you which is basically a picture of you in your car.

some courts have thrown out tickets becasue they weren't clear of who the driver of the vehicle was or becasue the wrong driver was identified - the initial ticket generally goes to the registered owner who can then use their driver's license picture to provie it wasn't them, but courts sometimes see this as a procedural mistake since a police ofice giving the ticket would have identified and issued the ticket to the right person.

i'm not a lawyer, but i play one when i get photo radar tickets

cheap SOB

In the OP, you mentioned a group of cars street racing. But I'd guess they weren't traveling at just 6mph over the speed limit; what kind of racing is that?! So were you actually traveling at 46mph? That is, is the ticket legitimate (other than it's goofy to get a ticket for being only 6mph over the limit)?

If the ticket is legit, is it worth spending time/effort fighting the Metropolitan Police?

As for Hertz's fee.... I wonder if that's spelled out anywhere in the terms&conditions?

At a certain point, some might just hold their nose and pay up....

sna430

The letter from the Police does not give a picture of the plate, only a plate number, a location, the violation, and the time. I am required to provide my DL information and other information that does not pertain to a US driver license. My name is spelled wrong, however since Hertz has my passport information, I did fill out the paperwork as much as I could and mailed it back to the UK (with proper postage). I also wrote on the letter that I am located in the USA and there is no way I can come to the London and contest the violation. I guess I will have to wait and see what happens.

I was told by friends from the UK that "boyracers" have a spray that they can spray on their license plates to hide their numbers from being captured from the cameras. They must have been going at least 70 to 80 MPH.

From the rental agreement, it did state that any violation MAY accure extra adm fees. I still stand by the fact a charge of $70.00 for adm fees on a $40.00 rental is a rip-off. $10 to $20 seems to be a more reasonable adm fee to look up someone's rental information and send two letters to the rental and the Police.

Bottom Line: When in London or the UK, take the public transportation . Any of the thousands of photo cameras in the UK could malfunction more than once and you have the potiental of a large fine from the Police and from Hertz, both which cannot be challenged or disputed. UK makes $3.2 Million every week from speed cameras.......wonder how much Hertz makes???

LPCJr

Would a solution have been to decline to provide Hertz your Passport info? I don't see 1) what it has to do with renting a car, since you already have a driver's license that you have to show them, and 2) how they can compel you to produce a passport?

jerry crump

Didn't we fight a war some years back to get that government to stop doing things like this against our citizens?

Copilot23

Okay, the same issue happened to me, but in Germany. I was there on a two week vacation, and contributed big bucks to Hertz in exchange for a car that could accomodate 5 pax and luggage. My CC bill after my trip indicated I had a second charge, in addition to the rental charge, that occurred 10 days after I left. I was additionally charged 23.20 Euros, which translated into $30.78 in US dollars. A few days later I received a Hertz statement entirely in German. When I was in Germany visiting friends, they translated when I needed it, but I no longer had that luxury. I e-mailed Hertz customer service for an explanation and was told the same thing essentially others have been told in this forum. Due to the rise in violations, Hertz can no longer absorb the administrative costs of providing the required information to the authorities, so the administrative fee is passed on to the customer. But they make it clear this is in addition to any charges incurred by the violation itself, which must be paid to the local authorities.

I just wish Hertz could provide some evidence to justify the need for this charge. I was extremely careful trying to stay with the posted limits, but I will say there were areas I wasn't sure what the limit was. But I know in towns I didn't drive all that fast and stayed with the general flow. In the states I've not had any kind of moving violation or accident in over 25 years (when I was a foolish teen). In this instance I have no idea what the infraction involves or details of it.

The other part of this is I believe, when you rent a vehicle for 14 straight days, Hertz probably is making enough of a margin that it could have considered a little slack in their policy. If I had a pattern (more than one) that would be a different story.

I did also tell Hertz I was frustrated that I found the extra charge billed to my CC before I received any type of notification that it was occurring, even though my gold account and rental agreement contains my e-mail address.

It is this type of corporate heavy-handedness that attracts tort lawyers and class-action lawsuits.

LPCJr

I'd insist that they provide you with a written explanation - in English - of the violation. If they don't, contest the charges with your credit card company.

sllevin

The UK is actually pretty decent about the cameras. They generally will not cite you if there are multiple cars in the shot, etc., as they don't know which car was in violation (hence the 'packs').

However, if you don't pay it (assuming your letter doesn't get you off the hook) they will simply bill Herta for it. Hertz will then bill you....and charge another administrative fee.

Steve

MiamiBeach

Also, I believe in the UK they photograph your car against lines painted on the road and measure your speed that way (distance / time), so it can't really be mistaken with nearby cars. How many times have we driven 6 mph over the speed limit and not noticed it? I think it's very likely that you were going that fast, especially with cars going so much faster than yours right next to you.

Wiggums

My last trip to London, I rented through Sixt and accumulated 6 parking tickets within 4 days. Sixt never charged me administration, although mailed me letting me know the parking enforcement notified them of the violations.

I never contested the tickets, and paid them all. You break the law, you do the time. 46 mph on 40 is a very common violation. Two cars "racing" at 6 mph above the limit? Were they around 70 years old?

das

I'd be curious to know how much of a "grace" is built into the speed cameras. During the year I lived in Australia (which is infested with speed cameras - especially up the coast of NSW), I would occasionally go a little bit above the speed limit - mainly by accident. I never got any speed camera violations.

The one thing that almost got me in trouble in Australia was driving on unmanned toll roads (where a transponder is required, or you pay a hefty fine). I made sure to go online and pay within a day so I wouldn't get socked with a fine and an administrative fee.

marlborobell

British speed cameras are generally set to speed limit plus 10% plus 3 mph. (Which means that with a 40 mph limit, they usually don't go off until 47 mph.) That said, there are a number of new camera installations involving a pair of cameras a significant distance (up to as much as six miles) apart, using license plate recognition to measure the time taken between two points, and mailing a violation when a car passes the two cameras in too short a time. These installations (known as SPECS) are often set to trigger much closer to the speed limit, as their accuracy can be established to a much greater degree (just put a GPS receiver or some equivalent accurate timekeeper in both cameras, and they'll have matching timestamps within milliseconds or better -- and so if you cover a mile in 88 seconds instead of the 90 it's supposed to take, it's easy to prove you were speeding.)

LPCJr

It's been interesting reading about these speed cameras. Having never been outside of North America, I've never encountered any. To me, an American, the whole concept is very foreign - most Americans treat speeding as a God-given right, up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! At least with a police officer there's something called discretion.

I wonder whether such cameras would even be legal here - as you can't cross-examine a camera at trial.

CrazyOne

There are some speeding cameras in the US and a lot more (and plenty controversial in some circles, to be sure) red light cameras, both of which send tickets automatically. The real sham is that in most cases the equipment is owned and operated by the company who makes the cameras, and they take a huge cut off the top before the city (usually it's a city) sees any revenue.

They say it's about "safety", but if they want the intersections to be safe, then they would make the yellow lights longer or delay the greens. That would be safety. The cameras are just about cash, mostly for the equipment companies. I believe this equipment can usually check speed, and you might get a ticket for that as well. Washington DC has a lot of these cameras.