Taxi drivers have to spend enough money on petrol, taxi insurance, and general maintenance, so getting a speeding ticket can often be extremely troublesome. To make matters worse some taxi drivers can lose their jobs if they are accused of speeding or driving dangerously, which means that most taxi drivers drive as safely and legally as possible. It is therefore understandable that one taxi driver from Norwich was extremely angry when he received a speeding ticket even though he was driving well under the speed limit.
Andrew Constantine was accused of driving over fifty miles an hour in a thirty mile an hour zone, even though he was in fact driving less than eighteen miles per hour. This has caused concerns from other drivers in the area who think they may too have been wrongly accused of speeding due to the faulty camera on Fakenham Road. Mr Constantine spent eleven months and £1,600 in legal fees to clear his name, and finally after the hearing on Sunday the case against him was thrown out.
Speaking of the case, Mr Constantine said: “I’m very pleased and very relieved. Being called to court induces a sense of trepidation, even if someone is completely innocent. It was nice to walk into court innocent, leave court innocent and to be completely vindicated.” Discussing the day the speeding camera clocked him, he said that he had an eighty year old woman as a passenger and knew the road well, so would definitely not have been speeding.
“I have an instinct to check my speed,” he said. “Some other people may have just taken the medicine and accepted it, but I was innocent.” Norfolk police have claimed that before installation the camera had been checked, and is also calibrated annually, however has admitted that the ticket was wrongly issued.
A spokesman for the Norfolk police said: “In this case, an FPN [Fixed Penalty Notice] was issued in error; however we were not notified that this ticket was being challenged until [Monday] morning. The file was reviewed and we have supported the withdrawal of this prosecution. If we had been alerted to the precise nature of the challenge an earlier opportunity, this case would not have reached court.”