[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding)
 

Someone posted on here a few weeks ago about a electronics consultant in Walsall who was challenging the accuracy of these GATSO cameras in Court?

The case was heard last week I just wondered if anyone had heard anything on how he case went on??

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Re: Gatso camera case
 

So it looks like the filth will get off on a technicality and we wont here this guys evidence in court.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Typical.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Sorry, but after reading that article the guy just comes over as a self-important, arrogant, puffed-up idiot who would have done himself no favours in the witness box in any case.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I agree, but I would be interested to hear his arguments and see this so-called proof he has.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Technicality? They sent him a Notice of Intent to Prosecute (to find out who the driver was). He refused to answer. He refused to go to court. Then,
I don't understand why he will not reply to this. They can then proceed with the case, he can present his evidence and the court will rule either for or against him.

I personally think he should be charged with Contempt of Court.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Agreed. At the moment it's just looking like he's exploring all the technicalities that might get him off the charge. Refusing to identify himself as the driver is a bit lame if he is genuinely interested in contesting the camera evidence. Kind of looks like an insurance policy in case he loses.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

He might have done better if he had identified himself as 'possibly' being the driver, and then ignoring the "conditional offers" they send out. In this case the police often just forget about it as it's too much trouble to proceed with a court case.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I asked a mate of mine who's a traffic cop, he said the cameras are set at 38MPH in a 30 and 48 in a 40 and so on, the settings are to give the public some leway because your speedo is not a true reading, I think he said it's 10% out on the true road speed.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Not in all cases.

In Burnley they have been set as low as 33MPH.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

According to my brother (who, I admit, isn't exactly the keeper of all knowledge), they're set at 35mph etc around the West Bromwich / Wolverhampton area.

Having said that, he does lie a lot :disturbd:

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Just been on the phone to him again about the settings, he said all cameras across the UK should be set at 8MPH above the set limit, this is to give you the amount your speedo is out.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

As someone who has been on the recieving end of Humberside's incompetence I know how he feels.
Twice I requested proof that they had sent my a NIP within the 14day period.
Twice they ignored me.
They claimed on their statement to court that I had not sent them a letter which thankfully I had proof that I had.
When the CPS asked the police about this, they failed to give a satisfactory (or even relevant!) response.
The guy from the CPS and the clerk of the justices were actually dismayed that the police had pushed for it to go to court.
*huge hugs to debs for coming with me too!*

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Cameras are normally set to 10% + 3mph. So in a 30 zone they would be set to 36mph, in a 40 zone they would be 47mph.....

Re: Gatso camera case
 

The guys claim is that the internal delay between the 2 photos is incorrectly calibrated such that the camera overestimates over and above whatever the police think they have set it to.

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/def...p?storyId=9689

Quite how you (he) as an average user gets to measure that timeing delay without running up a large bill I don;t know

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I have a sat nav in my van that gives MPH speed i have been told it is more accurate than the speedo when i am doing 30mph the nav says 26mph so my speedo is under if its the other way then that frightning.
My point is if they give you 10% then you are well over the limit if caught.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I know, I once drove a big america v8 car, and keeping the thing to 30mph...was errm interesting.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

The 10% rule was abolished the other year.

Just because all cameras in the uk "should" be set at a certain level, does not mean that they all are. These settings etc are guidelines & each authority do whatever they please.

And they do do whatever they please.
Like putting them where they want to make money instead of in accident blackspots etc.

It is obviously apparent that they are not all set at the same level given the speeds that some people get fined at.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

That would be the safety camera and not the speed trap camera then :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Re: Gatso camera case
 

There are no "speed trap cameras" they are now all called "Safety Cameras" which for many is a contradiction in terms, which is what Zoombini was alluding to. :rolleyes:

If they were true "safety cameras" they would be at accident black spots and not on a nice long straight bit of dual carriageway where the speed limit has been set at a low tarriff purely for the financial gain of the self financing/self regulating "safety camera partnership.

A recent study showed that cameras don't even work at blackspots either and the best way to reduce accidents at dangerous bends, junctions etc is by the use of "active signing". You've probably seen them popping up at bad bends etc. These are signs that light up as you approach them. They immediately grap your attention and you react to them.

Because the average motorists concentration and senses have been numbed by the amount of "sign pollution" on our roads they don't register some of the "normal" signs.

These new signs are a great idea and really do save lives, unfortunately for the police however they do not raise cash.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Around my area of the woods we have a dual carriageway which has a "safety camera" on it, everyone flies up road, then procedes to pile on brakes for the camera as speed limit is 40mph, and that has caused more accidents then the frigging camera avoids, especially for people in heavy vehicles who just cannot stop.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Yeah mate, hence the sarcasm after my sentence

Re: Gatso camera case
 

This looks like developing into another bash at cameras thread.. lol

Ah what the heck, let's all go bash a camera, speed trap or safety... the same cruddy ones lol

Re: Gatso camera case
 

South Wales Police aren't aware of this.....

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I was in court today and found guilty of "Failing To Provide". The Fixed Penalty people ignored my requests to see the picture, and I could prove it wasn't me driving, so how come thisresult? The magistrates said I hadn't "made sufficient efforts to identify the driver". In fact I asked the possible suspects, who all denied it. What more could I do?

It just furthers my belief that these cameras are more about money-making, and less about road safety. I could tell you dozens of experiences to back this up.
__________________

I was told that the national guideline is for the camera to be set at speed limit + 10% + 2mph eg 30mph limit has cameras at 35mph, 40 mph limit has cameras at 46mph. However, in the Thames Valley it's 10% plus 3mph over the limit.

Road Traffic Act
 

Here's a funny tale... I was found guilty of "Failing To Provide Information" today, fined and given penalty points. The magistrates decided I hadn't made "sufficient efforts" to identify the driver of the vehicle concerned. This in spite of the Fixed Penalty people ignoring my requests to see the GATSO photo to help identify the driver. It seems I should have chased them up when they didn't respond.

So good people, next time you reply to the Notice of Intended Prosecution, remember to keep calling the Fixed Penalty Support Unit until you receive a written reply...

What a wonderful justice system we have!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I feel really sorry for you, but I have to ask - what has that got to do with the Road Traffic Act? :shrug:

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Because the magistrates were interpreting and enforcing said act. But I wonder just how many people can point to an occasion when they didn't know exactly who was driving their car? It could be that a man and wife both drive the car (famous case involving the Hamiltons springs to mind). If they can't remember who was driving at a particular time, the registered keeper of the car could be fined and punished... is that really fair?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

because "failing to provide information" is a section of the Road Traffic act 1988 & 1991.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

OK, here's another interesting point: when one receives the "Notice of Intended Prosecution", one is being accused of a crime (otherwise they wouldn't be prosecuting). Now, I have always believed that one of our basic rights was the right to remain silent (as stated in Police cautions). BUT, the offence of "Fialing To Provide" means that you are NOT allowed to remain silent...? So, is the Road Traffic Act in it's various guises actually contrary to English Law?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I would appeal but only if I could prove absolutely that, beyond any doubt, I had indeed contacted the FPSU for a request to see the photo. In that case, it is not for the magistrates to fine someone due entirely to the failings of officials to respond. You should have the benefit of the doubt.
You can also ask the magistrates what constitutes "chasing up", i.e. ask for where in the RTA it states for such a specific requirement.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

yes it appears you are effectively being asked to be a witness against yourself.

I recon you could have a good chance to get this conviction overturned on appeal. Get a good lawyer!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Have a read of this thread

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Flubflow, I agree with you, it SHOULD be the case. But here's a quandary: how does one "prove" that one has written to the FPSU? For an answer we should refer to the FAQ section on the paperwork sent out by the court. One example question asks how the FPSU can prove the Notice was sent; the answer is that the FPSU provide a statement to that effect, and the court regard that as "Good Service". So wjy is it not the same rule for me?
__________________

But caqn one appeal against a Magistrates' Court decision? Incidentally I asked what factor(s) had turned the "balance of probability" against me; the magistrate told me rather aggressively I could not challenge the decision there and then (even though I wasn't challenging), and ordered me to leave the court immediately!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I might be wrong but i think if you appeal against the magistrates ruling then it goes to the CPS. If it has merit then you wind up in a crown court with a jury.

Read that other thread that Debsy suggested. Some useful info there.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The whole asking for evidence bit is listed on a websote about talivans.
It states that if they refuse to provide a picture, you muist then accuse them of soliciting money with intent.
You cannot be charged with a crime without evidence, however when it comes to speed cameras the police do not have to provide the evidence.

Also, you shouldnt have been speeding in the first place.

Still I do agree, that its a tad unfair that they said you should have spent your time chasing them when they wanted to prosecute you.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

My point was that I wasn't speeding... I was able to prove that I was elsewhere at the time. The fact that I couldn't state for sure who WAS driving apparently means that my licence now has three penalty points. Hardly makes me a dangerous driver, does it?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Well if thats the case then challenge it.

A copper got away with in in Cleveland, if he did then legally they are on very dodgy ground if they uphold the conviction.
Also mention the attitude of the magistrate when you asked for clarification, just because they may be in a bad mood does not give them the right to be snotty, they are after all public servants.

I speed, I wonmt deny it, I speed stupidly on motorways at times, however if I was caught it would be a fair cop, My attitude is that I take a risk in speeding, if I loose the bet (that there arent any coppers or cameras around) then I pay the price. I could get all moral about it, but even my mother speeds occasionally, and I dont mean 35 in a 30 zone, I mean 31 in a 30 zone, yet Cleveland police prosecute for this.

Yes I could kill someone in an accident, but I culd kill somone in an accident at 30 mph too, its not big its not clever, but thats how I drive. I have a pretty open mind about the issues, anyone caught speeding in a school zone should have their car taken off them. Anyone caught speeding on a motorway between 70 and 100mph should face a series of fines but no points. Also you should be able to opt to pay a higher fine and receive no points.

IN your case though, if you could prove you were elsewhere they have convicted you for a crime you didnt commit (just like the A-Team) However if they have woprded it the way I think, then you werent convicted for speeding, you were convicted because they deemed you didnt do enough to assist them, which is also an offence.

Basically in most cases you cant win.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

We dont know if he was speeding in the first place though, without evidence!

I was sent a fine for tavelling over London Bridge in a vehicle weighing over 25 Tonnes, the laughable bit is the vehicle registered to me is a 3 wheel tricycle weighing approx 220Kg.

I phoned them and asked for evidence, and they were very unhelpful to say the least. They said I was guilty and would be far better off admitting the offence than trying to get away with it, I sent them a letter asking for photographic evidence of my vehicle crossing the bridge and received a letter of apology.

I thought this was amazing considering the foreigner I spoke to at their department handling fines assured me he had the picture on screen of a vehicle with my registration number, they had even got hold of the vehicle details and had put taxation class as Tricycle on the paparewpork with the fine. I asked the guy what was the maximum permitted weight for a vehicle in that taxation class, and he didn't have a clue. Also they had informed the DVLA because the vehicle was not taxed (declared SORN)! Amazingly the vehicle had not been out of my garage for over 2 years, but as far as they were concerned I was guilty. :D

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

It's true, they found me guilty of "Failure To Provide Info", on the grounds that I hadn't made sufficient effort to find out the driver's identity. I had asked for a copy of the photo, but that request was ignored. I figured that there wasn't much more that I could do, other than ask any of the other occasional drivers of the car; of course, nobody would own up to it.

I think I shall go into politics, using the eradication of speed cameras as a manifesto item!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Another thing that concerns me is the cover letter that gets sent out with the photographic evidence, when they deem it permissible to let the accused see it. It states something along the lines of "...photo eveidence is not intended to identify the driver, but merely to place the vehicle at the scene of the alleged offence. Funny, but I thought they prosecute the driver, not the car...

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

But I thought that you said that they ignored your request for the photo, how come you got "a cover letter that gets sent out with the photo" then?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I was speaking generally. I have seen the letter that gets sent out and it's a total copout. I was sent my picture with the summons. Most helpful, it's the back of my car.

Apologies if my last post appeared several times... I can't seem to see beyond post number 15 on here. Help!

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Thats the magic word = guideline.

It's not the law its just a suggestion & can be set however they want it wherever.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The duplicate posts have been removed - a hangover from the database problem last night.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Er hasn't the right to remain silent been tempered by the allowance that silence may be taken into account when determining innocence or guilt (ie silence may infer guilt). Another erosion of the innocent until proven guilty tenet of our criminal justice system (still, be grateful, they could have put you under house arrest or in Belmarsh ;) )

I'm no fan of those who whinge about speed cameras generally but I have to say, from what you've said, you have been unjustly treated and if a not guilty plea has been entered it should be up to the prosecution to prove its case. I would certainly explore avenues for appeal.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The more I look into the way this Act is operated and enforced, the more I can see it is flawed, unfair, and possibly illegal. Here's another point to consider: the Notice of Intended Prosecution; the gist is that if you admit to an offence they fine you, if you don't admit to it they fine you for something else (Failure To Provide). I am not legally trained, but isn't that classed as "Double Jeopardy"?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

In all this talk of what tolerance limits speed cameras operate too I think sight is being lost of one important thing. A speed limit is just that, the maximum at which you are able to travel, not the speed at which you should be travelling. If you're truly concerned about exceeding the limit (as opposed to getting caught exceeeding the limit) drive under it, not at or above it.

And if you get caught, don't bloody whinge about it. You know what the limit is (when signage is adequate - I certainly concede it sometimes isn't) so there is no excuse; certainly not 'well I think its safe for me to drive over the limit on this stretch of road.'

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Andyl, I fully agree with you. But then we should possibly look at amny other angles too - for exampl are our speed limits reasonable? They are somewhat lower than you might find elsewhere in Europe, and many were set a long time ago when cars and road conditions necessitated much lower limits.

As for getting caught, again I agree. In my case though I wasn't caught; I wasn't even driving! I would suggest you have a quick browse on this thread: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...d=1#post408319

By the way, we should also have blanket punishment. It's widely accepted that driving at over 100mph on a motorway brings an automatic ban. But not if you are a senior policeman in Manchester. Last year one such person went to court for doing something like 103mph; his mitigation was that it was late, minimal traffic, and he felt that conditions were safe enough to drive at that speed. He got off with a fine and points.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Indeed Andyl, there appears to be no such thing as "Innocent until proven guilty". For example, in the Crown Court the prosecution must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" their case. But in the Magistrates Courts they only have to show a "balance of probability". This basically means that an individual must state a more powerful case than a trained solicitor/prosecutor. In my case there was not even a clear cut issue... just the consideration as to whether my efforts were "sufficient". So I am a criminal because somebody thinks I didn't try hard enough.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

How many people have access to your car?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

At least five. Myself, my partner, and several family members. Plus, at the time, it was checked by two seperate people on a couple of occasions, as it had developed a fault. All this was explained to the magistrates. All denied speeding in it (surprise surprise), but the bench decided I hadn't tried hard enough.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Me283, I agree with everything you say. This is most unusual. I am concerned and may have to alter my views in the interests of a lively debate ;)

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Thanks! Another thing I would like to highlight is the practice of the traffic police (locally at least), to take their mobile camera vans and park them within a few hundred metres of fixed cameras. Being a contrary type, and being miffed at the increase in council tax contributions to the police in spite of appalling standards of servive, I stopped behind one such van and tried to debate this with the PC. During a 45 minute (sometimes heated, on his side) debate, it transpired that they do this because drivers know where the cameras are, so they slow down. "This way", he said, "we catch them anyway". And I thought that drivers slowing down was the whole point of the cameras...

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

double jeopardy is where you can not be tried for the same crime twice - see Ashley Judd film.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

But you wern't being cautioned. You wern't arrested. Small speeding offenses (unless they are big enough to constitute dangerous or reckless driving) are civil offenses. You don't have a criminal record. Your right to silence on the grounds that it might incriminate yourself doesn't apply.

Of course, with free speech you have the right in life no to say anything you don't want to say, but if you exercise that right with a bill (which is essientially what you recieved), then you would still have to go through the collections process etc. The freedom to non-speech doesn't apply to everything.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Thanks etc, like I said I'm not legally trained. But isn't that some kind of illegal practice? "Plead guilty or we shall charge you with another offence".

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Ah, that's more like it ;) People slow down for a fixed site camera, then speed up again, so the mobile camera catches the less than cunning little tykes out. Perfectly legitimate tactic in my book because exceeding the speed limit is - certainly was last time I looked - an offence. As I've said before, if you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

That's not true, but you had the rough end of the stick. The court gives you the oppotunity to plead innocent (and win, as in some cases) but unfortunately you wern't so lucky. The judge ruled against you, but you were unlucky as it seems the fixed penalty people negligently hinded your defence.

They are a bit touchy on the whole tying down the driver thing. It used to be a loophole that if you didn't respond with who was the driver was technically they couldn't do anything, but then the changed the rules that if the car owner couldn't identify the driver then the owner is responsible.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Sure, I see the point. But my gripe with this is a little different. If you call the police about a more serious incident (trust me, I reported being threatened by an axeman in public - no joke), then they are busy. I was told firstly that no "real" offence had been committed; then I was told they would try to send someone round as they were busy, but it might be a week or so. Now, I am all in favour of fixed cameras outside schools, hospitals, old people's homes etc. BUT, when the police would rather catch errant drivers at £60 quid a pop when the cameras are already doing a job, than actually employ people to tackle SERIOUS offenders, you have to wonder where the priorities lie?

Speeding is an offence, yes. If you are caught, pay the penalty. But in the big scheme of things I feel that the seriousness of the offence doesn't really warrant the efforts put in to catch offenders.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

OK, I see your point. But if it's a civil offence, why are they quoting the Act? And also, my research says that the English Constitution is based partly on the Bill of Rights 1689. In there it states that "fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal". In short, who has the right purely to issue me a fine in the first place? At the end of the day, the more I look into this the more it becomes clear that our "rights" are being chipped away.
__________________

The sad point is Punky, that the bench ruled that I hadn't made ENOUGH effort to ascertain the driver's identity. The prosecution was pathetic, and made several glaring errors. But still, I should have tried harder. This apparently includes the fact that I should have chased up the Fixed Penalty Office. I have to say, British Justice stinks.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

So none of your family members have any idea who was driving??

If it was me I wouldn't let them drive my car again.

If you suspect that it was people checking it out for a fault then do you not have any evidence that the car was in the garage at the time of the incident?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The mechanics were doing a favour, and in truth, no-one can be sure enough that it was them to actually admit it. Would you?! I also mentioned to the court the possibility that another car has copies of my number plates. This actually happened to me a few years ago. I realise it's tougher now, but it's still a possibility. At the end of the day, they could prove nothing. They only FELT that my efforts were insufficient.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Yes if I was driving someone elses car and thought I might have been caught speeding then I would admit it and take the points rather than have someone else take them.

Surely you know what dates and times the mechanics had the car? They are not doing you much of a favour if they are bombing round in your car.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Many speed limits were set a long time ago and cars have got better in many respects but have drivers got better? A car doing 40 mph in a 30 mph area will cause just as much injury to a child it hits today as a car doing the same many years ago. Roads are much busier now and performance of vehicles has increased dramatically. A rapidly accelerating modern car can soon make what looked a safe time to cross the road a potential accident, particularly if the driver is more concerned with the modern invention of a mobile phone he is holding to his ear. Too many drivers have the attitude that accidents only happen to other people and that their reaction times are good enough to cope with any incident. They view speed limits as a challenge not a warning that there is a reason for them being there.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I think you are missing the point. They weren't sure, so they weren't about to admit to it when it could just as easily have been someone else. So I can't reasonably point the finger at just one person.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Well, if you want to take the punishment for someone elses crime...

Is it your car? If so I suspect if you restrict access to the people who are using it then they might have a flashback and remember who was driving.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

All valid points, but the issue here is about speeding. Try stopping from 30 mph in a 20 year old car, then compare it to the same in a modern car. If all limits were 5mph there would probably be no fatalities, but that's not realistically practical. SO a line has to be drawn. The issue would be whether that line that was drawn years ago now needs to be moved?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Because that is what you are breaching. I recieved a parking ticket the other day, which is the most minor of civil infractions you can get, and it still says I was in breach of the Road Traffict Act 1991.

It comes down to semantics and language. You recieved a "Notice of Intended Prosecution", not a fine. "Notice" and "Intended" are both words which indicate that a fine could be payable in the future, should you be proven guilty. If what you said was true, they wouldn't need to send the NIP out, they would just give the case to a collections agency. The NIP still says quite clearly that you are innocent until proven guilty, and no fine is payable until either you declare yourself guilty by returning the NIP or lose the case in court. Looking at my parking ticket, it says "... who believes a penalty charge is payable..." "Believe" doesn't equal guilty of, or convicted of.

You have brought up an interesting point though about the fines before conviction. Does that apply to these on-the-spot littering style fines? Can you still fight those in court? On-the-spot fine wording pretty much seems to rule out the innocent-until-proven-guilty.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

No I don't, and the crime was "Failing To Provide Info". The speeding issue was superceded. It's my car, and it's a nice car, but I don't think people will admit to speeding just to get another drive of it! At the end of the day, I was found guilty of not trying hard enough, and that's a ridiculous state of affairs.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Actually, now you said that, you were lucky you were in contempt of court (which you would be if the judge asked you to name the driver and you wouldn't, and the judge felt you was deliberately withholding his name).

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Why not? From what you say it seems that your car is used quite a lot by other people not just the odd drive. They might be willing to admit to speeding rather then find another mode of transport.


Don't mean this to sound rude, but the I get impression that you could find out who was driving if you wanted to, but you just want to get off without paying the fine.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Punky,

I think another key word is "prosecution". How can it then be a civil offence? And as for being "proven" guilty, that was a farce in my case too. Also, the mere mention of a fine is surely wrong before guilt is established?

The question of fines is a very grey area from what I have found out. It seems (and this is not a political rant) that the government has brought in several laws that are in contravention of the English Constitution. But who has the money and the ability to fight them? I personally think on-the-spot fines are a good thing in some cases, but the administering of these matters is fraught with pitfalls.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Maybe the line should be moved, but which way?

Think about the reason why a speed limit may be 30 mph. It isn't all to do with stopping distances. It's just as much to do with the damage that an accident at that speed can do. In a built up area there is a chance that a child may suddenly run out from behind a parked car when you are so close that no matter how good you or the car are you cannot avoid hitting them. The greater your speed, the more injury you will cause or death even. Speed limits are there in built up areas to reduce injury in the event of an accident and as a warning that you should expect the unexpected. Heed that warning and drive responsibily which means lowering your speed way below the limit if conditions require it.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

100% with you on that one Ian. But what I am saying is that all limits should be reviewed. For example, say 15mph outside schools seems fair to me. But is 70mph on the motorway a reasonable limit? And if you drive on the M25 and the variable speed limit goes from 70mph to 40mph then to 50mph and back to 40mph and finally back to 70mph, all for no apparent reason, one has to ask why those speed limits are in place?

As an aside, I have driven extensively in parts of Europe where the motorway limits are higher than ours and there are no speed cameras. I saw no accidents, no traffic jams, and much better roads too. Is there a lesson to be learnt here?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

No one can force you to pay an on the spot fine. They are there to reduce the cost of proceedings which could end up being paid by the taxpayer. Most people getting on the spot fines know that they have committed the crime and would rather pay it than go to court and maybe having to pay even more. You always have the option not to pay and ultimately have the offence tried in court and face the consequences, whatever these may be. You pay an on the spot fine because you know you are guilty and it is the most convenient and cheapest way out. You don't pay if you think you are not guilty and want to risk the outcome of a court appearance.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The logic and the idea there is great Ian. But let's look at a few issues: I read recently of someone who was eating a BLT when a piece of tomato accidentally fell out. Before they could retrieve it they were hit with a fine. Now we can see a situation where one person has acted as judge and jury, which is wrong. Sure, it could be contested, but my own experience tells me that magistrates are not the fairest people in the world. So the option is, "Accept you are wrong, or the court will probably find you more wrong"!

Re: Gatso camera case
 

The 70 mph national speed limit was brought in as a temporary measure in the 60s to see what the impact on accident statistics was. The test resulted in a lowering of the number of accidents and fatalities and less severe injuries. Two years after this temporary measure it was decided to keep it as a mandatory national speed limit.

The speed limits displayed on motorway signals are only advisory unless the speed is displayed within a red ring. There has been a reason for these to be displayed which may no longer exist when you go through the area. Whilst the speed limits may only be advisory, failure to comply with them will be taken into account if a prosecution results for whatever reason within the area that they cover.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Because a civil offence, is still an offence, and therefore prosecutable.

I wouldn't personally say your case was a farce as such, but you were extremely hard done by as the fixed penalty people hindered your defence, and the judge sided with them, and not you. Had you known before hand, you would have been more prooactive and been able to provide your intended defence. You still have the right to appeal, but as your car was speeding, wether it was with you or someone else driving, unless you are willing to name the driver, you'll probably be better off just taking it.

I wouldn't say the mention of a fine is prejudical to you. It is intended to inform you of the possible consequences of your alleged actions. That is why fixed penaltys were devised, so people don't have to worry for months about their intended punishment, they know it well in advance.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Care to say which laws are and how they are?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Speeding is a criminal offence !
see
here and here
Oh and BTW .. magistrates find guilty in 85% of cases .. regardless of evidence. They are lay people with no special training in Law.

"Abandon hope all ye who enter there !!!"

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I'll check with my dad who is an ex-copper, but if speeding was a criminal offence, then everyone who sped, regardless of amount, would have a criminal record, and AFAIK, you'd have to be arrested for it, with your miranda rights issued.

Some motoring offences are criminal, such as reckless and dangerous driving, driving whilst under the influence, driving without insurance, license, etc. but they aren't dealt with a fixed penalty (or a camera), they always go to court.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I take it you used recorded or registered post when you wrote to the FPSU?
That proves they recieved it, and it is then up to them to give a valid reason for not responding.
The police must also use recorded or registered post in order to prove that they sent the NIP within 14 day.
Most however don't as they're cheapscates even though the income from the fines should be available to pay for this.
With my case which Debsy directed you to, was thrown out because of the incompetence of Humberside Police with regards to how they handled my requests for information.

It is my experience they are only interested in getting a conviction wether it's legal or not, or the person who was actually speeding and they'll do what ever they can to dodge your requests for information.
I asked twice for evidence that they had actually sent me a NIP, the first time they ignored my request, the second time they signed a statement saying they hadn't recieved it (thankfully I had proof of delivery) and passed my case straight to the court.
On the court paperwork where you can put extenuating circumstances, I detailed the law stating that a conviction cannot be given without proof that the NIP had been sent within 14 days, that the dates quoted for correspondance on the statement the police gave were inaccurate, and that it had claimed that they had not recieved my final letter.
The CSA investigated, requested the police to explain the discrepancies and about my final letter, the police were unable to give a satisfactory (or apparently even relivant) reply and the case was thrown out, with appologies from the CSA reprisentative and the Clerk of the Justice, who were both extremely angry at the police for wasting so much time and money.
Thankfully I had Debs with me for support too :)

I would seek legal advice from a solicitor to find out if you are able to appeal.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I thought it was in response to the shock that someone did 134mph and there was no speed limit at the time.

Now if only people would read the highway code and learn what the national speed limit is on dual carrigeways and single carrigeways (and how to tell one road from the other!)

Also, the signs may be on because they need to restrict the flow to the road several miles up ahead where there could be a problem.
There's no point putting a low speed limit just where an accident is, much better to reduce it long before so the traffic doesn't bunch up and you get stop go traffic which often leads to other accidents.

If I had my way and unlimited budget, I'd upgrade all our motorways, and deploy the variable speed limit signs along all stretches.
That way you could have a higher limit on safe stretches of road, but in the wet, or fog, or if there's roadworks or an accident, the speedlimit can be reduced appropriately.

Say you have a stretch of motorway which in the dry it's deemed officially safe to do 100mph along, but in the wet you get standing water and 40mph is the safest cars should go.
At the moment you have people doing up to 100mph in the dry safely, but how many drivers do you think would slow to 40mph in the wet? Sure a load will drop to 60, or maybe 50, but only a few will go lower.
Legally they can go 70 in the wet without being charged with speeding, however this is highly dangerous, but you'd need a police patrol car to catch them.
Now with my system, the speed is set at what is deemed safe, and therefore going over automatically means you are driving dangerously, just as driving past a school at 3:30pm doing 30mph is legal, but could be deemed as dangerous driving.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Members of the anti-speed camera brigade among you might enjoy the story posted on the home page of www.insidebikes.com today.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I have heard of cars with cloned number plates so if the picture is not produced how do they know it was your car ?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

They're normally put on identical cars, that way if a police check is done out on the road, it doesn't throw up a Reliant's numberplate on a Porche :)
__________________

We're not anti speed cameras, we're pro speed cameras but placed sensibly with safety as a priority not money making ability.
Take the variable speed limit around the M25 near heathrow, or within roadworks, in towns near schools or pedestrian crossings, these are perfect examples of where cameras should be placed.


And why is it if you warn drivers and get them to slow down you're charged with interfering with police business, but if you tackle a robber that the police are chasing, they thank you?


http://zeeb.at/oops/SpeedEnforcement1.jpg

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Claimant and defendant in civil cases.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Graham, The first one that springs to mind is the removal of a right to trial by jury for certain offences/crimes. The effect is quite drastic I feel. In my case the magistrates found that the "balance of probability" was against me, although I don't see how and they refused to tell me how. Conversely, I am fairly sure that a jury of my peers may have seen matters differently.
__________________

Xaccers, The court sent me a sheet of FAQs. One of these stated that a statement from the FPSU to the effect that the NIP was posted, was considered "good service" by the court. Strange though that my statement that I had written to them was not considered as such?

Were the court wrong? Is there a law that states NIPs must be sent by recorded/registered post?
__________________

If speeding is a CIVIL offence then why do the Police enforce it? I'm sure we all know of incidents where the Police have been telephoned but have declined to get involved in a matter, claiming it is a CIVIL matter?
__________________

Not so Gazzae. And besides, if I nominated a driver, and they were to deny it, then where would I be?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

read that other thread - I think the answer is within it and I think the answer is yes!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Because:

1) The government wants their money back.
2) Speeding poses a safety risk to others.
3) Speeding could lead to criminal motoring offenses like reckless or dangerous driving. How does a cop know that is being commited, if he doesn't check the speed? It is also used as a good reason to check for license, tax, etc.
4) The job needs responsibility. We know all about the cowboys that parade themselves as clampers and traffic wardens. Imagine if speeding enforcement was left to council officials? :disturbd:

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Xaccers,

There are some interesting thoughts there about variable speed limits. The sad part is that the maximum is 70mph, even if the road would be safe at, say 80mph. As I posted previously, my extensive driving in Europe has shown me that the benefits of our comparatively lower speed limits are not immediately evident.
__________________

I saw an interesting thing in France last summer. In some areas where there had been fatalities, they placed a kind of cutout/dummy by the side of the road, in the shape of a man, woman, or child, as relevant to the fatality. Seeing two "ghosts" by the side of the road did more to make me slow down than seeing a camera. In Greece they often erect a small model church by the side of the road, like a kind of shrine. The difference between these and our country's methods of speed reduction are that theirs say "people have been killed here" whereas ours say "we have found another way of taxing motorists".

Re: Gatso camera case
 

If you didn't speed, you wouldn't get caught and you wouldn't generate revenue for the Treasury. Simple! Of course if you know better than highway planners and the police of what an appropriate, rather than actual, speed limit should be then it's not so simple ;) I'm not saying I agree with all speed limits but I have no sympathy at all for anyone who gets caught speeding and then whines about it, unless the evidence is unreliable or, on occasion, where limits are inadequately signed. It's interesting to note that all the bluster is about cameras (which can catch you) not about the limits themselves.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Point 1 is sadly all too obvious.
Point 2 is a moot point - depends on the driver to a great extent.
Point 3 is a pity - the Police could be doing a lot more important work, in my opinion.
Point 4 I cannot agree with. You could also apply the logic to pub doormen. After all, that is something that could be done by the police?

There is also a point 5 - statistics. Presumably each speeding offence/crime increases the Police performance statistics, thereby showing what a fine job the Force is doing? :td:

Re: Gatso camera case
 

The trouble in the UK is that by and large speed limits are not adhered to and there is too little enforcement of them. Many accidents and delays are caused by non observance of limits and frustration caused when drivers cannot do the speed they want. Traffic volumes on UK motorways tends to be high these days no matter what time of day or night.

I have extensive driving experience both on the continent and in the USA. Driving in the USA is generally a more pleasent experience because drivers tend to adhere more to the speed limits and police enforce them more rigorously. A lot of American trunk roads are only two lanes each way and traffic tends to flow freely on these even when busy with the majority all travelling at the same speed. A different story though in built up areas with multi lanes each way and overtaking allowed on both sides. Over taking on both sides does keep you more aware of whats going on around you though. I like the American idea of having service areas in the middle rather than one on each side as we usually have.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Yup. Don't get me wrong though, I really lothe this country's camera policy, as I have long stated. I wish there were 20 cameras outside every school in the country and none on dead straight dual carriage ways that are 40mph, but we all know why they don't do that...

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Andyl, I think there have been quite a few postings about the need to review speed limits in the UK?
__________________

Ian, motorways in France are only two lanes in the main part, and the traffic always seems to flow more freely.
__________________

I think nearly everyone breaks SOME law at SOME stage. The main gripe seems to be the hounding of motorists, as opposed the comparitively lax pursuance of more serious offenders.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

It all depends on when you were using them. :)

By and large on foreign holiday routes British motorists tend to adhere more to the speed limits than they do at home. If every vehicle is driving at the speed limit then there will be little congestion and no overtaking.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I wouldn't say that! In the States maybe, but I freely admit that I put my foot down in France, if only because they didn't have our congestion. Lots of other people did the same (no justification I know), and there were NO speed cameras. Guess what? No traffic jams and no accidents either...