[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding) - Page 4

**Paul** · 25-02-2005, 10:10

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

25-02-2005, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

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?

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.

me283 · 25-02-2005, 10:40

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"?

25-02-2005, 10:48

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.'

me283 · 25-02-2005, 11:05

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.

me283 · 25-02-2005, 11:16

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.

gazzae · 25-02-2005, 11:30

How many people have access to your car?

me283 · 25-02-2005, 11:33

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.

25-02-2005, 11:35

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

me283 · 25-02-2005, 11:42

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...

etccarmageddon · 25-02-2005, 11:46

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

punky · 25-02-2005, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

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?

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.

me283 · 25-02-2005, 11:56

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".

25-02-2005, 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

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...

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!

punky · 25-02-2005, 12:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

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".

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.