Speed Cameras

[thewifeandI]

Them being visible is a contentious issue, I think that they are supposed to be, however, they also consider themselves above the law

Strictly speaking, drivers who are consciously speeding - which is probably 95% or more of those caught - 'also consider themselves above the law'.

[hagenuk]

I agree, but how many do you know who can get the case dropped because of their job?

 

PC Mark Milton for example, 159mph, not guilty of any offence.

 

Or the following:

 

In Essex between January and June 2005, 5,070 marked police cars and 199 unmarked cars activated speed cameras. But in the majority of cases they will be cars responding to emergencies, an Essex Police spokesman said.

 

In Bedfordshire between April 2004 and March 2005, 2,519 police vehicles were found to be speeding, mostly cars responding to emergency incidents. Six police officers and two members of staff had their licences endorsed with three penalty points and were fined £60. Eight out of 2,519!

 

An Essex Police spokesman said: "We are entirely satisfied that any Essex Police vehicle which has activated a safety camera in the period in question did so for an entirely legitimate purpose." What, every single one of them?

[thewifeandI]

But how many 'civilian' speeders can even use that excuse? ;-)

[hagenuk]

Well none of course, but that is the point I was making, unless I am missing some hidden meaning in your last post?

[norvernrob]

When I got caught I asked for a copy of the photograph and got it. No way could you tell who was driving, I did consider saying I didn't know who was driving at the time but I didn't want any of my friends to have to go to court!

 

If you do say you don't know who was driving, and the police photograph can't prove it, then how the hell can you be convicted? Innocent until proven guilty, or doesn't that apply when it comes to the evil crime of speeding?

[thewifeandI]

Well none of course, but that is the point I was making, unless I am missing some hidden meaning in your last post?

Just a comment that the police often have an excuse for speeding, but in all truth how many ordinary motorists have a genuine excuse. It may be a lapse in concentration, but in a very high percentage of cases speeding is a deliberate act and people who get caught shouldn't be too surprised and angry about it. Even a lapse in concentration means that they were driving without due care.

 

I don't worry about speeding fines too much because I do my best not to speed - not only where I know I might get caught, but in general. The answer to the constant claims that speed cameras are cash generators for the police/local council/goverment is not to speed and then they can't fine you.

 

I'm not saying that I never speed at all, but I do my best not to by keeping an eye on my speed and the road conditions. I do drive up to the speed limit where suitable and use my sat/nav to drive at the true speed, not the one indicated on the speedo. I don't let myself get drawn along with the flow if it means breaking the limit. I won't get forced into driving faster than the limit by a bully attempting to 'push' me along by driving close behind me - I will always slow down in that situation. There are a whole lot of new speed limits and lowering of existing ones where I live (some I agree with and many I don't) and the biggest risk then is complacency. I do occasionally drive at 75/80 on the motorway (below the usual top speed of passing traffic) but that's the only place I'd do it, and certainly not in built-up areas and not habitually.

 

This is my personal point of view and you are free to disagree!

[hagenuk]

I agree with most of it but I would point out that whilst you are paying attention to you speedometer how much attention are you paying to the road?

 

In fact I have a clean driving licence and I intend to keep it that way, although I do also exceed the speed limit, as I am sure many do.

 

As for the police having an excuse to speed, I would agree that many do, but in Essex there were more than 5000 and every one of them had an excuse? That is a bit hard to believe don't you think?

[thewifeandI]

I agree with most of it but I would point out that whilst you are paying attention to you speedometer how much attention are you paying to the road?

Definitely not - I don't drive looking at the speedo, just the occasional glance to check it. I have the ability to realise when my speed is creeping up, I make use of the gears more than the brakes and allow a good gap from the car in front when doing more than 10 mph so that I can drive smoothly and adjust to the situation and I read the road so that I know when it is rising and falling and adjust the gears and throttle accordingly. The other benefit is that my 2litre turbo diesel does over 50mpg on average.

 

As for the police having an excuse to speed, I would agree that many do, but in Essex there were more than 5000 and every one of them had an excuse? That is a bit hard to believe don't you think?

Without knowing the total number of police journeys it is hard to speculate - but you can probably assume that a proportion were not due to operational need, although I assume that there may be some of these that come under internal discipline. I'm not defending them, but without all the facts it is hard to know the true picture.

[MungryMatt]

PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice

 

Much like us really... I'm currently fighting Befordshire Scamera Partnershi* with a PACE statement, a letter which COULD get anyone off speeding, regardless of circumstance.

 

The NIP must arrive first class, within 14 days to the Registered Keeper. The Police are allowed "more time" to trace drivers of company owned vehicles. Having speeding fines thrown out because of innaccuracies in name spelling is hogwash. They are permitted to make this type of mistake, so long as it is clear who the NIP is intended for. Commonly known as the "Slip rule".

 

However, the genius of the PACE letter, is that you provide all the details they ask for under S172 of the Road Traffic Act, but state in a seperate letter that because the information is provided under threat of prosecution and you have not been cautioned subject to S10 of PACE, the evidence cannot be submitted before a court. There are legal precidences to back it up too

[meagain]

... the court will have to consider whether it's more likely that YOU were driving YOUR OWN car, or whether in fact you simply can't remember because all sorts of people use your car all the time.

 

That's called "balance of probabilities". In civil cases, to win a case you need to demonstrate that in the absence of specific evidence, it is considerably more likely that the defendant was at fault than not. In criminal cases, the prosecution is supposed to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Without specific evidence, such as a photograph of you in the driving seat, or you being the only person able to drive the car, then there must be doubt. If there are several people with access to the car, and you can't remember which one was driving at the time of the incident, that should be reasonable doubt.

 

PC Mark Milton for example, 159mph, not guilty of any offence.

 

That's an odd one. Yes, the motorway was empty, yes, he needed to familiarise himself with his new vehicle, however, the field of vision illuminated by headlights on full beam is sufficient that given reaction times, you could reasonably be expected to stop for a hazard at up to 110mph. If something had appeared in his field of vision, at 159mph there's no way he could have stopped for it. Of course, there was the issue of 80mph in a 30mph urban area, which was well-lit. There's also the choice of time - he consciously chose to do this at 2.30am, when he could be confident that he could practice without fear of injuring or killing pedestrians.

 

In Bedfordshire between April 2004 and March 2005, 2,519 police vehicles were found to be speeding, mostly cars responding to emergency incidents. Six police officers and two members of staff had their licences endorsed with three penalty points and were fined £60. Eight out of 2,519!

 

So, you propose issuing fines and endorsing the licences of emergency drivers? It's bad enough that ambulances have to keep slowing down for full-width speed bumps. The figures you quote refer specifically to police vehicles - those owned by the force and driven by its officers in pursuit of their duty. It doesn't tell us how many were convicted of speeding off the job in their own, personal, vehicles.

[missy]

Hi

 

The following is an exerpt from an ebook I have titled "How to save your driving licence"

 

Human Rights

Thousands of people have been issued a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) for an alleged minor speeding offence. Where the NIP states that the speed limit was allegedly exceeded, the following advice is given as a procedure to adopt.

 

Procedure

 

Company Owned Vehicle

 

Company receives a demand for information on the driver of a vehicle at a time, date and place as stated on the form.

At this stage the form asks for details of the driver of the vehicle. This form must

be completed by the company, not the driver, and returned to the sender.

 

All Vehicles

Driver receives Notice of Intended Prosecution. The driver must complete all relevant sections on the form and return it to the sender.

 

The driver may later receive a fixed penalty ticket accompanied by a 'Conditional Offer' to pay a fixed penalty fine and/or attend a 'Speed Awareness Course' in place of penalty points.

 

The driver writes a letter to the authority requesting evidence concerning the alleged offence, e.g. copy photograph, certificate of compliance for the camera (if appropriate) and a copy of the Police Officer's statement - as required for lawful

and necessary corroboration - if a mobile camera is involved. The driver may then receive a letter stating that the request is denied - stating words to the effect that photographic evidence can only be seen when a decision is made to prosecute

and summons the driver to appear before a Court. This letter should also detail a denial for the other items of evidence, but often fails to mention them.

 

It is only at this stage that the alleged driver should consider sending to the authority, the letter as shown below.

It is advisable that all correspondence be delivered via Recorded Delivery.

 

Dear Sirs,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter-dated……….in, which you allege that I have committed a speeding offence. That letter does not provide, or offer to provide, any evidence that I have indeed committed such an offence.

 

I regard your allegation with the utmost concern as I am being asked to make a very important decision, which could very seriously affect my future quality of life.

 

I shall be grateful therefore if you will advise me where, in law, does it state or allow for evidence against a suspect to be deliberately withheld following, or during, the process of an official demand for the payment of money (in this case a

£60.00 fixed penalty (or) £95.00 for a 'Speed Awareness Course'.

 

Further, whereby failure to pay that money on demand will expose the person suspected of that offence to a possible fine of up to £1000.00 (plus costs) at a Magistrates' Court, an amount that is in excess of 16 times (or 11 times)

(respectively) the amount of money previously demanded.

 

This, in my view, could potentially be a criminal offence in itself, the offence of demanding money with menaces. It is also arguably a breach of my human rights in that I am being subjected to unreasonable and possibly unlawful pressure by

being placed into a 'pay us now and save yourself harassment later' position.

 

I am entitled, in law, to all and any evidence that I have committed the offence complained of before I pay any money to you - not just at Court, but as soon as you issue me with a fixed penalty (or offer me a speed awareness course).

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Further information:

 

It is advised that all threats received after this letter is sent, be ignored - a letter will probably be received with words to the effect,

"we are complying with the regulations so pay up within seven days or a court case will be prepared" etc…

 

To date, there have been no prosecutions of any alleged (minor speeding) offender who has compiled and sent a letter similar to the above.

 

This was another posting on the forum. This was an answer to someone

posting about receiving a NIP in the post and taking it on the chin.

What proof do they have that:

1. The vehicle in the picture is yours and not a clone?

2. The speed trap device is accurate?

3. The proper guidelines have been followed?

4. You were actually driving the car at the time?

Reply to the NIP stating "I am unable to provide you with the information you require". Don't sign it. Enclose a covering letter stating that you wish to see a copy

of the photographic evidence, and a copy of the calibration certificate for the speed detection equipment.

 

Also ask for a copy of the guidelines and manufacturers instructions for the use of that equipment, plus a copy of the relevant pages of the operator's (Policeman's)

notebook, detailing the entire chain of events starting from when they parked the van to when they packed up and drove away. This will tell you whether the relevant instructions were followed.

 

You may not receive all of this straight away but be persistent. Regarding the photographs, make it clear to them that at present you are unable to provide them with the information they require and you need to see the photographic evidence

in order that it might help you do this (notice the word "might").

 

Once you receive the photographs, you will (naturally) still not be able to identify the driver and will probably have doubts as to whether it is you car or not. Ask them to prove that it is indeed your car in the picture and not a similar make/model

with false number plates. In the meantime, try and work out a way to place yourself and your car elsewhere at the time. (Be careful here, you don't want to lay yourself open to perjury!).

 

In addition to this, you could refuse to answer their questions on the grounds that it is your right to do so under the terms of the European convention of Human Rights. See ABD - Right to Silence for more information and also

information on a current case before the ECHR specifically regarding this.

 

Depending upon how far you want to take things you could cite this case and ask for a stay of proceedings until you have the outcome of a similar action on your own behalf.

 

To summarise

 

1. Cause the buggers as much inconvenience as humanly possible.

2. Demand to see ALL the evidence against you.

3. Demand verification that all procedures have been followed and that the

equipment is calibrated.

4. Ask what proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, they have that they have identified the vehicle correctly.

5. Ask what proof they have as to the identity of the driver (they will have none at all).

6. Play the human rights card. If everybody did this, the system would collapse.

[watccoe75]

Anyone considering following the above advice might like to read this first:

 

is this good advice??? - feedback appreciated - FightBack Forums

[hagenuk]

That's called "balance of probabilities". In civil cases, to win a case you need to demonstrate that in the absence of specific evidence, it is considerably more likely that the defendant was at fault than not. In criminal cases, the prosecution is supposed to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Without specific evidence, such as a photograph of you in the driving seat, or you being the only person able to drive the car, then there must be doubt. If there are several people with access to the car, and you can't remember which one was driving at the time of the incident, that should be reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

That's an odd one. Yes, the motorway was empty, yes, he needed to familiarise himself with his new vehicle, however, the field of vision illuminated by headlights on full beam is sufficient that given reaction times, you could reasonably be expected to stop for a hazard at up to 110mph. If something had appeared in his field of vision, at 159mph there's no way he could have stopped for it. Of course, there was the issue of 80mph in a 30mph urban area, which was well-lit. There's also the choice of time - he consciously chose to do this at 2.30am, when he could be confident that he could practice without fear of injuring or killing pedestrians.

 

 

 

So, you propose issuing fines and endorsing the licences of emergency drivers? It's bad enough that ambulances have to keep slowing down for full-width speed bumps. The figures you quote refer specifically to police vehicles - those owned by the force and driven by its officers in pursuit of their duty. It doesn't tell us how many were convicted of speeding off the job in their own, personal, vehicles.

 

No, I propose nothing of the sort. What I question however is the fact that out of 2519 incidents only 8 individuals were convicted of a speeding offence. I find this hard to believe.

[Glenn UK]

Its worth noting that the police and other mergency vehicle drivers can take exemption of Sec 87 of the road traffic act which allows them to ignore the speed limit 'if the observance of the speed limit would hinder the use to whihc the vehicle is being p ut, bneing police, fire service or ambulance purposes'.

 

The quote may be a bit out but in essence the principle means that they are exempt if the vehicle is being used for police purposes which are not defined in the RTA but are defined by case law.

 

So attendance at incidents is an obvious exemption, something not quite so obivuos is training. i trained with Essex Police as an advanced driving instructor on behalf of a fire authority. The vehicles used were all unmarked high performance saloon cars.

 

We exceeded speed limits, typically not in built up areas, as part of the training routinely. so anywhere with a national speed limit our speed was dictated by the road condtions, weather, time of day, the vehicle etc.

 

I do know they used to conduct what was called 'response' training where they praticed response to incidents with the use of marked vehicles using blue lights and two tone horns in built up areas.

 

I believe as part of this traning they also trained for pursuit of vehicles.

 

Last time i was involved with the Essex Police I believe they had around 30 vehicles of various classes and they were typically all used 5 days a week doi ng a few hundred miles a day each. So i dont doubt the figures of 5000 or so 'tickets' potentially be 'legitimate' reasons.

 

Oh FWIW they trained fire officers, customs officers, inlad revenue, military, other police forces and fire services.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[JonCris]

My source in the CPS says that in all likelihood such a case would be dropped outside of court.

 

There is apparently a "Statute of Limitations" (or similar) that defines the time period over which such offences must be prosecuted. (It might be different for Non-Disclosure), but I understood that it was something like 3 weeks to get the original summons. It might be worth asking the question as to why this is being pursued now after a year.

 

It sounds like it would be definitely worth the trouble of going to court.

 

Good Luck

 

Provided you haven't moved or if you have you notified the DVLA the NIP has to be received by you within 14 days (the court will make some allowance for late delivery but not if the posting date was the day before or on the deadline date. It's important to keep the envelopes. The matter has then to be prosecuted within 6 months after receiving the NIP or after being cautioned be a police officer. In the case of a police caution) a summons can be sent to you without further ado

[meagain]

No, I propose nothing of the sort. What I question however is the fact that out of 2519 incidents only 8 individuals were convicted of a speeding offence. I find this hard to believe.

 

Note that it is 2519 incidents and 8 individuals. I'd have thought anyone with at least an ounce of sense would realise that you can't really compare the two. Perhaps these 8 individuals were responsible for over 200 of the incidents in question. You never know, maybe most of the incidents were really cases where people were doing their job?

 

Let's put this in perspective. 2519 incidents, over 12 months. That's roughly 7 incidents per day. Does that seem an excessive figure for an entire force area?

[hagenuk]

Note that it is 2519 incidents and 8 individuals. I'd have thought anyone with at least an ounce of sense would realise that you can't really compare the two. Perhaps these 8 individuals were responsible for over 200 of the incidents in question. You never know, maybe most of the incidents were really cases where people were doing their job?

 

Let's put this in perspective. 2519 incidents, over 12 months. That's roughly 7 incidents per day. Does that seem an excessive figure for an entire force area?

 

Clearly I don't have an ounce of sense then - you must be very proud to be so clever.

 

I wonder if you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden too?

[Rich44]

There's no need for sniping like that

[hagenuk]

There's no need for sniping like that

 

I can't help it, I don't have even so much as an ounce of sense apparently.

[Movingon]

Gentlemen that's about enough I think, thank you. I'm not going to comment on the substance of the argument except to say that it's probably run it's course don't you think? There are plenty of other aspects of safety enforcement cameras that we could (should) be discussing - without calling each other into question as well. This site is about helping others.

[seylectric]

I don't worry about speeding fines too much because I do my best not to speed - not only where I know I might get caught, but in general. The answer to the constant claims that speed cameras are cash generators for the police/local council/goverment is not to speed and then they can't fine you.

 

I'm not saying that I never speed at all, but I do my best not to by keeping an eye on my speed and the road conditions.

 

But surely that's the whole point? The speed camera system is one that cannot distinguish between a driver who is generally careful but occasionally strays over the speed limit (and I defy anyone to say they never have), and a driver who charges around town at 35-40mph all day long.

 

It tars you with the same brush. You might have strayed up to 34mph, the nutter might be breaking heavily to get his speed down. A traffic cop would have let you go but would have nabbed him. A speed camera will have you both, £60 and three points + an insurance premium hike (illegal in my opinion). If you get caught by the machine you are as bad as he is in the eyes of Blair's new laws.

[davefirewalker]

The info in this thread has possibly just saved me 3 points ....not too worried about the fine but thats a bonus

 

basically my son driving my car went through a red light at the last second and was flashed.....

 

NIP was delivered by HAND about 3 months later

 

I think it might have just run out considering it shopuld have been with me within 14 days.

 

 

Dave

[Glenn UK]

FWIW

 

The term 'safety enrofcement camera' is a complete misnomer.

 

If safety was the only arbiter of camera placement and enforcement then i doubt anyone would argue with their use.

 

Since the logic behind the imposition of speed cameras is to imrpove safety there cannot be a logical argument to hide cameras or otherwise disguise their presence since exceeding a given limit is dangerous, isnt it?

 

On this basis whenever a camera is deemed necessary it should be in full plain view, kept that way and signs placed accordingly to prevent a dangerous condition occuring.

 

Mobile cameras wouldnt be needed, since if it is always dangeoruos to exceed a given limit a camera would always be need in case someone exceeded the limit.

 

But i guess in order for anyone to accept the logic that exceeding an arbritrary limit is unsafe, you would have to believe that those imposing the speed limit knew anything about safety.

 

Personally the simple link between a given speed and safety doesnt appear to exist. If it did then motorways and arterial routes would be less not more safe than other slower roads. If you follow the statistical arguments youre more likley to have an accident on other classes of roads.

 

funnily enough the last time i read a government report into road accident statistics excess speed (note this does not mean speeding it means speed excessive given the circumstances of a case so could be less than the speed limit if it was raining or snowing for example) was not listed as a primary cause but a contributory factor.

 

Im not sure this has changed.

 

Glenn

[hagenuk]

It has not changed, the most recent DfT national report I have seen puts the overall figure at 12.5% (albeit somewhat higher for fatal accidents.)

[thewifeandI]

funnily enough the last time i read a government report into road accident statistics excess speed (note this does not mean speeding it means speed excessive given the circumstances of a case so could be less than the speed limit if it was raining or snowing for example) was not listed as a primary cause but a contributory factor.

Even if speed is not the cause of an accident it has a major contribution to the levels of fatality and injury and the inclusion of more of the surrounding traffic and pedestrians.