Safe Speed Forums

The national guide lines laid down by ACPO were brought in to ensure that the Safety Partnerships
operated properly and presumably were based on police experience of good safety practices.
One assumes that the law makers, only allowed these quango agencies permission to operate,
if their managements signed up to work to these codes of conduct.

Sadly for years in Lancashire, these cowboys (not sure whether there are any cowgirls!) have
run a policy, that is I'm the sheriff , jury and sentencing all in one. We run it our way here.
Now it has to be accepted that when Government & Parliament agreed to the concept nationally
- the idea was to reduce accidents, speeding - in such a way that everything was simple.
You. allegedly speed, get a NIP, then are processed with a penalty or in serious cases a court
appearance. The whole operation is set down in print, and although obviously has been adjusted
over a period of time, or at the behest of the Lancashire Chief Constable. No doubt other areas of
the country have schemes too. But one gets the distinct impression - the operation in Lancashire
is unusual! Perhaps only just a half dozen other UK outfits are similar.

Unusual in numerous aspects in fact. Imagine a county in the United Kingdom, that makes its own
rules. Whilst one could go on, a Parliamentary answer recently highlights just what has been
going on under the cover of - improving road safety in Lancashire.

ACPO guidelines lay down the actions and penalities attached to speeders.
In essence the formula is -The speed limit for the particular stretch of road + 10% Plus 2 mph.
Thus the 'line in the sand' is 35 mph, 46 mph, 57mph, 68 mph, 79 mph.
It does appear below these deadlines - a motorist cannot be prosecuted or given a fixed penalty,
by a partnership operating a moble or fixed camera.
However a police officer has wider powers, witnessing a stupid speeder he/she can send a driver for
report/ prosecution. His/her expertise being a contributory factor in the evidence.

But that means no money for the coffers, so up comes the idea of speed awareness courses. In
Lancashire run by the County Council, which incidentally is a lead partner in the Safety Partnership.

However when an owner of a vehicle pictured allegedly speeding, gets a NIP (Notice of Impending Prosecution),
they are required to fill in the details - name of driver at the time, address, then send the info into the Blackburn
Central Ticket Office.

Then there should be some options. Dependent on the limit breached, excess speed recorded in the picture.
If in doubt a photograph could be purchased for £10 by the named driver (another earner) -other partnerships
did not charge. Subsequently CTO , because it was 'not cost effective!' - ceased this extraction. Interestingly
the amount collected each year never seemed to appear in the accounts.

So to the penalties framework :- Excessive speed - a court appearance - penalty fixed by the court, fixed penality
£60 + points, speed awareness course - fee but not points, or a caution . This latter action, a caution covers the
bracket of the speed limit up to the 'line in the sand' 30- 35 mph. In Lancashire 37 & 38 mph gives the driver the
option of a speed awareness course - failure to take it - becomes a fixed penalty or court appearance.

At the start of my item here , reference was made to the Parliamentary answer to a local MP, Nigel Evans.
Question in essence:- How many drivers were issued with cautions over the five year period, prior to 'netting off'
being abolished?
Answer:- It appears only one can be traced!

What else was the mob at Blackburn up to? And how many drivers were harassed, felt threatened - causing
them to take speed awareness courses - When the normal procedure would have been a caution.
How much lost money & time did this result in - Uncalled for course fees, time off work, worries about
loosing a driving licence. Not to mention travelling to the course .

We, residents in Lancashire plus anyone who uses 'our road network' want improved safety, though the
PR budget lavished on this exercise beggars belief. But, the Road Safety Partnership has been a loose
cannon. It is about time the Chief Constable with the Board of Management especially Lancashire County
Council - sort themselves out.
Safety yes! A blood sucking mentality no way.
Get a grip ladies & gentlemen and above all investigate the 'audited' figures. Meanwhile ANY authority member
of the above organisations also the partner agencies - may well be advised to seriously consider their seats
on the respective boards. You ladies & gentlemen, will be held to account - you have a public duty NOT SIGN OFF
Micky Mouse accounts. A coach & horses can be driven through them. They do not balance.
No doubt some better authority will seek to tweak these numbers. But no point in splitting hairs - the bottom line is
we have different rules in Lancashire. One wonders whether this causes us to have higher in insurance?

SamWoe - A Lancastrian - now.

Samwoe writes:

This is correct. However THE MAGISTRATES, who deal with 95% of the cases of speeding have been led by the nose by the representatives from,CTO, CPS and the Courts legal reps for years, that ALL the offences brought before them are to be dealt with as if they had been apprehended by a POLICE OFFICER & not captured by a static camera.
I have been present when it was perfectly obvious that The CTO Officer, representing the Chief Constable & The CPS rep,(who had not even seen the case let alone APPROVED it for prosecution), just simply misled the magistrates that each case was brought before them was being prosecuted at 34,35 mph because it broke the POSTED limit! I have never heard of ACPO 10%+2 being conveyed to the magistrate. I would be surprised if ANY of them were even aware of THE REAL speeding policy under the camera scheme of The Chief Constable.
Even solicitors with years of service under their belt have tried to argue on behalf of their clients admitted no knowledge of ACPOs 10%+2!!
Perhaps we should have FULLY TRAINED magistrates who understand just how the prosecutions under the Road Safety Camera Scheme SHOULD operate instead of being conned in to believing that the posted limit was the proecuting threshold and 31 mph, by camera, was therefore APPROVED by the Chief Constable at his DISCRETION!
Maybe it should be a requirement that ALL the Partnerships had a magistrate on it's board!
There's been many reported occurrences of people actually being prosecuted way below the 10%+2 because the CTO & CPS rep failed to inform them that they didn't even qualify for A CAUTION and the magistrates found then guilty, fined them £60-£100 plus costs plus points on their licences, WHEN THEY SHOULDN't HAVE EVEN BEEN IN COURT AT ALL!!! The Chief Constable sits back in silence in case it affects his extra income from the publics wallets (If only by way of costs!)
Cameras in Blackpool seem to operate from 31 & generate FPNs for ALL speeds!
Great for the tourist & visitors industry!
The cowboys/cowgirls lie in court by ommission with the knowledge that The CPS rep will pull the case if it's looking like somebody "JUST MIGHT SPILL THE BEANS" and pull the plug out of the milking machine!

Update:
LEP Today
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Speed-camera- ... 5232571.jp



Now how do we know that no tickets were issued from this site ? Chief Constable doesn't allow INDIVIDUAL SITES returns to be recorded!
So how does Saf Munshi know? The boss of the Partnership said that ACPO wouldn't release figures, facts etc NOT EVEN TO THE CHIEF CONSTABLE!!!!!!!!!!

read here:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19733

The possibilities are endless  Just because no tickets were issued, does that mean they chose to scrap any NIP's they would have sent once the proverbial hit the fan or did they not detect anyone exceeding the limit??

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).

out of curiosity for how long in advance is the adverstised,

_________________
now retired

kandalian wrote:

Or sent out speed awareness corse offers! These aren't tickets but worth a lot more!

Row over 'stupid' speed camera van

L.E.P.
21 May 2009
By Matthew Squires
A cyclist has demanded answers from road safety bosses over a "dangerous" speed camera on a busy Lancashire road.
And a retired Lancashire police officer has told the Lancashire Evening Post he thought the positioning of the van in Liverpool Road, Penwortham, near Preston, was "absolutely stupid".

Cyclist David Daniels, 34, from Stargate Drive, Larches, Preston, had to swerve around the van, parked at the end of a cycle lane............
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Row-over-39st ... 5287472.jp

And another one from Blackpool



http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Extra-speed-trap-sparks-outrage.5285116.jp

I guess people don't know that a driver can't be done twice for the same offence.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Not strictly true.
They may well try to take two bites from the apple.
The automated system operators will very likely not talk to the manual system operators. You may well get two fpns' for the same offence but you will probably be able to claim that one is duplicitous.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

What do the cyclists think of the camera placing in this story?



On one side, obviously it makes cyclists swerve out of lane into traffic, but on the other, [webcyclist mode] speeding cars are the root of all evil, so it's a price worth paying.[/webcyclist mode]

Never mind the cyclist, what about road safety. One lane blocked of a dual carriageway in order to detect speeding ?

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I do understand what you meant by that, but it can be misread (or spun) in a very negative way

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It appears to be parked under a flyover...probably because it is dark under there and they think that the drivers will have more difficulty spotting them there, than if they were parked in daylight BUT at the same time, you have to question their ethics on road safety because by parking where they are and closing one carriage way ,they are throwing safety issues out of the window. I'm sure a broken down motorist stuck there, would soon be moved away by the police, for safety fears.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

The van parks there a lot, scamming traffic coming down quite a steep hill - dual carriageway, 30 limit  Very easy to pick up speed down that hill. 

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).

But the cyclist can go on the left-hand side....the traffic cannot. AND, were there any signs informing drivers that there was an obstruction on the road ?
Road workers have to comply with signage regulations and THAT would have not been allowed under current local authority guidance....under a bridge ??????
The whole procedure was dangerous: I feel fairly certain that if an accident had occurred the person who placed that obstruction there would have been prosecuted, and maybe even his/her employers. Do not forget, we have corporate manslaughter laws now !

Since I have now read the story on the DA site, it seems that rampant greed overruled intelligence. Far from promoting safety, this was instituting danger.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing