Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 20:46

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
http://www.legal-uk.co.uk/news.taf?_fun ... ord=186850

Speed Cameras In The Dock

In a potentially stunning appeal case in the High Court on Tuesday the future of speed cameras may be decided, at least for a while. The case concerns an unsigned section 172 form, where an apparent loophole in the law requires a driver to return "information" about a motoring offence, but the law does not appear to require the form to be signed.

If the form is not signed other legislation suggests that it cannot be used in evidence. In this way thousands of drivers have already escaped conviction for motoring offences, by returning "information" as required on unsigned forms.

The situation gained national publicity last year after a similar case in North Wales was dismissed. Since then many thousands of drivers have returned forms unsigned in the hope of escaping conviction. Although no official figure exists, we have heard estimates ranging up to 100,000 unsigned forms cases in the system at present.

If the appeal is won, drivers will not have to sign their forms and the speed camera system will be thrown into chaos. Paul Smith of Safe Speed comments: "Speed cameras have had a strong negative effect on UK road safety overall, and it will be a very good thing indeed if the appeal is won. We will be on track for getting back to the excellent road safety policies that gave us the safest roads in the world long before speed cameras."

Idris Francis said: "I am appealing this matter in the interests of road safety and the law, and on behalf of responsible motorists. It is unacceptable that the law is in disarray on the matter. I abhor the way that long established legal principles including the right to silence and the presumption of innocence have been eroded to enable speed cameras to be widely installed. My investigations into the overall effects of speed cameras confirm that they have been very bad indeed for UK road safety."

The appeal follows a case in Aldershot on the 28th August last year where magistrates convicted Mr Francis of "failing to provide information" under S172. There was no dispute that information had been provided, it had - the question, then as now, was: "Is it sufficient to satisfy the requirements of law to provide the information on a form that is not signed?"

John Josephs, Mr Francis solicitor, said: "There are two main reasons why the present system is unfair. First, the system does not discriminate between those drivers who are greatly exceeding the limit at busy times and those who are marginally over the limit but are otherwise driving perfectly safely. Second, although the points system is often compared to the "yellow card" in football, a player knows that he has been given a yellow card. In many cases a motorist may fall foul of a hidden mobile camera more than once in a few days without even knowing it."

The case is listed for hearing on Tuesday 16th March 2004 at 10.00 at the High Court. The exact details will be published on Monday at the following web address:

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/cms/3530.htm
=================================

(they just reproduced our press release verbatim)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 19:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I've done a couple of pre-recorded radio interviews today about this case for broadcast tomorrow morning:

BBC Radio London
Swansea Sound

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 13:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 23:34
Posts: 11
I heard the interview on BBC London this morning. The safe speed campaing Its getting quite a lot of publicity. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 14:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
dimmadan wrote:
I heard the interview on BBC London this morning. The safe speed campaing Its getting quite a lot of publicity. :lol:


Was it OK? I recorded quite a bit and the interviewer was rather hostile. I have no idea what may have been left in.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 18:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 23:34
Posts: 11
yes it was ok.

They did not play an interview as such, just played your comments on driving and safety. It was part of a news report.

It didnt come across that you were a 'bad guy'. More like 'Paul Smith from Safe Speed had the following to say.....' etc. It was part of a bulletin to do with the Idris case and speed cameras etc poss the end of the road for them.

around 0830ish.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.218s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]