Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 13:23

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Contacting the CPS
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:33 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:44
Posts: 7
I was just wondering wether it is possible to contact the CPS regarding an alleged offense BEFORE receiving a Summons?

Fer instance to get them to drop the case, and save Johnny Taxpayer some dollars?

Anyone had any luck in this regard?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:41 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
It's very unlikely that it would amount to anything more than the waste of a stamp, but if you post a few more details we might be able to advise further.

In the general case the least contact with "the dark side" prior to trial the better, but if you really do have an absolutely watertight defence there might just be some mileage in trying to stop the prosecution at an earlier stage.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 15:17 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:44
Posts: 7
Not watertight, but the camera partnership have sent me photos, which I can only assume to be from a talivan, with no way of visually verifying the vehicle speed i.e. no little white markings on the road.

I recently heard of a case dropped because there was no way of verifying the speed of the car apart from the partnership equiptment itself, and I was hoping to get the case dropped before having to take a day off work and stump up to the magistrate court.

Anybody else hear about this case?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 15:23 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
If the evidence is from a "talivan" using a humanly operated speed meter then there is no requirement for the secondary corroboration of a set of markings on the road.

In the eyes of the law the speed meter is itself the secondary corroboration, with the primary evidence being the prior opinion of the operator that you were exceeding the speed limit, which of course he will be prepared to give sworn evidence of in court, should it come to that.

If you want to investigate other possible defences can I suggest you head on over to PePiPoo. Have a careful look at this post then start a thread of your own...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 15:52 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:44
Posts: 7
Cheers for the advice JT, I just wish I could find more information about the dismissed case, it might have set a precedent.

So if no corroboration is necessary, why have the markings on the road at all? Surely a decent case could be made considering the incidents of inaccuracies on this and other websites?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 15:57 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
What markings?

The only markings I know of are either stripes painted for GATSO type cameras, which don't have an operator and therefore do need a secondary means of corroberation, or the white squares on main roads which are used by Police VASCAR systems.

A dismissed case wouldn't set any sort of precedent if it was only at a Magistrates' Court.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 16:50 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:44
Posts: 7
On the stretch of dual carriageway in question, there are gatso-type markings - I just thought it was a bit unusual that the photos they sent me weren't of my car going over those markings, I'm pretty sure there's never been a fixed camera on that stretch of road...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 23:45 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
did the photos you recieved have white /black crosshairs on them one would show a mph reading with an asterix others would show driver id reg number if not already shown

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 03:53 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
As far as I understand it road markings have never been a requirement for any type of speed registration device. (except for the Truvelo which probably requires it's 3 little lines)

The secondary check on a Gatso can be done by measuring the difference in width of the vehicle between the two photos and some complex maths. Or something like that. Then someone realised that you could just paint lines on the road and count them instead. :)
Even with Vascar I believe anything can be used as a marker, a sign, a bridge, etc.

The lines on the road could have been from a fixed Gatso which had been removed (roadworks?), or from where they used to operate a portable one but now prefer using lasers (there's more chance of catching people speeding with a laser)
If the lines are very near a parking area next to the road and there is a 'large trailer sized' square box marked out in the parking area then it's an old style portable one. (I know they used to use one of these in Somerset)

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 18:29 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
Don't forget the sneaky buggers wont always send you thier best photos. they will be preserved for 7-days in advance of your trial (if you are lucky).

The route you seem to be going down needs you to check the following:

1 was the cameras automated or manually opperated
2 if automated then go to 7 if manual go to 3
3 was the scamerati a police officer if yes go to 4 if no go to 6
4 how far away was the police officer when he nabbed you if >700m go to 6
5 you dont have a case
6 you could argue that the scamerati was unable to form the prior opinion of
speed because he was either not qualified (civie) or too far away.
7 you need to id the type for the camera and check that is was used in compliance with HOTA rules - you may have a case.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.020s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]