Safe Speed Forums

Steve – as you have failed to produce a single FPN or SAC offer that has been issued below 10%+2mph, I would now like to refer you to ACPO’s official policy on Speed Awareness Courses:

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/ ... ebsite.doc

EXTRACT: Section 7

Other Conditions
The 10%+2 to 10%+6 band is across all speeds and as such would allow a speed awareness course at any point between the following levels.

Have a look at the table which is clear - that the bottom level is 10%+2mph and that this MUST be observed, stating:

“Nothing in this document is meant to limit the discretion of the police to dispose of cases appropriately – but if it is linked to one that is under the national speed awareness scheme then the criteria must be adopted.”

To clarify (and I ran this past a senior police officer), this means the police can let someone off with a warning, issue a fixed penalty or refer a case to Court, but if a speed awareness course is offered it must comply with the criteria and be offered between 10%+2mph and 10%+6mph.

The document goes on to state:

“ACPO set a limit below which speed offences should not be prosecuted so as to allow for equipment inaccuracy, speedometer inaccuracy and human error interpreting a speed indication by dial. Prosecutions below this level should be undertaken by way of careless driving or other offence, not speed offence alone.”

In other words, if a police officer believes someone is speeding between 31 and 34 and that the behaviour is dangerous, the driver may get done for careless driving or another offence – but not speeding.

As I stated earlier, if any driver was given a ticket at 31-34mph, they should opt to attend Court where the case would be immediately thrown out due to the reasons mentioned above (equipment inaccuracy, speedometer inaccuracy and human error interpreting a speed indication). But this is a red herring as tickets are NOT issued at such levels.

Here’s a Press Release from Lancashire CC. See the answer to the question “Why have I been given a ticket for only driving at 32mph?”

http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/ ... =PR07/0482

And another Q&A on the Kent cameras site: Question: “I received a fixed penalty notice and I was only going 32mph in a 30mph zone.” See the answer. http://www.kmscp.org/cameras_page03.html

I could go on with links from other official sources.

Steve – I trust that you will finally accept that you are mistaken and admit defeat gracefully as this matter is becoming rather tiresome.

Greenshed – can you post a scan of the 33mph FPN please? I thought not - because it is nothing more than internet gossip eagerly swallowed by the gullible and used to justify irrational criticisms of speed enforcement. Any police officer who issued a ticket at such a low level would be laughed out of court – unless, of course, speed was mentioned as part of a careless driving charge and not specifically as a speeding charge. Take note Steve.

All - no need for any apologies, your personal accusations, assumptions and insults are far more entertaining! I'm just happy to be able to supply accurate information and clear up a myth.

And before I bring the issue to a close.

Steve - you believe the Councils use cameras to raise revenue in some way which they get back via the road safety grant.

You have failed to explain why Swindon so clearly take the opposite view? They made it clear that they ditched their cameras becuase they did not like passing the fine revenue to the Treasury.

If as you say, Councils gain from camera placement, why are Swindon not keeping theirs and reaping the benefit?

Just a simple explanation will do please.

Such a case would not be "immediately thrown out" although it may well be possible to gain a not guilty verdict at trial.

The ACPO guidelines are just exactly that - guidelines - without the force of law and only apply to police officers, they are not in any way binding on the CPS or the courts. If a driver were to be prosecuted for (say) 34 mph in a 30 limit he could enter a not guilty plea, put forward the argument about margins of error and if he is successful in introducing a reasonable doubt against the CPS case he would get a not guilty verdict. Whether he does or not would depend on the evidence heard on the day.


Courts do not have the power to throw out a case. Thats an internet myth that has been repeated so often people actually believe it. If the police pass evidence to the CPS and they decide to prosecute a court can't decide not to hear the case. It is possible for a court, having heard the prosecution, to decide that there is no case for the defence to answer and to announce a not guilty verdict at that stage of the proceedings. Not what most would consider to be "immediately thrown out".

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

The three rules given make no reference to a mandatory minimum level.

So where does this document say anything about prosecutions? What you have quoted is "guidance" for SAC (which contain three unrelated rules); it says nothing about prosecutions (that other thing you are giving bad advice about).


Should: "Indicates a recommendation or that which is advised but not required."
You should brush your teeth every day.


If you had read it yourself, you would find that it starts with "In Lancashire...", Lancs does not encompass the whole of the UK


To which the answer begins "it would be extremely unusual...", but they didn't say impossible. Also, that comment was referring to a speed of 32mph, not 34
Again, that document applies to one county, not the UK.


Take note of what? No facts were given regarding prosecutions below 10%+2.


Anyone wishing base a case on this advice would be well advised to first consult a lawyer/solicitor.

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

I've said no such thing. You are misrepresenting what has been said to facilitate an easy rebuttal.

I used the generic terms "funding", from a "pot". I didn't mention anything about the route they get it (i.e. the road safety grant); only you have done that - again!



Oh, and ditching speed cameras is apparently a vote winner!

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

GDS .. do a google on SAC blogs.


I have been trawling through archives of Lancs press today. I cannot recall which month. I think I see story of 34 mpoh . 12 pointer in 2003... but then began to get mesmerised by stuff archived in 2002 I spent ruddy hours reading past press (It confirm my suspicions on the "16-17 posts daily (claim to train plod) person" )


http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environmen ... report.pdf


This ist evaluation of Lanc SAC course.


I find this letter written by ex Lancs PLOD


http://archive.lancashireeveningtelegra ... 10849.html

Plus this article about the SAC course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... meras.html


I am still awaiting John's re-scan of his 34 mph NIP of 2003. It ist a bit immaterial as Lancs revamp in 2004 to current mode of

1. warning letter if pinged 31-36 mph (or any speed .. to same percentage across range.

2. SAC offer at 37-38 mph .. or 10% plus 4 to a cut off at 5 across each limit range to 70 mph.

Yimitier's threads show Lancs not deliver on this. We think they give SAC to 35 mph to make up "bums on seats" if "short"


BUT.. I want to make clear that I do not dispute value of SAC course.. nor its older brother of DIS as offer by plod.



I want consistency und same criteria applied across UK. Not doing so undermine this initiative when all said und done .. nicht?

Back home . we have the "AHA FAKTOR"which show CCTV of your car comitting "offence" of 3 mph above lolly.. . but placed in a nasty computer game .. which show you getting burned alive in one scene I think also too extreme to educate properly here in real terms. No one take notice but rage in chat rooms like this one

2?

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

PS .. GDS .. I know much of headteachers. I spent many a school day being hauled up before the principal for "sassing the teacher"

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

My final word on the issue. I really do not care what Steve wants to believe or what he would like others to believe. I am at a loss, however, why he wants to post inaccurate stuff on a site he supports.

Fine revenue goes to the Treasury - not the Police or the Council.

Road safety grants were agreed years in advance and were not based on conditions of camera placement.

There is no cash in cameras for the police or the LA's. I will concede that under the old netting-off system, there may have been something in cameras for LAs as this form of road safety was cost neutral to them whereas humps, etc come at a cost. I assume that is why the system was changed - to break all links and shut up critics?

Enforcement starts at 10% + 2mph over the limit. The police do not and NEVER have enforced below this.

Speed Awareness Courses - which is what this thread is about - are not offered below 10% + 2mph over the limit.

Steve cannot show us a FPN or Course referal at the levels he suggests they are issued. Ask yourself why. I will tell you - becuase nothing of the sort exists anywhere except in Steve's head.

All police forces in England and Wales follow the ACPO guidance.

Cases of speeding at 31, 32, 33 or 34 or indeed below 10%+2 have NEVER been taken to Court.

Please don't be fooled. Steve's arguments are all bulit on theory, wishful thinking and a wish to spread falsehoods and not on Police practice.

And as an Ex headmaster, that means that you are undoubtabley correct and an authority on the subject....right???

_________________
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.

All police forces in the uk cherry pick which bit of ACPO they want to folow.
like not checking signs , hiding cameras in horse boxes. using zoom lenses on LTI 20/20. obtaing a sumons with falsified documents.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

No one has said anything otherwise: not from Claire, not "numberous posts throughout this site".


Irrelevant. Only you made any reference to road safety grants.


Demonstrated to be wrong.


Contrary to your claim, they certainly have been. Relevence of given documents demonstrated to have been misjudged.


Irrelevant. This is about them occurring, not taken to court.




It certainly is now. Please check your PM inbox.



Everyone else,

Normal service can now resume.

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

Err, Sam . we use as "default base" We allow RPU to use their brains according to training. :wiink: in this area. Err.. we have a SAC under 2006 criteria ., but only the cam can crew can offer this,. Do read our website again

RPU offer DIS for various logic which they have to submit justifying reports upon.

There is some evidence of 2003 34 mph SAC invites per press of that time .which I will have to assume to be based on stuff shown to journalist within the "scoops" - but all such claims have since been superseded by 2004 -2006 legislation and thus "now defunct"


Today .., some areas issue warnings up to 36 mph and offer SAC , 37-39 mph. Others offer a full 10 mph margin and some offer only to 35 mph still. Some do not even offer a SAC alternative and this has to be an issue as it should be standard. across UK to be fair to all out there. I believe in fair play to all.. Hence this observation FOI on Lancs show few warnings at 35 -36 mph per yimitier's threads ... note the comment. If this is the case - then are all pinged at 37-39 mph? One has then to ask questions given the abundance of KNOWN cams in this area as it suggests that the SAC delivers exactly what our acid lectures do.. a change in behaviour/lesson learned? perhaps??? but the cam fails to teach anything until human contact and professionally corrective training/advice kick in. We do this "free of charge" for most of our customers,. RPU wil offer DIS for more serious cases warranting this Our van team are allowed to offer SAC these days up to an agreed threshold here which may be above 10%+2 but since I do want folk to comply to lolly within normally accepted reason.. I'd rather not dislcose in public ,, other than remark .. I think if fair tolerance margin .

As said . SAC and DIS are alternatives., Clients are kept on a database for 3 years as "course recipients" but this information remains "civil" - hence the reason why payments are made to council in case of SAC As said .. any surplus ovr expenditure goes to Treasury and gets returned via "grants to improve roads/road safety/educational literature/local THINK! stuff"

The issue is one of "uniform standardisation and fees for these courses",, the standard /content of these courses and the varied cut-off criteria. These courses need this is they are to be taken seriously and accepted as a fair value for money alternative/learning experience of benefit to a very sceptical public


For the record. I happen to think Lancs/Staffs offer a very fine SAC course in content. OTHERS should emulate this standard .. but the criteria for invitation should be reviewed/standardised and be made seen to be fair to the public. At the moment? It isn't and that's perhaps the real "fly" in the remdial ointment.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

The information you link to above is out of date and inaccurate. As a headmaster I woulld have expected better than simply plagerising such dubious material without checking it first!



Even the arrogant Steve Callaghan of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership was forced to accede that the camera at Ings could not be seen, until he had the grass cut!
He even accused me of lying when I showed a picture of the site with the camera hidden from view, saying that I had taken it on a day when the camera was not there!


What? No mention of complying with drink drive laws, staying awake, or driving to the conditions? Tsk Tsk - any decent head master would write "Must try harder"

Funny that last statistic.... "The crash rate doubles at night" it seems out of step with other areas...
[quote"Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership website"]In Penrith town, there are four distinct time periods for fatal and serious injury accidents – 9-10am, 12noon and 2pm, 4-6pm and 7-9pm

The A686 between Penrith and Alston had more accidents over the past three years than any other road in the area

Almost all accidents occur while vehicles were travelling straight ahead although turning right and overtaking also featured in the causation records

Most fatal and serious injury accidents in the Kendal rural area occur between 12 noon and 5pm

In common with other areas, most fatal and serious injury accidents occurred in fine, dry weather and on 30mph roads

Virtually all fatal and serious injury accidents in the South Lakes area occurred in fine, dry weather and in daylight

The majority of fatal and serious injury accidents occur in fine, dry weather without high winds and on 60mph national speed limit roads

In town almost all fatal and serious injury accidents occurred on 30mph roads

Most accidents occur on A class and unclassified roads and in fine, dry weather and day light

In Kendal town, there are three distinct time peaks for accidents – between 7am and 9am, between 12 noon and 1pm and between 3pm and 5pm.
Most fatal and serious injury accidents in the Penrith rural area occur between 12noon and 5pm

In the Barrow area, most accidents occur at times when people are driving to or from work [/quote]
I'll grant you that they no longer display this irrelevant information - but I think it shows that Kent & Medway appear to be all at sea when it comes to facts on their web site!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Ernest

Whilst your figures are undoubtedly correct the are for actual number of crashes not for crash rates which is the percentage of vehicles involved in crashes. The peaks which you highlight could well be explained by a higher number of vehiccles but the same crash rate.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

They are for the death or injury crashes, and the Kent & Medway site is all about trying to justify their claims to be about safety, not revenue.
Are you suggesting that they used crash RATE figures and not actual injury accidents to do this?

Charlatans!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Of course not - they are people of great integrity with no vested interests. Damn - my nose just hit the screen

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

It's not right that they be allowed to mislead educated people like GoodDrivellerSam!

Speaking of vested interests, did you know that one (now former) manager of a Safety Camera Partnership endorses the REDSPEED product on their website?
http://www.redspeed-int.com/images/testimonials/cumbria.gif

Interesting to note that despite being calibrated and certified as such for a whole 12 months in advance, that they needed maintaining during their short spell on the M6! For some reason, they don't certify that the repairs are kosher!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

This is a good one - it is dated 1st April... All Fools day!
http://www.redspeed-int.com/images/testimonials/letter-norfolk.gif

Strangely, their ISO 9001 management systems certificate has a specific disclaimer regarding BS EN ISO 17205, the calibration standard certificate. Perhaps for some reason they choose to hide that certificate away!
http://www.redspeed-int.com/images/stories/iso-9001-certificate.jpg

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I started this thread and I wish I could finish it. So much off topic I can't remember what the topic was now . (Note to admins IMO it would be a good idea if the thread starter wanted to close it then he should be allowed to but I know that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons I won't go into). Maybe you guys could start your own thread instead of attacking and counter attacking one another to the point the thread no longer resembles its beginnings. Thanks for all the posts and comments relevant to this thread most appreciated, as to the rest well.......... SIGH!:?

_________________
Flash.
(Everybody is entitled to my opinion)

Well, you started the thread with a very misleading statement: