Safe Speed Forums

from thames valley police website
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/rdsafe/rdsafe-roadpol/rdsafe-roadpol-speedenforcement/rdsafe-roadpol-speedenforcement-speedwatch.htm



i read this to mean that if a vehicle is logged 3 times then the BIB will go looking for them, it also says a database is held so they know what time the regular's would pass through,

I like this bit:

No photograph, no evidence the vehicle was there.

_________________
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 think my talking parrot has as much chance of bringing a successful prosecution against a "speeding " motorist, as greeshed's two witnesses.

_________________
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.

I wonder if an FoI to Wilts plod would clarify this?

This seems to be a local protocol. I can't see any reason other than the most cynical why the protocol would be in place at all.

There is real evidence that the vehicle was there if a witness says it was; this is especially strong evidence if there is more than one witness who are in agreement. Evidence doesn't have to be something the court can touch or see for themselves although an image would be even more convincing evidence. That is until a defendant attempts to convince the court that the image they are seeing isn't real.

I say it is direct evidence.

Can you explain why it is "circumstantial"?

Greenshed, can you please cite these cases you insist exist where people have been convicted of speeding on the evidence of CSW members?

If you cannot then you must concede that no such cases exist.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

One person watches the display.
One person notes down the numbers.
Large probability of error.
I drive all day, I have seen loads of CSW installations, I have never seen one with anything like an approved speed measuring device. Mainly they are portable speed display units which are usually inaccurate.
Next time I pass one I'll slow to 5mph on approach, with "ripple effect" it should mean that nobody speeds until hours have passed. Or Birmingham is passed.
Local protocol: Thames valley are one of the largest forces in the country. They cover Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.

_________________
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

Yes, as previously stated, stop dodging Steve's question. When you answer him I will educate you.

Can you explain why what you claim is NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL , OR EVEN WORSE - "HEARSAY " -as not being properly obtained -problem is that speed readings obtained by Amateurs( i.e those not approved to use speed reading kit, even though trained ,they are not qualified as warranted officers of the law ) are suspect ,and could be judged to be biased in that no Police officer has seen the equipment in action,or judged the competency of those using the kit .And they're a lot more questioned waiting .

I'd suggest GS submerge and get out before the depth charges start flying .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

IT is not circumstantial or hearsay because the evidence is obtained by the direct observation of witnesses who can be questioned under oath. The fact that those witnesses may be incompetent or untruthful makes the evidence dubious but it remains direct rather than circumstantial or hearsay. And motoring prosecutions have been brought on solely circumstantial evidence such as skid marks.

From the behaviour of HMS Astute I suspect that GS may have taken your advice about submerging

_________________
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

What a misnomer eh! Lol!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

What you need to do is to find out what "Circumstantial" and "Hearsay" actually is before you start using those specific terms. Contrast them with "Direct" evidence when you find out what that is.

Can you explain what an approval procedure is for the use of speedmeters?
Can you explain why a "warranted officer of the law" is the only type of operator that may be considered for qualification as such?
Why are trained individuals producing suspect evidence and a constable is not?
Why does a police officer need to see the equipment in action?
Why do police officers need to judge the competency of people using the kit?

You do have a lot of questions but they are essentially based upon the premise that a police officer is required to assess the operations and being a constable blesses one with magical competency in the use of speedmeters. Your premise follows the premise under challenge here; that a police officer is the only qualified witness that can provide evidence for a criminal prosecution; that is incorrect. If that was the case you would need a police constable witnessing all crime; you can quickly realise that is not the case at all. As well as not having magical speed measuring competence they do not have the ability or manpower to pop up at every criminal event and provide a warranted witness.

I may well be delighted to educate you in the ways of understanding the terms "you" have chosen to use to oppose my suggestions however if you are prepared to use language and terms you to which you are oblivious that's your problem. The means to help you understand them, realise you are wrong and to correct your challenge are at the click of an internet search engine.

Use the same to answer the set questions about your post but beware of taking your answers from forums consisting of groups of like-minded sycophants; they tend to create legends that become, in their minds, factual.

Happy hunting.

The Astute incident is quite funny after the event as there was little risk to any of the crew and of course ourselves. Before you laugh though every one of those blokes has more guts than most are blessed with and you would do well to consider that before you smirk...and no, it isn't because of the radiation.

Really Greenshed? More guts? When was the last time one of them was shot at? August for me! I can smirk and banter all I like with a clear conscience. Our once proud Navy is quickly becoming a laughing-stock, with incidents of iPod surrender, inability to prevent piracy taking place under their noses, and crashing top-of-the-line boats in what should be familiar waters.

Why do you expect people to answer your questions when you won't answer a simple one yourself? To reiterate, can you please cite the cases you insist exist where people have been convicted of speeding on the evidence of CSW members?

As for your line of reasoning regarding police officers to have to witness all crime, it is specious in the extreme. To illustrate, how many strict liability offences exist that do not require an official input in order to prosecute?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Ah! A non-practicing never practiced LLB. Now I see why you find it difficult to manage the elementary law tests and you insist there is no legal force until a case has been completed to conviction.
Why is there no legal force in the statute I referred to and why doesn't it apply to the event being witnessed by 2 non-constables? If you say it doesn't then why?
Come on, we are 6 pages in and there has been no support for the "no legal force" assertion at the top of this thread. Now someone with an LLB should be able to find that sort of reference or at least have an old college friend who could help write some form of legal basis for it. Let us all see the statute or case law that suggests 2 witnesses are insufficient as alleged.

GS,

You have seized with ludicrous zeal on my throwaway comment of "no legal force". This is a chat forum not a court and, as you have said earlier on, like a pub discussion. You miss the point of this commentary which is that the "evidence" (direct or otherwise) of two CSW volunteers would be of little use in trying to prosecute anyone for speeding.

Nobody, including you, can cite a case of this happening. IMO it will never happen due to the lack of objective proof of commission of a strict liability offence. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just being pragmatic. If what you say about the 2 witnesses is technically possible, why didn't the Partnerships decide to use this cheaper route to prosecuting millions? Why do the police need VASCAR type devices? It's because individuals' judgement of speed is notoriously inaccurate and would be insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't care whether you are legally correct, in the real world it is irrelevant.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

What counts as evidence? What enables claims to be used as evidence?

If there has never been any speeding prosecutions based on the testimony of two 'lay witnesses' and a speed gun (counter your unproven claim greenshed), let alone just two 'lay-witnesses', then why not? If you are correct greenshed, then surely there is no difference CSW and the SCPs/police?

Why is CSW evidence only ever used as information, used to help police gather evidence?

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

Very funny dcb, you on the other hand have not earned any kind of right.
[moderator message: this is a response from a post split off into this thread]

Here's the thing Greenshed, without caselaw to enact the statute, caselaw you lied and said existed, then all we have is your unfounded opinion that a prosecution for speeding could succeed based solely on the evidence of CSW members. As you have no legal expertise whatsoever then your unfounded opinion is essentially worthless, even more so when we take into account that you have told barefaced lies.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

It's ironic, of all the vehicles I operate, my car is by far the easiest. Just jump in and go. No setting up, no adjustments, things don't fall off, it doesn't have any attachments and won't get stuck. Even using the roads is fairly easy if you use your head. But it's the legislation that causes the problems, all of which is arbitrary and most of the time breaking the rules doesn't have any physical consequences. Late at night one could travel along the motorways as fast as their vehicle would allow and if you watch what you're doing the only penalty would be heavy fuel use-age, but the law considers you a criminal when you have hurt, harmed or inconvenienced nobody.

For the last few weeks I have been driving at work my forward speed in work has not exceeded 2.4kph and I am mentally exhausted, maximum concentration and little or no margin for error. But no fines and no points.

So Greenshed, fair opportunity given, even as a fresher it wouldn't have taken me this long to turn up a case from the library, knowing full well what I was looking for. I presume we can take your ongoing silence on the matter as a tacit confession that when you spoke of cases, where people had been convicted of speeding based on the evidence of CSW members, you were telling a barefaced lie, and that you accept that no such cases exist, and that you have been caught out not only being intentionally deceptive, but also purporting to speak on matters of the law with authority, when in fact you are a legal ignoramus.

With this in mind I suppose we can consider the matter closed.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.