Safe Speed Forums

Some original points ...

I know that two independent witnesses (members of the public), can be considered sufficient but even then the Police have to investigate and 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' - of course.
You are not clear - do you mean people employed by the Police/Partnerships ?
'All that is required' meaning for example - for prosecution or that a letter is sent and then the Police go and target that person and then a NIP is sent.
So the members of the public have down little more than alert the Police to a situation ?
Do they need an LTI in use (with all appropriate training / proper use / certification etc) to prove the speed? On what basis do they prove that the speeding was not momentary and not 'consistent' ?
Do they miss someone one day and then decide between them that they will book them 'anyway' ?
I would not 'trust' any general MoP to act properly all of the time. There is propaganda, that has spread fear and hate creating a negative bias towards anyone who 'speeds' even just for a tenth of a second.

I know that disgruntled motorists who report someone's driving to the Police, rarely get taken up and they won't even look at it at all unless there are at least two independent witnesses.
If what you state is true, then myself and another person could stand on the road near your house, and target you with an un-calibrated, unapproved LTi, catch you speeding at some point, and then give the info to the Police and expect a conviction?
No, just not buying that one, not one little bit!

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

2 independent members of the public can be witnesses you are correct.
The police will not necessarily have to make an investigation as they may not be the ones that are bringing the prosecution. If the police do bring a prosecution they would need to make enquiries into the integrity of the information.

The employments status of the witness is irrelevant in respect of whether that evidence can be used but is relevant in how it is used.

That would mean that the police have gathered evidence of a separate and subsequent offence that has nothing at all to do with the offence to which the witnesses were witness to. The police have, in the situation you mention, used the witness statements as intelligence with which to target a motorist; that is quite a different situation to using the evidence of 2 people to bring a prosecution.

No. It would be better if they did but that is not required. If they do not have something that is Type Approved then they would need some other way of showing that the speed was accurate and that can be done with a witness to that fact, one of which could be one of the 2 witnesses to the offence if they were suitably able to provide that information.
The police don't have to use Type Approved equipment because they can bring prosecutions without the use of section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act 1988, the only need for Type Approval is to be able to certify evidence from a Type Approved device is accurate and admissible without the need for a witness to appear in a prosecution. As soon as the certified evidence is challenged Type Approval is only useful for the prosecution to indicate the evidence is reliable and accurate but it isn't a requirement.

Why would they need to? Is that something that you believe is a criteria that is required?
This is similar to much of what has been said in this thread earlier. You seem to have an idea that there is a legal requirement to show much that is not required at all; that the witnesses have to be police officers for instance. That was of course the subject being discussed at the outset.

That would be dishonest and I am sure you would agree that a police warrant card does not remove that possibility. That is not a criticism of the police by any means, merely a fact shown by prosecutions for such events.

Is there really? Perhaps you can describe how such measurements are made. Are there speed meters around that use such a short measuring period? I think this is exaggeration and without a basis in fact or do you use such a short period just to illustrate?

That is exactly my point.

The only part of that statement that is incorrect is "expect a conviction". A conviction is possible but you can't expect it.

How about expect a prosecution?

Have you found those cases yet?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I am not sure I understand this. Can you explain how a witness to the fact that the speed measuring device was accurate would support their statement if the device was not type approved or calibrated?

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

Very easily.
They would need to bring some form of evidence to show why they were attesting that the device was accurate at the time of the measurement. They could do that by explaining why and how they knew it was or could bring documentary evidence of it.
Let's say in some case, not a speeding case, any case, a digital watch was being used to show a time period. The defence say that there is no proof that the digital watch could time a period of 60s to an accuracy of +/- 1s. The manufacturer of the watch could adduce a witness to give evidence of its accuracy and knowledge of its failure modes. What credible evidence is there that the watch was inaccurate at the critical time of the measurement given in evidence and then at a later date had returned to accurate and acceptable operation? The defence has to bring that evidence.
You need to consider whether a case has to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" or "beyond all scientific certainty". It is the former and there is case law to explain that the former is preferred and that the latter is not required.
Similarly, a device manufacturer can give evidence of the accuracy of a device without the need for Type Approval or indeed calibration.
Down to the witness but not at all difficult.
You are mistaken in thinking that Home Office Type Approval is a requirement of all speeding measurements. It would be the best but is not a bar to all prosecutions if not available.

So two members of the public could use their digital watches to time someone over a distance, revealing that they are speeding, and then expect the CPS to pursue a prosecution once they informed them of their evidence?

Where are these cases you swore up and down existed about people being convicted due to CSW evidence? (In case you were wondering, I'm not planning on dropping it until you produce said cases, or confess they they do not exist.)

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

of course. a neighbour with not time on his or her hands or a grudge would not think of pressing the start a little late and pressing the stop a little earlier, would they?

I don't think it is unreasonable to have something a little more accurate than a nosey neighbour armed with a watch and a note book to nab people for speeding when people's livelihoods (loose license loose job) and peoples lives (29mph angel, 31mph child killer) are at risk

I’m going to go out in a limb here.

Is the key thing here that the paperwork for any offence must be signed off by a police officer?
I thought there had been various case flaws (!) where NIPs were voided because an officer hadn’t signed a/the form?

This all kinda ties in with my earlier questions to you greenshed, but they were evaded....

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

So, if a speed indicating device was used in evidence in a case of exceding the limit it would not be necessary for it to be calibrated. All that would be required is for a representative of the manufacturer to get up and say "Yes, it's wonderfully accurate." and this would be accepted. Why then, is it necessary for any speed measuring devices to be type approved and calibrated? Why waste the public's money?

Your statement has everything the wrong way round. The defence do not have to bring evidence of anything and especially not that some mysterious change in the device had occured. The prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was exceeding the limit . In the scenario you put forward the opinion of the manufacturer's representative would, IMO, not be sufficient as it is not independent and verifiable.

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

The only thing a police officer is required for is the issue of a "Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty". That isn't used in a court prosecution so police not required..

The Chief Constable is required for a NIP and S172 request as I understand it but this is usually delegated to a civilian.

I specifically gave a clock/watch example that was not related to speed but if you want it to be fair enough it doesn't make any difference to the principle except to introduce complication.

That is correct, there is no need for it to be calibrated. Better if it is but that is not a requirement.

They would need to be more convincing than that but yes.

They don't need to be calibrated or Type Approved. They need to be Type Approved if the evidence is to be given by way of a s20 RTOA 1988 certificate but there is no condition that requires calibration. Calibrated is of course better but not essential.
If a Type Approved device and s20 Certificate is used it saves a fortune in public money because the evidence is certified to be accurate and correct. As soon as that is challenged without reasonable evidence in court then that is when a lot of public money is wasted.

No, it is the right way around. Saying you don't believe something is accurate or believable is wasteful and will not overturn reasonable evidence from a device unless there is some tangible and reasonable evidence with which to back up a defence claim. You can give it a try if you wish but simply saying something "may be wrong" or "may be inaccurate" is not something a court needs to take note of unless you are an expert in it or you have evidence of it.
That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion but unless you are a trained magistrate your opinion is of little value, no offence. Most courts would take notice of a manufacturers' representative especially if that representative was expert in the subject. You are not quite following the independence issue either. The witness needs to be independent of the defendant not the equipment; it is perfectly reasonable for a manufacturers' representative to give evidence about their equipment and that is reasonable to do so. The defence are entitled to challenge the evidence of the representative and to bring evidence that the representative has been misleading in some way but note, there has to be evidence of it NOT merely an opinion that it may be inaccurate, only expert witnesses are allowed an opinion, defendants and defence solicitors are not.

Thank you. We're getting there.

Unless I misunderstood you, I think we agree there is no legal force in terms of sending conditional offers, which returns us to the earlier court comments (that were not addressed).
Does this mean the evidence gathered by lay-witnesses has 'no legal force' until first considered and then accepted by a court? If so, hasn’t this vindicated all those who claimed 'no legal force' because the information as gathered must be subject to another step before it can invoke a force of any description.
So as is, they really have 'no legal force'?

If CSWs cannot send out NIPS or summonses, exactly what 'legal force' do they actually have?
Doesn’t the information the CSW gather have the same legal standing as any other claim, for example: a claim of harassment? Do those claimants (or their claims) have 'legal force'?

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

Steve, nice attempt at a turn-around on the argument or you may have missed the original challenge.

The head of this thread has a collective consensus that the evidence from CSW volunteers cannot be used in a prosecution; that is the first joint opinion and the only opinion I have challenged. This opinion was termed, in my understanding as "no legal force". It is perfectly clear that members who have posted at the head of the thread mean that no use can be made of evidence from CSW other than to send out a warning letter or to provide intelligence to the police. I would go further and say that the members also meant that ONLY police officers can give evidence of speeding for it to be prosecuted to conviction.
Evidence from members of the public and CSW has some "legal force" because by various means it can be used.
That's a summary of my position.
If it is to be further complicated then that is up to you all but that is my submission. It is up to you to say why a "witness" is further qualified to mean "a witness who must be a constable".
Good luck, as there are no laws, as I am told by a legal specialist freind that says there is such a requirement

Greenshed, nice attempt at a turn-around on the argument or you may have missed the original challenge.

The head of this thread has you saying that two witnesses are sufficient for a conviction for speeding, a claim which you later attempt to reinforce by lying about the existence of cases where people have been convicted of speeding based on no more than the evidence of CSW members. Of course no such cases exist, nor are they ever likely to. This was the first thing to be challenged in this thread, a challenge which you have avoided for over 7 pages of postings, and yet had the audacity to issue counter-challenges. You have shown yourself to be a liar and to have no real understanding of the law. Why should we take anything you say any more seriously than the words of a crank who had somehow figured out how to turn on a computer and connect it to the internet?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I'm not sure that was said, let alone having a consensus of it (yours truly).
Practically any evidence can be used in "a prosecution"; whether it can be legally valid or successful is a different matter (something else Malcolm had already said from the very start). According to you it has been, so where and when?


Aha! Questions evaded; ducking out of the argument; indeed a 'turn-around' on your part - does that mean we got you!

It looks like my very last question stumped you didn't it:
Doesn’t the information the CSW gather have the same legal standing as any other claim, for example: a claim of harassment? Do those claimants (or their claims) have 'legal force'? Yes or no?
It's an easy question, one that's perfectly clear - isn't it? Why don't you answer?

I think you will find there is a great difference between "some" and "none at all, until a later time when a court may consider and possibly (but not necessarily) grant acceptance as evidence".
Nice attempt at a turnaround!

Oh yes, what about Robin's challenge to you, which various other posters have repeated to you? Did you 'miss' that over, and over, and over, and over, and over again?
...prosecutions have resulted from the evidence of CSW volunteers
Don't forget, this was also a challenge, posed to you, since page 1 - one you failed, failed repeatedly and miserably!

What was it you said earlier in this thread:
I am not accepting any side issue questions that do not have any relevance to this issue.... I look forward to considering your submissions on this but please restrict them to fact rather than your own opinions.



Furthermore, I again highlight Malcolm's post, as well as PeterE's :"Would you like if it two of your neighbours who didn't like it clubbed together and got you convicted?".
How did you respond to these greenshed? Oh, you didn't!?!

You couldn't even explain how the legislation you gave doesn't satisfy your own claim.

That's a big one to add to my list

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

Speedwatch is a community education program, it is not intended for prosecution. Persistent offenders can be targeted by police, or areas with serious problems targeted. Speedwatch only works in posted speed limit areas, not in the NSL. Our group targets areas where there have been crashes, or near schools at school time. The fastest speed I’ve seen at school time in a village with no footpath in a 40mph is 98 mph, the fastest in a 30, in a village with no footpath, at school time, is 65mph. On both occasions the road was damp.

Welcome Speedwatcher, and thanks very much for clearing that up! As I'm sure you can see, we do occasionally suffer here from ignorant people stridently putting across their "unsubstantiated opinion" in the face of overwhelming evidence, so it is nice to have a contribution from someone with firsthand experience of these schemes. I do hope you'll be willing to stick around and share with us your opinions of the problems and your chosen means of combatting them, as well as possibly taking on board some concepts to the contrary.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Speedwatch

I would like to know if ever any of the 'letters' that the Police have issued have ever resulted in a further investigation or prosecution by the Police or anyone ?

I also propose that we start another thread and discuss your organisation if you are willing ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Yep, but isn't this the purpose. MoP (Members of the Public) are used as cheap Police and in essence only as a deterrent ?
For some S/w schemes this is all that happens though. There is never any intention to prosecute all the 'speeders', as they know it is mostly locals and would then (as has done) stop the Speedwatch process, so it is really only to provide the Police with the extreme top 10% of speed mis-users, so that they can then go and target those more serious offenders ? So yes they use the MoP's as cheap eyes and observance gathering.

Are witnesses independent if they are both (2 people - min required) part of the same 'group'?
If an opinion can only be taken by an expert witness, can a MOP be considered an expert ? I cannot see a Court accepting the opinion of a MoP so how can they make it stick ? Plus a mistake might have been made on various levels of operation too, so unlikely to be accepted by a Court.

There is such a thing as common sense. Going down a hill might see one go a little over the acceptable threshold (10% +2mph) so then a distance of 'speeding' can become an issue.
No, it is the precise legal requirements of both that we have been exploring.

That would be dishonest and I am sure you would agree that a police warrant card does not remove that possibility. That is not a criticism of the police by any means, merely a fact shown by prosecutions for such events.[/quote]Both members of the public and police are not perfect and both parties might succumb to lying. There is concern that the great increase in using MoP to 'rat' on other MoP encourages vigilante behaviour in other areas of society and the beginnings of possible community break down as trust is destroyed.

Is there really? Perhaps you can describe how such measurements are made. Are there speed meters around that use such a short measuring period? I think this is exaggeration and without a basis in fact or do you use such a short period just to illustrate?
It was just to illustrate my 'momentary point' but the LTi does only use a very short period to make a possible NIP, e.g it is just s 'moment' of driving .... not a prolonged 'error' as it were.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.