Safe Speed Forums

Fudged = Anton disagrees with the verdict reached by trained people who had access to all the evidence.

I can see the argument for both sides of this one and am glad its not my decision to make. I don't know which way it will eventually go but I can see it going to the very top before we get a definitive answer.

Handy


We talk of Submarinated territory. They always at Shap/

Liebchen. I have always posted this. Mad Doc likewise.

We have an origin in the Jags. We use an RA device in the kitten cars.


But we are COAST style. We do not drive at silly speeds. We certainly do not speed in danger zones. We below lolly in reality.

But these scams zap anything which move on off chance. Steviebabes can splutter goo-goopgh-gah as much as he like - but this indeed the case. Our youngest pull funniest faces at them. They scathing. These are little boys aged 9 und 7 years. Our youngest child ist 2 und three quarter as she proudly inform us She also stick out her tongue at scamerati


Ach! I boast perhaps but our kittens are very much au fait with Green Cross und Highway Code. to them

I confess that the "laser laser- check speed!" from the gadgets irritate me und mine . We are not even at the lolly most of time. They are nor forming any "opinion" but merely zapping cars on "off-chance" that they marginally above. They should of course be zapping the obvious OTT. They may of course claim that our gadget picked up their zap on the OTT only we have been only car more than once in the past. No NIP as below limit. But even though we are legal- we feel "sullied by this stupidity" all the same.

_________________
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!

I do disagree with that court decision. The law states a police officers collaborated opinion.
the operator of the lti was a civilian.

I have read it on here that if you disagree with the law , campaign to get the law changed.

If the police or courts want the law changed they have access to the law makers to reach that goal. They should not make it up as the go along.

_________________
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

Freudian slip? (my bold)

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

Anton is absolutely right - case law is quite specific in requiring that the necessary primary evidence of opinion is formed by a constable. It follows, therefore, that the "trained people" sitting in judgment either did not have "all the facts" as fisherman suggests - or, if they did, failed to understand them and as a consequence fudged the issue. One assumes those sitting in the higher courts will have had better training.

I analysed a bit of tape from another Hampshire case and at the end I had the targeting stats from the session. It was a 30mph duel carriageway.
the officer had targeted as many cars as he had time to zap and had "formed an opinion" on almost every car of speeding. The data at the end of the tape told another story, 50% of the cars were traveling 25-30mph, 30% were 31-34mph, and there were 20% traveling 35+mph

I feel that he was not forming an opinion and letting the Lti do the work.
You may as well have let the device be set up in automatic mode. But this device does not have type approval for automatic mode.

I haven't had this data burst on any other tapes and I wonder how many officers squeeze the trigger on every car?

The motorcyclist had been targeted 3 times at 35-37 mph and the average speed agreed, I advised him of the evidence. He had ridden very safely and the clip showed considerate riding.

The officer was an Lti20-20 trainer he had excellent targeting skill. abysmal prior opinion.

_________________
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

Do you have a reference for that?
At our last road traffic training day we were told that this is not set in stone and that generally the opinion of a trained civilian is OK provided we are satisfied that a genuine opinion was formed. Training is provided by qualified lawyers.



See above. The facts we have disagree with yours, which is why I would like to have the case law reference. It would be fun to produce it at the next training day and show the trainer up.

I understand that there are some pertinent references on the Pepipoo site, pursuant to the Devizes fudgement - and if justice is properly to be served, the principle will be set in stone by the precedent of a higher court.

At this moment I can't find it. (because our fine british law is written like a jigsaw that has been dropped in the mud)

I have seen it, though. Road Traffic Act 1934, 1988 , statutory instruments... blah blah... grrrr

_________________
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

When you say obstacle - do you mean cannot see at all, or has only a limited view... such as through the camera lens?

The best view the operator has here is of the road beyond the limit, where it is legal to drive at 60 mph.



Incidentally, NONE of the accidents which were used to justify the cameras involved speeding - not even as a contributory factor (FoI to the camera partnership concerned) yet these toady individuals claim that the speed camera has reduced accidents. I think what you will find is the engineering measures, coupled with the fact motorists rarely go back to repeat their accidents has eliminated the (perceived) problem.

We now have FIXED cameras at this site (where up to 10,000 cars a day pass in summer) and in qualifying those, they showed accidents had increased while the site was being used as a mobile site, and STILL no accidents involving speed were used to qualify... NOT EVEN inappropriate speed.

The limit was reduced from 60 to 40 at the behest of a group of local residents who met in the pub opposite the mobile site.
The County Council granted their request in order to show that they took citizens concerns seriously.
They replaced the hatched central median with a solid one, adding sheltered lanes, placed islands at either end with bollards and lamp standards (both of which have been mown down by drivers trying to overtake who didn't see them) and reduced the speed limit.

However they FAILED to ensure pedestrians used the sheltered crossing and one pensioner still crosses at 45 degrees with his dog off a lead, through busy traffic!!

As you can see the site is straight, with good sight lines, wide verges and footpath - so wide that cyclists and pedestrians share it - and nearly all the accidents which occurred took place beyond the bend in the distance.
The one casualty at this end was a pedestrian who was drunk, and attempted to stop a passing car by lurching in front of it... to quote the safety camera partnership employee... "in a determined manner!"

My view is shared by our local police inspector - this situation arose in order to generate money from passing motorists, by engineering a stretch of road which encourages the unwary to go faster than an arbitrary limit which has no reflection on the safety of road users.
The courts system is being used to support this, and as a result is causing a general lack of respect for the law.

Recently a local man with a dubious reputation was found to have a Kalashnikov in his house.
Several people knew of this, or had heard the rumour, but only one person contacted the police with this information.
It was found to be a de-activated or replica - but nobody knew that at the time!
IMHO THAT "don't care, it dosen't affect ME" attitude is symptomatic of the damage which is being done all over the country by PERCEIVED injustices in the courts.

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