Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Jan 25, 2026 21:57

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 181 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 15:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
GreenShed wrote:
malcolmw wrote:
malcolmw wrote:
This has got to be incorrect interpretation of the situation by the reporter. AFAIK the Speedwatch has no legal force and a policeman with a calibrated device must have been drafted in to get the prosecutions.

I will have to remember in future that casual chat is no longer permitted on this forum and that only precise legally correct language and statements are permissible. :)

It seems from other reports (quoted by dcb earlier) that the BBC did get it wrong as I suggested in my post above. These people were not prosecuted on the sole evidence of the CSW volunteers.

The arguments on here about the legal status of witnesses and my use of the colloquial expression "legal force" are actually not relevant to the point I was trying to make. I am not aware of any motorist being convicted of speeding on the sole evidence of CSW personnel as was implied by the original BBC report. This may be technically possible but AFAIK has never happened and probably never will for the reasons already rehearsed.

It is, which is exactly my point.

There was no prosecutions for mobile telephone offences until they were...well....prosecuted. This is exactly the position in which we find CSW speeding prosecutions, as far as we (you and I) are aware. There may well have been some and there may have been some in Wilt's but reports are conflicting.

Well done malcolmw, you have worked it out.


Its technically possible for my example of two people who trust their cat's instincts to give evidence, but as explained, it wouldn't happen. This also doesn't explain why you would write this:

GreenShed wrote:
...prosecutions have resulted from the evidence of CSW volunteers..


So nice try, but you're not getting away with it that easily Walt.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 15:14 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
Quote:
Chimp.

Please refrain from using such language

I guess Walter Mitty" and "Walt" are not considered abusive then.

Even though they're not as strong, they're still not desirable either.

In such robust debates, it would be best if everyone tried to refrain from personal slights.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 15:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
Quote:
Chimp.

Please refrain from using such language

I guess Walter Mitty" and "Walt" are not considered abusive then.

Even though they're not as strong, they're still not desirable either.

In such robust debates, it would be best if everyone tried to refrain from personal slights.

I absolutely agree but wonder why you chose to chastise the tactic when used as an obvious retort rather than the pre-emptive and repeated use of such childish slights.
[/child-mode]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 15:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Still diverting, where are the cases?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 15:34 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
I'd look a right chimp if my suggestion that Greenshed is a fantasist was shown to be false in the most straightforward of manners!

Why don't you prove me wrong and cite these cases you'd have us believe exist Greenshed? While you're at it, why not share with us your legal bona fides.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 15:35 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
I absolutely agree but wonder why you chose to chastise the tactic when used as an obvious retort rather than the pre-emptive and repeated use of such childish slights.
[/child-mode]

There wasn't a choice. I'm busy at work and I don't analyse the posts of agreers with the same vigour as those of opposers – I simply missed it!
This has now been addressed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 15:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 18:50
Posts: 673
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
I absolutely agree but wonder why you chose to chastise the tactic when used as an obvious retort rather than the pre-emptive and repeated use of such childish slights.
[/child-mode]

There wasn't a choice. I'm busy at work and I don't analyse the posts of agreers with the same vigour as those of opposers – I simply missed it!
This has now been addressed.

Plus you would have needed at least two witnesses!

(sorry - I couldn't resist)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 15:42 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
The legal force exists, it is in statute and prosecutions have resulted from the evidence of CSW volunteers.

Yes I want proof of this too. Remember, you said "evidence of CSW volunteers" as opposed to "information from CSW volunteers" - there is a world of difference! You have to show that the information from CSW volunteers is indeed admissable evidence.

I am not saying you are wrong, but 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.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 15:54 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
I stopped taking any notice of his utter drivel about a year ago, when he stated that the mean speeds on most NSL roads are over 60MPH....something that I have yet to see when studying loads of council statements of reasons, to reduce limits (most are about 53MPH) and yet he claimed to have seen many but couldn't conveniently find any. When I posted mean speed survey results from somewhere around chester , I think, he jumped on a few 30MPH limits with excess speeds (probably been reduced to 30 from Nsl anyway), claiming his "victory"...he doesn't really have a clue.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 17:20
Posts: 258
sorry i have joined this debate a bit late but are these CSW volunteers using the old defunct Wiltshire camera vans or hand speed guns, if the former is the case then the evidence is on the video


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
OK one last try at this one.

AN. Other driver, approaches a team of CSW volunteers, Mr. W. Itnessone and Mr. W. Itnesstwo at a speed of approximately 100mph in a 40mph speed limit. Both volunteers are trained in the use of a laser speed gun. Mr. W. ItnessOne measures the speed of Mr. AN. Other, the gun reads 99mph.
The two volunteers both make a note of the time, date and speed straight away as well as noting the registration mark, make, model and colour of the vehicle and they recognise the driver as Mr. AN. Other because he is well known to them. They both make a note of the name of the driver.
The speed limit is correctly signed and the Traffic Regulation Order is correctly made.

1. Does evidence exist of an offence being committed in breech of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s89(1) and (2)?
2. Can a prosecution be brought against Mr. AN. Other for the offence of speeding?

Note 1. and 2. are specific and do not say things like "do you think there is", "to the best of your knowledge", "do you agree that the law should or should not allow" and other things to that effect.

It is my submission that this reflects the position at the front of this thread and what was originally opposed by me. Have a go and see how you get on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 18:50
Posts: 673
GreenShed wrote:
OK one last try at this one.

AN. Other driver, approaches a team of CSW volunteers, Mr. W. Itnessone and Mr. W. Itnesstwo at a speed of approximately 100mph in a 40mph speed limit. Both volunteers are trained in the use of a laser speed gun. Mr. W. ItnessOne measures the speed of Mr. AN. Other, the gun reads 99mph.
The two volunteers both make a note of the time, date and speed straight away as well as noting the registration mark, make, model and colour of the vehicle and they recognise the driver as Mr. AN. Other because he is well known to them. They both make a note of the name of the driver.
The speed limit is correctly signed and the Traffic Regulation Order is correctly made.

1. Does evidence exist of an offence being committed in breech of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s89(1) and (2)?
2. Can a prosecution be brought against Mr. AN. Other for the offence of speeding?

Note 1. and 2. are specific and do not say things like "do you think there is", "to the best of your knowledge", "do you agree that the law should or should not allow" and other things to that effect.

It is my submission that this reflects the position at the front of this thread and what was originally opposed by me. Have a go and see how you get on.


1. Circumstantial evidence exists.
2. No


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:45 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
From the Leicester and Rutland CSW site http://www.bealocalhero.com/ (my bold)
Quote:
Speeding is a community problem with speeding checks often revealing that many drivers exceeding the speed limit are local to the village and surrounding area.

Community Speed Watch [Be a Local Hero] is a partnership initiative operating only in Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland using the combined efforts of the local residents and supported by the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Road Safety Partnership.

Community Speed Watch is a scheme to help people reduce speeding traffic though their community. The scheme enables volunteers to work within their community to raise awareness of the dangers of speeding and to help control the problem locally.

Community Speed Watch incorporates poster campaigns and a pledge system linked to direct action using radar speed guns and Vehicle Activated Signs, all under the supervision of the County Council. The use of the radar devices will not lead to prosecution – drivers will get a letter from the police instead – but will help to underline the community’s commitment to reducing speed.

Already operating successfully elsewhere in the country, the Leicestershire and Rutland scheme was initially piloted in nine communities before being made available more widely. The County Council has already received over 200 expressions of interest.

Lesley Pendleton, Leicestershire County Council lead member for Highways & Transportation said:
“The scheme forms part of an overall strategy with the police to help manage speeding throughout the County. It does give communities the opportunity to help themselves and highlight the issues that are a concern to the residents. Having taken part in a scheme myself, I have seen the positive effects the volunteers can have and would recommend other parishes or groups to make use of it.“

_________________
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
1. Does evidence exist of an offence being committed in breech of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s89(1) and (2)?
2. Can a prosecution be brought against Mr. AN. Other for the offence of speeding?

Possibly, but not with the legislation you have quoted. :headbash:

OK one last try at this one.
viewtopic.php?p=231371#p231371
GreenShed wrote:
... and prosecutions have resulted from the evidence of CSW volunteers.

Does any evidence exist for this? ... and do not say things like "do you think there is", "to the best of your knowledge", "do you agree that the law should or should not allow" and other things to that effect.

Excuse me, I thought I had stipulated that 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.

:roll:

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
1. Does evidence exist of an offence being committed in breech of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s89(1) and (2)?
2. Can a prosecution be brought against Mr. AN. Other for the offence of speeding?

Possibly, but not with the legislation you have quoted. :headbash:
...

Really? Have you discovered a universal flaw in the prosecutions of thousands of motorists?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 17:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Odin wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
OK one last try at this one.

AN. Other driver, approaches a team of CSW volunteers, Mr. W. Itnessone and Mr. W. Itnesstwo at a speed of approximately 100mph in a 40mph speed limit. Both volunteers are trained in the use of a laser speed gun. Mr. W. ItnessOne measures the speed of Mr. AN. Other, the gun reads 99mph.
The two volunteers both make a note of the time, date and speed straight away as well as noting the registration mark, make, model and colour of the vehicle and they recognise the driver as Mr. AN. Other because he is well known to them. They both make a note of the name of the driver.
The speed limit is correctly signed and the Traffic Regulation Order is correctly made.

1. Does evidence exist of an offence being committed in breech of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s89(1) and (2)?
2. Can a prosecution be brought against Mr. AN. Other for the offence of speeding?

Note 1. and 2. are specific and do not say things like "do you think there is", "to the best of your knowledge", "do you agree that the law should or should not allow" and other things to that effect.

It is my submission that this reflects the position at the front of this thread and what was originally opposed by me. Have a go and see how you get on.


1. Circumstantial evidence exists.
2. No


1. The evidence is direct and corroborated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 17:08 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
You said it had happened Greenshed. Surely if it had it would be easier for you to cite the court reports than to mess around with imbecilic hypotheticals?

Where are the cases Greenshed?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 17:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 18:50
Posts: 673
Quote:
The evidence is direct and corroborated.


No it is not, now answer Steve and stop dodging the question and I will educate you as to why.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 17:11 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
1. Does evidence exist of an offence being committed in breech of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s89(1) and (2)?
2. Can a prosecution be brought against Mr. AN. Other for the offence of speeding?

Possibly, but not with the legislation you have quoted. :headbash:
...

Really? Have you discovered a universal flaw in the prosecutions of thousands of motorists?

Flaws happen; parking and speeding penalties have been overturned due to such flaws - but I am not saying one exists here (only that your argument as presented is flawed).

Notice how you didn't try to address the rest of my post that scrutinised another of your supposed concrete claims. What should the reader make of your clear evasion, greenshed?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 17:34 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
GreenShed wrote:
On Wed Oct 06, 2010 07:31 Johnnytheboy said
Johnnytheboy wrote:
Correct, no legalforce. ...


I said on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 21:52
greenshed wrote:
Incorrect; all that is required is 2 witnesses neither of whom need be a police officer.


May I point out yet again that...

I wrote:
GS also originally selectively quoted me as saying "no legal force", which - in its original context - was comment on the warning letters that are sent out making no requirement on the registered keeper to incriminate the driver.


I would still be extremely surprised if these prosecutions did not result from a mechanism other than CSW (e.g. from the occasions when the police were present, as in the photo accompanying the story :roll: ), as I have still yet to see a copy of a CSW warning letter with the legal force to make the registered keeper incriminate the driver.

If they sent out a standard NIP, that would have to be formatted to allow the registered keeper identify the driver on each separate occasion, and I've yet to see an NIP of that format either.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 181 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.100s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]