Safe Speed Forums

Was the headline on page 23 of yesterday's "Manchester" as reported by Alan Salter



Since when could anyone drive at any speed on the M60 Ahh... 11.30 pm and empty of course ..



Hmmm :scratcchin: I thought the work had extended to J5/M56 exit? Must be mistaken.. some time since I went to Wythenshawe to liaise with heart surgery for "heart attacked by lurgy situation"

Anyway ... back to the story...

[quote]

Chris's solicitors argued on his behalf over several points of law. Apparently the clincher was ...

The CPS could not prove that an NIP had been servedwithin 14 days.

and crucially and this could be something for Paul to explore -

The defence argued that there was a need to show that the tempory limit was in force at the tempo speed cam site and that the pratnership had failed and refused -- even in court - to provide the negatives from the camera.

Chris the fireman said "I was elated. It was like the weight of the world had been lifted from my shoulders. If I lost my licence - it would have placed the fire service at the airport in an awkward situation as well as myself on the dole."

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

What the hell was he driving? I want one!
And on a fireman's salary too!

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I cannot type!

It should read;

He feared his 16 year career would be over when he recieved a summons to go to court and not an NIP - as he was over 20 mph above the limit.



Does not say what he was driving... but he was off duty so it was not his fire engine..

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

If the prospective consequences/punishment for an offence is to all intents and purposes prospective job loss, I think there is grounds for refusal to disclose.

Err. Sorry. Clarify please.

I'm guessing the Roger is referring to Brown -v- Stott where it was decided that the S172 procedure did not violate the right to silence in 'minor' cases. I agree that there would be a case to argue. I reckon it's 50/50 if you would win that one.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Thanks, Paul.

In fact I was not thinking of any speific case. I remember reading s172 a few years ago and deciding that one only needed to make a disclosure where consequences would be minor. Eg, if the alleged offence was ban teritory, the burden of disclosure was removed.

This may have changed though - or I may be remembering wrong. I've not looked at this aspect in several years.

I do remember coming up with a toung-in-cheek motto though

If you're going to speed past a camera, do it properly

of course sticking to the limit always works, after all this prat must have had another 9 points on his licence BEFORE this court date, he knows the rules, knows he needs his licence for work, before you speed freaks start telling me that it was all a mistake, it was all 4 mistakes!!

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit

We aren't told the point count prior to this alleged offence. However, I understand that being found guilty of travelling in excess of a speed limit by 20mph empowers the Magistrates to inflict a ban at their discretion.

TSM you are wrong, the court summons limit for a 40 limit is 66 mph, so he could quite likely have 0 points and face a temporary ban.

Don't you ever read other posts before you comment?


He was driving at the normal speed limit for the road because he believed that the temporary reduction in speed limit was over.

Yes I read the post, Did this fire fighter not read the road signs, undue care and attention as well as speeding, excuses after excuse with fools like PS helping people avoid the duty on all drivers to drive sensibly, safely and within the speed limit.

note All 3 not just picking the rules we WANT to be there.

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit