Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 08:48

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 23:51 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
anton wrote:
I wonder if the program was nobbled... it may as well have been... very disapointed


can you nobble Trevor Mcdonald, i thought the first park was quite accurate since we were decriminalised the condition of yellow lines / bays etc is quite bad yet still people get booked, the T bar / stop line at the end of DYL is an old one i went to court on one of these many moons ago,


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 00:22 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
SafeSpeed wrote:
camera operator wrote:
sorry for going on but why the change on the slip effect 'demonstration' from the side of the vehicle to now the bonnet, better viewing


That stupid graphic? Who the HELL did that? It was meaningless!
Paul, can I assume you were not in a position to review the program content? Who did? Were they up to the job?



The relevant section can be downloaded here (13MB, courtesy of ROOP from PH):

www.aukk22.dsl.pipex.com/PH/lti_20

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:09
Posts: 115
Location: South West
The thing that irritated me most on this program, and often annoys me on other programs, was the reporter doing a piece to camera whilst driving. He was holding the steering wheel with one hand and just a loose finger and thumb grip whilst waving his other hand around. At one point he had neither hand on the wheel! Together with the frequent looks into the camera lens I really think this is a practice that should be avoided in the interests of road safety and providing a good example. It may of course be possible that in this particular instance it wasn't filmed whilst driving on the public highway, but I'm sure we've all seen examples where they were.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 13:39 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
When I was filmed for a news item they insisted in doing shots in the car whilst I drove.I was wearing a seat belt. the camera man was loose and looking through a camers haunched in whatever position they needed to get "the shot"

I found my self driving with a loose pasenger over speed bumps. somthing I havent done in the last 15 years.

They didn't want graphs or data. Just shots in the garden, washing the car and driving the car. And every news item I have seen has been the same.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 14:45 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
http://www.aukk22.dsl.pipex.com/PH/lti_20

It's gone!!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 15:38 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Why do I think it’s been nobbled? Because they put the spin on it that every one is fighting on technicalities rather than the parking attendant errors, camera errors, and the blatant withholding of evidence that is used to disadvantage people in court.

When we got a positive 1/3 of a page in the Portsmouth news, the local camera partnership got a two page spread a week later. When the story broke that roadwork’s were less safe with cameras, the DFT flooded the news with stories about people hurling abuse and missiles at road workers.

I don't know how it happens but I know it does. :whip:

I have seen the same happen with Medicinal cannabis story for MS. We were getting loads of good press and then we saw a backlash from government and doctors. Middle England didn't like people having cannabis to relieve pain, bladder weakness, balance, enhanced sleep, for fear that a drug crazed person in a wheel chair might make their son smoke crack cocaine or inject heroin. Sadly medicinal cannabis passed it trials in the uk but has not hit the chemist shelves. The Americans will get there first and sell it to us at some exorbitant price.

Cannabis chocolate has as much to do with heroin as numerical speed has to do with road safety. (no, I haven’t got any)

(Subtle last line in a cheeky attempt to get it back on topic :!: )

_________________
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


Last edited by anton on Sat Nov 05, 2005 15:50, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 15:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
anton wrote:
I don't know how it happens but I know it does.


More than anything else, it's about resources. Facts can only go so far. To get further you either need more facts or (better) more money.

(Of course, money alone doesn't help - it's the resources that you buy with the money that makes the difference.)

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 15:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Got to echo what others have been saying about what a let down the programme was. I emailed a few people about the program and suggested they pass on the message to anyone who might be interested (i.e. has a driving licence) but if I'd known it was going to make it look like how to get off on loopholes I wouldn't have bothered. IMO they were trying to cover too much by dealing with signage, parking and issues with the speed guns - should have been one programme for each I think. Inside Out did it better, but even then they were only looking at potential flaws in a certain bit of kit.

How much longer do we have to wait before someone makes an hour's worth of TV about the pitfalls of the bloody system itself? :x

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 16:00 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
PeterE wrote:
The implication of the programme was that motorists were getting off by using loopholes and technicalities rather than that the whole system was flawed.

And nobody made the point sufficiently strongly that, if the authorities expect motorists to adhere to the law in precise detail, then they must do the same.


Yes, thats the way it came across to me as well. Anyone not aware of the background to the progam quite possibly came away with the view that the drivers featured were just a bunch of whingers trying to exploit the law to avoid the penalities for an offence they'd commited.
The ex-cop at the start did emphasise quite clearly that the signs he was using as examples were illegal, not enough emphasis was placed on explaining why it was important the authorities get this right.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 17:02 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 08:49
Posts: 400
I agree. The programme was disappointing after I told so many people to watch it.

I feel we aren't looking for loopholes to escape our responsibilities just feel that if we are going to be prosecuted then the prosecutors should stick to the letter of the law as well.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 17:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Brookwood wrote:
I agree. The programme was disappointing after I told so many people to watch it.

I feel we aren't looking for loopholes to escape our responsibilities just feel that if we are going to be prosecuted then the prosecutors should stick to the letter of the law as well.


I see all that as an aside, personally. I feel if we are going to be prosecuted by mechanics, which I find wrong anyway when it is a technical offence and not a real one, then the mechanics must be bombproof.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 18:21 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 17:33
Posts: 108
Location: North Lancashire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Disappointing. They had SO MUCH more material that they didn't use. And they could have made MUCH stronger statements.

Oh well. At least it's all coming out slowly.



Dissappointed.... because you 'know' so much more is there to be told, and it wasn't. But, someone looking at it from a 'beginners' perspective will now look for the flaws.
Like you say, it is all coming out slowly, and that is better than not at all. Also doesn't make me look like I am always on my soap box up here in Roadpeace Lancs. Trust me, there are LOTS of members that think the law is always right. :scratchchin:

_________________
belladonna
'Wisdom is knowing how little we know'
Socrates


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 20:10 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
If that's "investigative journalism" then I'm a little pink pussy-cat. It was PATHETIC.

They even gave airtime to that clown from RoSPA who thought that illegal speed signs were OK because "they told you what the limit was" - no mention of the simple fact that if "they" wish to enforce a technical limit using technical means, they need to be TECHNICALLY CORRECT in what they're doing!

Paul - if they didn't pay you for being involved in that farago, they're guilty of obtaining pecuniary advantage by false pretenses!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 21:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
pogo wrote:
If that's "investigative journalism" then I'm a little pink pussy-cat. It was PATHETIC.

They even gave airtime to that clown from RoSPA who thought that illegal speed signs were OK because "they told you what the limit was" - no mention of the simple fact that if "they" wish to enforce a technical limit using technical means, they need to be TECHNICALLY CORRECT in what they're doing!

Paul - if they didn't pay you for being involved in that farago, they're guilty of obtaining pecuniary advantage by false pretenses!


I think you're being too hard on them there. I don't know what problems they had or what pressures they came under, but I'm going to be asking some questions. I have a feeling that they will have been disappointed too. Standby.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 15:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 18:19
Posts: 90
Location: East Yorks
camera operator wrote:

well if i say that the signs were present and correct at the start of enforcement and i had not checked them, subsequently i report someone for speeding and evidence shows that the signs were incorrect, i think one thing perverting the course of justice it works both ways


Well this is exactly what happened in my case. First the cam. op. said under oath "I checked them before starting", and when I showed him the photo's, he said " Well, I didn't check those ones...". Then he said "I don't have the windows [on the Talivan] open, as I wouldn't want people coming up and challenging me." Which changed to "Of course, I had them open, and people often come up and talk to me." So what happened when challenged on both these points? Absolutely nothing. The magistrates response?
:fastasleep: Oh err, speeding, yes - guilty :judge:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 21:36 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
so what signs did he say had not been checked,


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 18:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 18:19
Posts: 90
Location: East Yorks
Cam Op - not sure I understand the Q. or if it's directed to me. The one's that I passed last weren't checked.
My point was that the magistrates weren't at all interested in whether he lied under oath or not. On the other hand, if I had been shown to be lying...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 00:26 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
ok teepee assuming you were in a 30mph area (above this temp restrctions etc) , whoever reported you would / should have checked and recorded on paper that all signs were correct prior and after enforcement, the signs you say that were not checked what were they


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 23:30 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 18:19
Posts: 90
Location: East Yorks
Yes, it was a 30 mph area - it was a restricted road, so I guess in some cases to be fair, it would be difficult, if not impossible to check all the signs. In this case, it would have been feasible, as there would have been only about 6-8 sets to check, and would have taken no more than about 10 minutes. According to the court, the fact that they were deficient was irrelevant anyway. However, that being the case, he should not have said that he had checked them, when clearly he had not.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 23:46 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
pretty standard procedure what was missing / defective 30 mph signs or camera enforcement signs

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.021s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]