Safe Speed Forums

I'm sorry I don't think the law is weak on this matter I don't think the legislaters intended s172 to be used the way it is currently, I don't think they envisaged 10% of the driving population a year being fined for speeding, I don't think they introduce the regulations to allow judge dredd/robocop style justice.

I've always felt the meaning of s172 was to identify the driver when they failed to stop or could not practically/safely be be stopped. I don't think there was any intention to use it routinely or even as the prefered route, which is the case now.

All the police need to do is stop the driver at the time of the offence and none of these so called 'loop holes' would exist. I actually think its the police who are using loop holes to their gain.

Hear, hear. But what are you replying to?

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

Me, I think. I was the one who used the 'weak law' phrase. The point is correct though - the law isn't weak. The application of it to inappropriate circumstances is tenuous and the police are discovering it doesn't work the way there were told it would.

The trouble is the police are servants, and their political masters are feeding them the same misinformation as they try to feed us, but the police are obliged to swallow the bull....

Can I suggest that one or two FOI requests are fired off in order to get to the bottom of where all this originated from.

Firstly, as Mr Freeman says, there is no such thing as a "loophole". There are cases that are dismissed because the evidence didn't satisfy the legal "checks and balances", but to imply that anyone in such a situation "must be guilty" is wrong in just so many ways.

Taking signage as an example, it is entirely right and proper that a conviction only sticks when all the signage is exactly as prescribed. As it stands everyone knows exactly where they stand. Councils and CPS alike know that for (say) a speeding conviction to stand all signage must be correct. If they knew that it didn't matter, that there was no need to keep signs visible as the courts could always apply some "reasonableness" clause to ensure a conviction, then what effect would this have on the standards of maintenance of signs? What effect would this in turn have on road safety, if there were no incentive to keep signage clear. As with most such things, it is only when you look into the detail of these "loopholes" that you realise the good sense behind them, and the purpose they serve.

Furthermore, to threaten to weight the punishment meted out to defendants by handing out disproportionately high costs claims is if anything worse. It goes against the law of the land, it goes against our constitutional right to a fair trial, and it almost certainly breaks the ECHR, by effectively denying people their right to justice. It might even be fair to describe it as "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice".

But in a way it is perhaps a good thing that this has come to a head like this, as it is apparent that costs claims are already being used in this unlawful way, and it needs stamping out. If the law sets a reasonable penalty for an offence as (say) £100, then it is grossly unjust that this be multiplied 5, 10, or even 40 or 50 times over, simply as an additional penalty for exercising your right to defend yourself.

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

I think this was set up primarily to deal with more serious offences like drunk drivers who kill people who go on to be acquitted based on technicalities, the knock on effect is unfortunate.

I agree that some of these propsals seem to be aimed at serious offences, but the 'dissuading with high costs' was specifically mentioned as only relating to speeding.

I think I'm going to send an FOI request asking why they singled out speeding as the one offence they need people to stop contesting? Rather than, say shoplifting or assault?

But it is fairly fundamental to the reasonable application of law that the authorities must abide by the correct procedures, and if they fail to do so then a prosecution must fall.

"A copper thinks he's guilty" or "A copper beat a confession out of him" are not good enough.

As JT said above, these are not technicalities or loopholes.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I think it was set up under the disguise that it was to be used to catch drunk drivers and to make it look appealing to the general public, when the real reasoning behind it was to bring a heavy hand down on motorist with petty speeding offences who want to have their day in court, just the same way they are now using the Terrorist Act to control people. I doubt these knock on effects are unfortunate, more like engineered.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I think it's more the case of "the guy was 4 times over the limit and killed two people on a zebra crossing, but because the specimen was supplied 63 seconds late and the chief constable didn't specifically authorise it using quite the right words, we can't secure a conviction and therefore was found innocent."

You would think that the police and CPS would pay more attention to getting it right in these "more serious" cases wouldn't you. Their failure is no excuse for guilt being apportioned by opinion.


It's not my problem as a motorist that they made the law so difficult to comply with technically. Politicians should change the legal requirements after due scrutiny - not policemen.

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

Even an extreme case like that doesn't undermine the underlying principle. If the authorities are to prosecute people, particularly for technical offences like speeding, then it is only right and proper that they abide by the rules too. What alternative is there?

In your theoretical drink drive case, if there is a time limit on the giving a sample [which there isn't] then that would have to stand. The correct answer is that the authorities should follow all their own rules properly, especially in serious cases. If they fail to do so you can hardly blame the defendant for pointing out a matter which gives him a clear defence.

To me it is precisely analagous to a Policeman chasing a robber and not running fast enough to catch him. Do you blame the robber for getting away, or the Policeman for not running fast enough?

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

the intial thinking is irrelevant.....it's the application that matters.
The law applies equally to both prosecution and defence - intimidation is not part of it. What may be best intention becomes a big stick to beat everyone - look at examples of clauses included in other Acts as 'Public Safety/Anti Terror' measures and which are being applied far beyond the originally stated intentions.

What I'd like to know is this:

I have already had a day in court in my life - and won on a 'technicality'

Does this mean that if I am unlucky enough again to be pinged at whatever speed or not wearing a seatbelt / whatever...

Does it mean that because I got off on a technicality before, I have no chance of a free and fair trial in future??

Could I get off again on that technicailty alone?

These people are nothing more than power pissed fascists. They'd have all done well here had Hitler won. Nice uniforms, swastikas, concentration camps for anyone with non-official views on anything.

Jack boots, leather whips, etc. Power, power, power. Achtung mine fuhrer!

_________________
We have a complaisant but venal judiciary and police force - all too eager to pervert the Law to satisfy their own aims

I haven't heard much about this in the media since. Have Med and his mates realised that they've made a blunder and back tracked?

I was trying to word a police complaint but I can't get the words round the right way. Can any one improve on this?


I might quote this bit...

_________________
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

It looks good to me

Have you not seen the new rules (Health and Safety) JT; the police are not allowed to chase criminals in case the pursued should injure himself by, say, running into the path of a car. (Hopefully one that is travelling within the speed limit or else the police might turn their attentions to it).

Would this not be defendable under the Prevention of Harassment act?

Just because someone slipped over the limit, as per Richard Brunstroms admission, but is normally a speed limit or below driver, but defends on one of these technicalities and wins, they would be actively targetted by this team, wouldn't that constitute Harassment?

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

The danger of automation is that particularly in today's age of extreme rationalisation, if mostly the automation works then before long 'check every result' becomes 'cast your eye over the pile' becomes 'send them out and see what happens'.

With regard to the latest thing of fining people for offences in London captured on CCTV (yellow box, jumping lights, bus lanes etc.) it seems to me more or less fair enough as long as the people observing are actually traffic wardens AND will only fine people where they would have done so if they were down there at street level - i.e. on the 'yes, it's worth my time given the stupidity of them blocking the junction/holding up the bus etc. There'd still be more convictions, because they'd be able to watch more locations and process each offence more quickly.

But you just know it's going to end up being a technical offence thing - yep, crossed over into the bus lane for a second; yep, his front wheel's on the yellow box.

Cue further financial rape of the driver, who doesn't even know he's been done until the fine comes in the post. Highly unlikely to have a genuine 'I drove stupidly, must do better' response - much more likely to incur resentment at all traffic enforcement.

Ian