Safe Speed Forums

WE'RE GUILTY OF SPEEDING UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
MCN INVESTIGATION, BY STEVE FARRELL, 6 December 2006
Camera partnership says it's up to us to prove we didn't break law - but we have to go to court to do it
SPEED camera authorities have told riders they don't need to show us any evidence to back up their accusations because we're all automatically guilty and it's up to us to prove we're innocent.
Riders who ask for speed camera photos to prove they weren't speeding are told they must go to court and risk a £2000 fine and double the points on their licence in order to see them.
Gatso photos can be used to verify speed by making a simple distance¬-over-time calculation. The distance travelled by the bike is determined by counting how many of the two¬-meter-apart lines it has crossed between the first and second photo, and that figure is then divided by the half-second interval between the two.
Last year MCN reader Bryn Carlyon was supplied with these pictures and MCN used them to prove he was innocent, saving him the ordeal of going to court. After our story, camera authorities around the country agreed photos would be issued on request as a matter of course.
But now camera authorities, including Staffordshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, have said they will only supply one of the two pictures - making the calculation impossible. Riders are told they must go to court to see the second photo because they are presumed guilty.
Carlyon said last week that he feared the policy could lead to innocent riders accepting fixed penalties for speeding because they fear stiffer penalties threatened by partnerships if they go to court. Asked why the second photo was not supplied when requested, Staffordshire Casualty Reduction Partnership spokeswoman Jeannie Hoddinott said last week: "The onus is on the driver of the vehicle to prove their innocence, not on the Partnership to prove guilt. Therefore if any driver is adamant that they were not doing the speed they were allegedly detected at, then they have the right to go to court and prove so."
She said the partnership didn't set court penalties but that "a driver can be fined up to £2000 and have six points placed on their licence." A driver or rider who accepted a speeding fixed penalty without going to court would only face three points and a £60 fine.
Carlyon, 48, from Mid-¬Glamorgan, said: "A lot of people won't go to court. They're afraid to go to court just in case they are wrong."
MCN reader Richard Brown, 53, from Worksop, Nottinghamshire, has requested both Gatso photographs of an alleged offence from the Staffordshire partnership and been refused. He said: "It's absolutely diabolical. It's disgusting. With that threat hanging over me I'm obviously going to take the easy option and accept the £60 tine and three points."
Hoddinott claimed the partnership was acting out of generosity by supplying just one photo. She said: "We are not obliged to send out any form of photography and we do so only out of courtesy, so the registered keeper can identify the driver of the vehicle. Some partnerships send out no photography at all. Therefore Staffordshire's approach to this is quite lenient."
A spokesman for West Midlands Camera Partnership said both photos were issued on request but that the road markings would be deliberately cropped out make the distance-over-time calculation impossible. He said: "They send you them both but they're cropped down so it's just showing you and the vehicle." He added: "It's only for the purposes of identification."
Other partnerships said their normal response to a request for evidence would be to send one photo and that they would only send both if specifically asked.
If you have been sent one Gatso photograph by a camera partnership or told you can't have both, e-mail your details and a daytime phone number to steve.farrell@emap.com

`They're afraid to go to court, just in case they are wrong'
WRONGLY ACCUSED BIKER BRYN CARLYON

Hoddinott claimed the partnership was acting out of generosity by supplying just one photo. She said: "We are not obliged to send out any form of photography and we do so only out of courtesy so the registered keeper can identify the driver of the vehicle. Some partnerships send out no photography at all. Therefore Staffordshire's approach to this is quite lenient."

Camera partnership says it's up to us to prove we didn't break law - but we have to go to court to do it
SPEED camera authorities have told riders they don't Iced to show us any evidence to back up then accusations because we're all automatically guilty and it's up to us to prove we're innocent.

If this is true it's pretty poor, but it's MCN...

I quite believe what the MCN have written. A van driver friend of mine was accused of red light running, when he eventually got a photograph (from the SCP involved) it was very poor quality, he rang them up to ask for a better quality picture, they asked him why he wanted another picture, he told them it was because the quality of the picture was bad and he could not see the registration or what colour the lights where, apparently the lady he was speaking to got quite angry, she told him it’s up to him to prove himself innocent.

And how EXACTLY is he supposed to prove his innocence if the only evidence of the alleged crime is being witheld?

Is there a PR in this?

PR XX - Camera Partnerships worried about accuracy.

In MCN today it was revealed that as a matter of policy speed camera partnerships avoid sending out proof that the vehicle was speeding even when requested. SafeSpeed's Paul Smith said "we're not suprised they are hiding the evedence, we've come accross litterally hundreds of dodgy speeding acusations. However, if camera partnership are confident in their technology why would they avoid releasing proof?". The partnerships are under no legal duty to release photo's unless the defendant has opted to go to court. Then under the magistrates act they need to disclose anything they indend to rely on. Only at this point (and then not always) will the partnership disclose some of the evidence.

Paul further added "this flies in the face of the openness policy - they claim they don't hide the cameras why are they trying to hide the evidence? Surely its not difficult to send out the two photos with the initial notice rather than wait to be asked and then compelled to do so" One can only conclude that they are worried about people checking the accuracy and challenging the speeding allegation.