Safe Speed Forums

No it isn't.

Only if you penalise a driver for failure to supply his own ID when there was already enough evidence of ID to convict him. That is not possible.

leaving aside the fact that camera vans don't use a flash, who says these people were attempting to frustrate justice? I can see nothing in the press report which suggests that.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

No they are not - especially in early morning/late evening sun. Try it some time instead of making assumptions!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Because the circumstances of individual cases can vary so much there is no formal definition.

I won't give a list, partly because it couldn't possibly cover all the variations and partly because if I do it might be seen as in some way official. That could lead people to follow my list and miss something I hadn't thought of. For an idea of what sort of thing you need to consider you could look at
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?aut ... icle&id=13
you can rest assured that they do not favour the courts and are not biased in favour of the judicial system.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Sorry, you don't think there is any significant difference between a flash from a forward facing truvelo and a rear facing gatso?
Here's a clue for you: line of sight
So much for you being a camera expert!

Do you even know what kind of camera system was used? Does Lidar emit a visible flash?

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

OK, OK! I heard you the first time! Doesn't mean I have to agree though!

I take it your understanding was set out when you said:

?

While I don't particularly condone the manipulation of the system advocated by the website you mentioned, I think it's very existance shows some measure of the strength of public feeling against this sort of "justice". We seem to be moving ever further away from "policing by consent"! And as for the "let's make it 6 points to put the bu66ers off" attitude, well...

Surely with all the vast array of sanctions available to the state, they could come up with something more appropriate as a punishment for (DELIBERATELY) failing to identify the driver? At this rate, it will soon be routine to loose one's licence without ever having sat in a car since passing one's test, let alone committed any actual motoring offence that involved, er, "motoring"! The world's going mad!

SPECS...

Oh, er, wait a minute...

I think I see what Fisherman is getting at.

It is the job of the police and their SCP colleagues to collect evidence - not families.

However, all they had to do was turn up in court to explain what measures they took - but they missed that chance. I hope they appeal so we can get to know more!

I only fill my car with fuel once a fortnight, so the chances of a garage receipt being used to show who was driving my car or when would be very slim! Because I have an estate in which the seats can be removed, family often take it if they have to move anything of size, or collect large items when shopping. I dont expect them to fill in a log, and if I am at work, they may well not ask me directly, as they would leave their own vehicles in it's place.

I doubt I am the only one in this sort of situation.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I think its a bit of a jump to link existence of a website with any degree of strength of public feeling. I have seen some websites advocating activities which make me feel physically sick, yet they make considerable sums of money and have a large user base.

As per usual I make no comment on this as it is a matter for our elected representatives.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Courts do see people in your situation, in point of fact as regards car use my circumstances are not that different to yours. The fact of many people being in similar situations may well be what influenced parliament to set the statutory defence at a low level. It is perhaps worth mentioning that reasonable diligence means taking steps to see if you can find anything which indicates who was, or was not, driving. There is no requirement to actually find an answer, but there is a requirement to look.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

A helpful link. Ta.

Just goes to show how it’s punitive and not meant to be remedial. “We don’t care who admits to the offence, we just want our 60 pounds of flesh". A remedy wouldn’t bring cash in.

The day all motorists' start to stick to the limit you can bet they will turn to zero tolerance, for safety sake - naturally…

As I've said before, I might have more respect for the way the motorist is so obviously getting ripped off if the money was ploughed back into road safety and traffic police. I bet there have been countless times where even Judges think the law is an ass but it's their job to inforce it. I've certainly met many police who think so. (They're drivers and human too).

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

From what has ben quoted I would like to know what use are these cameras if they cannot indentify the driver. In this case they are excerting pressure onto the defendents in order to obtain a conviction. The system is already geard up for automation of photo and the fines. If they cannot obtain the evidence from their equipment then they are requesting that the defendents provide the evidence with which to convict themselves. I had similar situation in OZ when I received an NIP after about 4 weeks back home. The vehicle was insured for three drivers and the offence took place in some outback place which we couldn't remember at leat I couldn't, but my son and partner had kept a daily diary for 18 months of travelling and checked back to find who the driver was at the time. However. The NIP was requesting me to disclose the driver to which "I didn't know" at that time and after many emails and informing them just what I thought of cameras and so forth it was dropped. I think if they couldn't provide the evidence then they shouldn't have been convicted. (Thats not to say that I agree with them not appearing.)OLLIE

Thanks for your many informative responses Fisherman. Is this subject close to your heart in some way?

I don’t dispute what you say is the lawful process.
I can also accept there was no effort of reasonable diligence on the part of the couple, .

In essence, what has happened IMO is that someone got fingered and that someone, who is innocent of the offence, was subsequently hit with a penalty higher than that for the offence simply because they didn’t make an effort to look into it.
Now I don’t doubt there should be some sort of a penalty for not bothering (failure to name), but I still think it is wrong for multiple penalties to be meted out. It would have been much more fair to have shared the original 6 points between them – three points each (regardless of what the law allows); that would still have had the effect of discouraging "forgetfulness".

Not only has the right to silence been taken away from the RK, it has also been taken away from other motorists - with equal penalty.
As I said earlier, I feel law is suffering from 'mission creep'.

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

Judging from certain responses here (and on other forums), it seems that RSS might have had a hand in looking into this matter!

(except the ones they dropped in case they lost!)


Yep, that would explain it!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Is it libellous to call Med Hughes a complete and utter hypocrite? (Rhetorical)

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

So then what happens when two or more people are the registered keepers - or a Company or business is the RK ? Do the Court feel obliged to start issuing points to all RK ? As I interpret, what Med Hughes has stated, I think implies that he is out to ensure not justice, but bully tactics against the motorists with his merry band of 'men'. He is a disgrace.

And who claims precesly that they didn't look or try to recall. The implication is that because they failed to name who drive they cannot have looked 'hard enough', but this is non-sense.
Paul and I often shared the driving and there is no way that I could recall on a 2000 mile round trip a few weeks later, who might have driven on a certain section.
I see it utterly wrong that we would have to keep a log or anything similar.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

IIRC, s172 requires the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver (if they can), not the registered keeper, (though it has been a while since I was a regular on the Peppipoo forums). The RK is the person named on the V5, the keeper isn't so well defined and could be whoever (legally) has the vehicle at the time, and indeed could be more than one person at any one time.

I presume that a S172 was served on the both.
S172s can be served on anyone, even if no offence has been committed.



Seems like she exhausted the limits of enquiries she could make, and got fed up with the question being repeated over and over.
Now she just needs to tell it to the judge, instead of simply not turning up.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Of course if we returned to the days of traffic police dealing with drivers at the time the driver committed the offence instead of using a semi automated processing system we would not have this problem would we.

But ,methinks they've taken more than a "pound of flesh" - they've drawn blood.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on