Safe Speed Forums

Well Indeed - but that seems to be far too expensive in their eyes and so they get away with this viral numeric persecution against the motorist.
Some say though that 'something needed to be done' and that the 'situation' was out of hand. It strikes me that we had the safest roads in the World and we have not held that title since cameras have been introduced and continue to slide down the list. Their 'cure' in their eyes is not the culprit.
The blood is drained ! I think that should retract the drawing of flesh does it not !

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

Sorry if I am veering off a bit but this reminds me of something that I heard suggested some time ago. Is there a minimum age for the RK. And if not what would be the situation if the RK was below the age of legal responsibility?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The parent or guardian would be the responsible person in that case.
Not only that: The vehicle could not be insured in the name of the under-age person, since that person would not and could not, hold a driving licence....and insurance is only valid if the person is not "disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence" (and under-age disqualifies a person).
And since a person cannot be insured to drive a vehicle without the permission of the owner/keeper the problems continue...think about it...owner/keeper.....

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

May I ask the resident expert how many modes of operation does a Truvelo camera have?

Are they prevented from doing so?

<sigh>

Your original statement was of not knowing one has been caught due to flashes: "Should be most memorable I would say.". Several of us rightly pointed out that you made assumptions that:
a) the camera used flashed
b) assuming it did flash, the camera used was front facing

Thus far, there have been no reports of the type of camera used (AFAICT); we have not made the assumptions you seem to have. Are you in a position to know better? If so prove it, otherwise this will go down as another notable thread.

I'm well aware of how the tech is used. I was trying to point out the relevant fundamental difference of camera setups in a simplistic way such that even you should have understood. I've never claimed to be an expert, let alone the 'resident expert', but I am better than some court recognised ‘expert witnesses’.

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

Try asking one of his other identities, and see if it can answer a straight question....

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

Think about keeper/driver. It is the driver who has to be insured not the keeper (and not the car).

On a similar theme. If the keeper of a car dies intestate who becomes responsible for supplying the details?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

If no-one claims it within 30 years, the Gov do presumably

_________________
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.

You didn't know and now won't admit it.

Let's not let the fact that you cannot even demonstrate your latest claim, and that I have already demonstrated your claim to be wrong (and there are other posts from yonder to corroborate that), detract from the facts of your having made two bad assumptions and that your overall point was demonstrated to be fallacious - a very black pot indeed!

(1, 2, 3)


Further idiotic posts from yourself will be viewed as deliberate baiting/trolling.
I may split off your wanton derailment.

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

Suspect they all speak with same tongue ( dumb with both fangs ) in answer to this sort of question .Trouble with being multi-persona ,when it's common knowledge of all your IDs ,all must sing from same hymn sheet or else to mix metaphors ( and use a nautical phrase ,to make you feel at home ) you may find that your urine gets blown back in your face .
Anyway , on another forum ,GS -i asked you to confirm or deny your ID -I't's like a s172 -you have 14 days to deny ,or we can take it that you are who we say ,and advetrise it without fear of reprisals ?

_________________
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

Apologies for the delay in my response, I am currently on holiday in Poland, and as such my access to the internet for the period required to deal with these debats is limited.



So the RK can name anyone they please and then those people becomes jointly liable for 6 points apiece? I do not think this is how S172 operates, nor certainly how it was intended. Surely if reasonable dilligence cannot be demonstrated then only the RK is liable, as it is only they who bear this onus, it being their vehicle! The burden of proof cannot just be lain at the door of any random third party!

Let's also keep in mind that it is assumption to suppose that the other party was named on the returned NIP as being the driver, is is far more likel that the response, at most, contained an enclosure stating that it could have been either. If the other was not issued with a S172 request then this conviction is even more unsound!

I still believe an appeal on these grounds would be successful, at the very least in the case of the non-RK.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

The idiocy of this statement has already been highlighted. I merely reiterate it to reinforce the point.

If you play any part in any organisation related in any way to the carriage of justice, and they pay any heed at all to your ongoing displays of ineptitude then I expect that either they will oust you as soon as this ineptitude is brought to light, or that that establishment will eventually fall flat on it's face in a carnival of public humiliation. I really cannot decide which I will prefer.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

RK would be laying himself open to a charge of perverting the course of justice if he did that. "Anyone they please" would have little difficulty in demonstrating, to the standard required by s172, that he was very unlikely to have been driving the vehicle.

But, that apart, how do you think that the law should deal with this situation?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Well we're told that speeding is a crime much like any other so why not treat them much like a burglar or a thief and not prosecute without proof positive of guilt.

If I was one of only two people in a room where someone's money was stolen would we have to go halves to reimburse the loss. No way! I stole it and I'm keeping it

_________________
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.

If you had a good photograph of the a masked burglar loading the swag (taken from your house) into a recognizable car how would you expect the police to proceed when the RK claimed that he innocently lent the car to a friend?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

All they have to do to convict a burglar is to establish the case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
IE: He/she was in the area at the time the offence was committed and was found with stolen goods upon his/her person. The burglary does not have to have been seen. The accused person then presents his/her version of why he/she was there and how the goods came to be in their possession. The court chooses between (if the case gets to court).

In the above case: The vehicle was perceived to be traveling above the speed limit and the person driving could not be identified. The registered keeper was asked to identify who was driving at that time. Said keeper could not. All that the keeper had to do then was to appear in court to explain exactly how he/she had tried to establish who was driving at the time the offence happened.
The keeper did not even try.
That is what they were convicted of, failing to identify the driver.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

The thing that is close to my heart is the ease with which people draw entirely false conclusions from press reports, post them on the net and in short time they become "fact". Time after time I see people in court who have believed something they have read on some forum or other and either pursued a defence which would never work or entered a plea of guilty when they had a defence.


When an allegation is made that triggers s172, that original allegation is put on the back burner until the s172 demand is resolved. If an unequivocal ID is forthcoming then the driver is free to plead not guilty to the original offence which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If no unequivocal ID is forthcoming then the s172 will proceed to trial, where the defendant has an easily understandable statutory defence. Whichever way the s172 trial goes, the original allegation is dropped.

_________________
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.

The process is more or less the same as for a normal RK with just two differences. Companies are expected to keep a log of drivers OR to show that failure to keep a log did not adversely affect their ability to name the driver. A company can't be given points. If a car is registered to a company official and he or she can't name any possible drivers then the company is fined but no points are possible. If a number of drivers are named then they get their own s172 and things proceed as per usual with points for those who don't show reasonable diligence. If a company names more than one or two drivers the CPS usually just proceed against the company unless there is evidence that the employees failed to complete company paperwork properly.

I have seen a drivers log which showed the drivers on the day in question as Adolf Hitler and Mickey Mouse. In that case it was clear the company had made no effort at all to keep a proper log and they got a fine commensurate with their attitude.


There is no requirement to remember, the requirement is to use reasonable diligence to try to find out. If a court accepts that the defendant used reasonable diligence but failed to produce an answer then nothing further can be required of that defendant and the court must find him or her not guilty.

_________________
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.