Safe Speed Forums

Now now, you didn't read all of my above post did you, you just skipped to the question. Go ahead and read it, this has already been addressed.

It's nice that you have grasped and acknowledge my modest legal education. Would you care to answer my question as to with what authority you purport to be a legal expert?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

There is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that the speed limit was exceeded.

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

It's very odd isn't it? GS seems to think we should take his opinions as gospel without any references (other than some fairly tangential bits of statute) or indeed any indication of the position of authority from which he claims to speak.

Sorry, I worded my question badly. I will try again:

What is the legislation that allows the evidence for prosecution of a motorist who was viewed exceeding the speed limit?

I see nothing within your earlier answer to actually enable such a prosecution.


Furthermore, I again highlight Malcolm's post, as well as PeterE's :"Would you like if it two of your neighbours who didn't like it clubbed together and got you convicted?". How do you respond to these greenshed?

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

Unless there is strong confidence that the speedmeter is accurate - and was functioning accurately on the day of the alleged offence - then the evidence it provides is worthless. Such confidence is normally provided by type approval, and by the operators adhering to designated procedures. In the absence of such evidence, claims by individuals that a driver was speeding are no more than guesses.

Two individuals, of course, could claim that someone was driving carelessly or dangerously, but even that would require either corroboration, for example by film, or by the fact that an accident had resulted.

_________________
"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

yes there is

you have just made that up.

So what you're effectively saying is that Two (lay) individuals could claim that someone was driving carelessly or dangerously - and have them prosecuted without any supporting evidence, is that right?

I can't help but notice how you yet again, evade the related confounding questions that had been previously posed to you:

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

I would have thought that for a case like that to go to court, on the basis of evidence from two un expert witnesses, with no other hard evidence, that the CPS would have to consider it first and in the unlikely event that they thought it was worth winning, you would then have to convince a jury.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Spot on. I think that we are having a confused argument about what is the letter of the law and what is its practical application.

_________________
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

I agree that there is intentional speaking at cross-purposes from GS, the OP contained a quote from "the council" that alluded to people having been punished on the back of CSW action, so we are talking about practical application. There can be no doubt about this.

I posit that GS's continued evasion of my very simple question, despite popping up to chuck in one-liners, leads to the only reasonable conclusion that he cannot in fact substantiate his unfounded opinion.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I very much doubt that the case would go for trial by jury.
I very much doubt that a case would exist based upon evidence from a device operated by poorly trained, part-time and inexpert persons.
I see problems with proving the driver as well....after all, the vast majority of CSW do not use a camera, or have one attached to a speed meter, so mistakes could well be made in noting vehicle identification detail. S172 notices are issued with proof of vehicle.
I do not think this sort of persecution would "fly"

_________________
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

You're right. GS's response to me saying that 'there's no reason why it can't legally happen' is different from saying 'it never has'.

I don't know enough about the law (though I have no way of knowing whether GS does, for that matter) to argue with the latter.

But it's a different argument from the one about whether a prosecution has ever proceeded from a single community speedwatch result. I'm happy to repeat my belief that this has never happened, and I still await evidence to the contrary.

GS also originally selectively quoted me as saying "no legal force", which - in its original context - was comment on the warning letters that are sent out making no requirement on the registered keeper to incriminate the driver. Again, saying that there's no reason why they couldn't do so is not the same as saying that they do. Once again, I await evidence to the contrary.

On Wed Oct 06, 2010 07:00 malcolmw said


On Wed Oct 06, 2010 07:31 Johnnytheboy said


I said on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 21:52


And on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 19:28 Gave that legal force as:


On 23 September 2010 at 12:46 the BBC said



The legal force exists, it is in statute and prosecutions have resulted from the evidence of CSW volunteers. Of course you may not believe the BBC and Wiltshire police but now bring the evidence that their report is incorrect or the police have given them the wrong information and more importantly bring evidence from UK law that CSW have “no legal force” because that is what you have alleged and I have challenged.

I'm afraid things still don't add up:


I read no legal force within that, only a legal exemption and a definition of an offence.


By the CSW? I see two separate sentences.


Caught and penalised, or just caught?


Completely evaded - again

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

From the Gazette and Herald http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8424627.Motorists_are_caught_on_camera_at_Dauntsey/



Not quite as GS described it

_________________
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

I have to say I think the BBC were being a bit disingenuous when they worded their report as they did. If one doesn't read the article correctly it suggests that the motorists were caught and fined on the evidence of the CSW alone, when in fact this couldn't be further from the truth.

cor! this is hard work.

(1) means if you travel faster than the speed limit you commit and offence

(2) means a minimum of 2 "witnesses" are required to adduce evidence that (1) has occurred

simples.

There are no further conditions to apply to prove the offence.

significantly what you don't have is a section that "qualifies" a witness as having to have qualifications or a certain job, a police constable for instance.

You can if you wish contrast this with the Road Traffic Offenders' Act 1988 that does specify a police constable before a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty is issued.



Now consider the difference in the wording of the 2 Acts, one says "witness" the other says "constable".

If, as is alleged "a constable" is required as a witness then the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) section 89 would say "CONSTABLE" and not as it plainly says "WITNESS" and repeats this twice in one sentence.

Now use the rules of statutory interpretation and justify why you would go beyond the literal interpretation of the said Act.

Carry on.

For you perhaps.


Where does it say that?
Like I said, (2) states nothing more than an "exemption".


None has been given at all.


Yes the wording is very different. Another difference is that one says how evidence can be used to enable prosecution; the other says how evidence cannot be used to enable prosecution (the "exemption").

I'm not saying you are wrong with what legally occurs, but I am saying you haven't given any proof to support your claim.


It seems everyone can see that except greenshed, who is now evading DCB's point too! Don't worry about one of your points being proven wrong, will you greenshed!

Carry on evading!

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

The exemption is as follows:

You will be exempt from being prosecuted from speeding when there is only one witness.

or alternately

You will be able to be prosecuted when there is more than one witness, i.e. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or more.

I don't see where you are having difficulty with that, perhaps the explanation above helps.