Safe Speed Forums

No offence taken, I just wanted to make it clear that there are some questions I am not able to respond to.




we keep a record in a note book. Just date, time and approx location of driver change. Takes a few seconds. So far it hasn't been needed!!!!!!




Minor indiscretions usually get 3 points. So it takes 4 indiscretions within 3 years to risk a ban. Given that lots of people (you and me apparently among them) have proved that it is possible to drive for many years and keep a clean licence perhaps thats not so unreasonable. Really serious offences eg dangerous driving and drink driving win you a ban, usually 12 months minimum, for a first offence whereas a 12 point totting ban is 6 months (first time at least).

Personally, I am delighted to see the expansion of speed awareness courses, in place of points, for first time offenders. The feed back is that drivers are amazed how little they knew and how much their driving improves after the course. Not that it will have any effect on those who deliberately ingore the law.



Foreign licence holders have any points put on a "notional" UK licence. 12 points still gets you a ban.

As I understand it, on good authority from a senior police officer fried who works within the Home Office, there is little or no attempt to trace and chase foreign registered vehicles who are just a bit over the limit when caught by the cash-cameras. Nor any serious attempt to go after drivers with foreign licences living, or with adresses, outside the UK.
I know the theory about all this, but the actual practice is somewhat different.
Remember it's not about road safety, it's just about the cash. If it were not so then there would be a proper attempt to improve road safety rather than concentrate so much resourse on the 5% causation factor, whilst actually reducing a positive approach to the other 95%.
All this speed-camera obsession is achieving is the alienation of large numbers of otherwise ordinary and safe drivers.
It's so sad and so unnecessary that respect for our long-developed legal system should be degraded by the spiteful cash-cameras.

[Quote=fisherman] we keep a record in a note book. Just date, time and approx location of driver change. Takes a few seconds. So far it hasn't been needed!!!!!! [/Quote]

But why should we be expected to do this. Business motorists have enough on their plate without having to undertake this. And where driver records are required, eg for LGVs then parliamnet has made their requirements quite clear. There is no regulation explicit within S172 except the badly drafted implication that not keeping records might be deemed to be unreasonable.

I resent the CPS and benches apparently dutifully going along with this notion and expecting everyone else to.

There are those that want to follow the rules rigidly and there are those of us who have better things to do with our time. I agree with Cooperman. Increasingly company users are realising that there are simple expedients that enable one to avoid this nasty spiteful and pointless enforcement and punishment.

When S Wales camera partnership gave up on a recent prosecution as a US citizen had been driving the company car, they did not attempt to contact this person despite having been given their full contact details. After bluff and bluster failed they wrote a letter warning us to advise our foreign visitors to abide by our laws. We wrote back to the pompous Rowling that we had, but the US citizen could not believe the lengths to which S Wales camera partnership would go to to catch people out.

The easy answer is for people to register their cars with a limited company (off the shelf Ltd Co's cost £100ish), then make a non-driver the Company Secretary and Transport Manager.
When an NIP arrives the company simply says it cannot identify the driver. Any prosecution may find the Co. Sec guilty, the company pays and no points can be awarded to a non-driver. We have, in one of my companies, a young man who does not drive and who has no intention of ever wanting to. What an ideal candidate as Co. Sec'y. to receive a £60 bonus personally and tax free for each company driver he saves from the points whilst the company pay the fine. I have, however, not heard of any directors or company secretaries having points put on their licences for this. Has anyone had this happen?
Bear in mind that disqualification can be an expensive business for companies. About 20 years ago I was running a fairly large company and one of my senior project managers was hurrying to a meeting on the M6 and was disqualified for 4 weeks and fined £60 (a lot in 1984) for doing 103 mph. Despite my letter to the Mags explaining his importance to the company and to the project he was running on 2 sites, one in the UK and one in Belgium, they ignored my request for a higher fine and no disqual. It cost me £600, yes £600, to provide a chauffeur and the hotel bills for the chauffeur, for the 4 weeks. Now, that really soured me against the fairness of our legal system for some time. I felt the Mags hadn't listened or were just ignorant of the realities of life.
Speed limit enforcement in this country really has reached obsessional levels compared to unsafe driving offences and, yes, people really do have more important things to think about in their daily lives. More discretion and common sense, a commodity in short supply, is definately needed here.

I suspect that is accurate, my comment applied to what happens when a foreign licence holder actually appears in court.


Doesn't have to be a non driver. Company secretarys appear as representatives of the body corporate. A body corporate can't hold a licence therefore can't get points.
I wonder if the CPS would consider a move of this kind as an attempt to pervert the course of justice?



we are not expected to, but, like you I have a busy life. The few seconds it takes to do this may save me hours of time in the future.

Doesn't have to be a non driver. Company secretarys appear as representatives of the body corporate. A body corporate can't hold a licence therefore can't get points.
I wonder if the CPS would consider a move of this kind as an attempt to pervert the course of justice?

I doubt they could as with some large companies they are often unable to positively identify the driver. An example; one of my clients is a large aerospace company and they recently moved part of their operation from S. Wales to Herts. Every Monday morning several cars were allocated to employees, four to a car. The company did not dictate who was to drive and in view of the distance the employees swapped driving duty. They returned on Friday evenings. Several NIP's arrived (with S. Wales one is not surprised!) and the HR Director simply sent them back naming the 4 employees to whom the car was allocated. Nothing further was ever heard and there were many NIP's over a 6 month period. It seems the Cash-Collection Pratnerships just gave up.
It seems that the limited company as registered keeper is the route to go if you are a high mileage driver as the company can say it took all possible steps to identify the driver, but was unable to do so. It is preferable for a company to receive a higher fine than for points to be given to key high-mileage employees or directors.
Of course, if your limited company is registered in Dublin, you can buy an Irish registered car and your UK no claims bonus is fully transferrable to S. Ireland. As a business there must me no barriers to free trade throughout Europe, so it's quite legal to drive it here, even on a UK licence. I checked this with DVLA.
What a pity that the dash-for-cash greed has brought many businessmen to this sort of thinking, and all for no gain in road safety.

Firstly, just to clarify one point, my complaints about the involvement of the Courts Service with the Camera Partnership was not in any way intended to be an accusation of any actual impropriety. The point I was trying to make was that it specifically introduces the potential for such conflict.

Secondly, my remarks about the legal expertise of Magistrates and / or Clerks were not intended to be derogatory in any way, but merely a pragmatic recognition that there is no way on earth a volunteer Magistrate can possibly know the nuances of all the minutae of motoring law. It is right and proper that the Clerk should be there as a legal expert to guide the Magistrate in ensuring that the correct statutes and case law are considered. In that sense I am sure you will agree that the impartiality of the Clerk is of paramount importance, and this is why I am not comfortable with the idea of there being any financial connection between the courts service and a prosecution agency such as CSCP.

Coincidentally, I did indeed have the dubious pleasure of spending a day in court this week, when I was invited to explain to their worships why I felt they ought not to find me guilty of an alleged speeding offence.

I am happy to report that the Clerk to the Justices conducted the proceedings in an exemplary fashion, with a firm hand, a clear interpretation of the correct statute, and absolute impartiality. I would also state that his influence was absolutely crucial to the outcome of my case, which would undoubtedly have "gone the other way" had he had any inkling whatsoever to side with the prosecution, or even if he had merely passively allowed them to have their way in "railroading" an incorrect interpretation of the statute through.

So I am pleased to report that I had a good experience of the British Judiciary System, via a court which acted with absolute impartiality. My worry is that I don't want to see this diluted by potential conflicts of interests, and especially not just for the sake of the profit raised by a few speed cameras.

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

Picking up on another post, but moderating the numbers slightly, it is quite possible for a higher than average-mileage business driver to pass through 100 speed cameras, fixed and mobile, every week.
Now, that's roughly 5000 in one year. So, if the driver makes an error with his speed through more than .02% or, in other words, only fails to drive at a minimum 99.98% speed accuracy through ALL the speed cameras he/she will face a ban within 3 years.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the unfairness of this, especially when this vindictiveness is directed at addressing only 5% of all accident causation.
Is justice really served by demanding this level of accuracy from all drivers? Is it fair and sensible?
We are not talking about those seriously over the posted limit, just those caught up in the cash-collection whilst going safely about their daily business and earning their living.
Typically, take the recent case of the district nurse who got 6 points in one afternoon, 3 for 36 mph in a 30 and 3 for 37 mph in a 30. No manned police patrol would have even stopped her, but the cash-cameras cannot employ common sense, so the cash rolls in and Miss. District Nurse is halfway to losing her job in one day. And for what? Certainly not any improvement in road safety, just for the cash.
The sooner the Magistrates Association stands up against this corporate greed, artificial political correctness and sheer stupidity the better. If they don't do this, they will be partly responsible for the increasing disrespect for the law, the increasing numbers of drivers 'driving whilst disqualified' and increased attempts to pervert the course of justice whilst, at the same time, many of us use avoidance techniques such as I've described to place themselves outside this cash-collection system of unaccountable, unnecessary and unwanted Silly Camera Pratnerships.
Well done, JT, for defeating them and more power to the Magistrates/Court Clerk who threw the case out. A bit of common sense for once.

I don't think our views on this are very far apart. My answer was intended to convey that JPs are not totally ignorant as is usually alleged. I didn't mean to imply that we know all the ins and outs. On the other hand after years of motoring courts, crown court appeal sittings, training weekends, appraisals, answering questions for friends, schools presentations, mentoring new JPs, court open days, talks to motor clubs, internet motoring forum replies etc etc we do pick up more than most people realise.

You may not be aware that, with the unification of the courts, clerks were to become civil servants and thus, part of the goverment machine. This was very strongly resisted by the clerks with the full support of the Magistrates Association. A compromise was reached in which the judicial independence of the clerks was recognised and incorporated in to the law.



Always a pleasure to hear from a satisfied customer.

Yes indeed. It seems we agree that the impartiality of Clerks is of paramount importance to the quality of our justice system, which remains probably the best in the World, despite the meddling of successive Governments. Amen to that!


Of course I suppose my opinion may be ever so slightly tainted by the favourable outcome, but not by much. To be honest I had heard so many horror stories I was pleasantly surprised by the degree of understanding I was accorded in conducting my own defence.

The thing I am now left to ponder is just what an awful waste of money this all was. Ok I could have caved and simply paid the £60 fine, but I chose to contest it simply on the basis that I was certain I was innocent, and that "something would turn up" by way of a defence. But when I stop to consider the whole process, the expense of the collection of the evidence in the first place, the processing of the NIP/COFP, the laying of papers, the preparation of the prosecution case, issuing of statements, disclosure of evidence and then 2 hours of court time and associated staff, the CPS brief, an afternoon in court for the Police Officer who was the prosecution witness, not to mention any expenses I have yet to claim. All of this was for the prosecution of an alleged case of....

Exceeding a speed limit by 7mph, on a 3 lane motorway, in light traffic on a dry Sunday Morning with excellent visibility. Now I'm sorry, but whether this crime were actually committed or not seems pretty near irrelevant; as I see it no Traffic Policeman worthy of the name would have even batted an eyelid at an offence of this nature, assuming of course that the driver was clearly sober, alert, and maintaining good separation from other traffic (all of which the camera couldn't possibly know).

It just seems ridiculous that road policing has descended to this.

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

Well done John, firstly for fighting the b******s and even more so for winning

Seriously though, how much taxpayers' money has been wasted on this debacle?

It really does prove though that everyone should fight their case; the system will collapse in days....

No it won't. That was tried during the poll tax fiasco, with huge numbers of people going to court.
Courts sat from 8am to very late at night 7 days a week. In some areas they took over the crown court at weekends to provide extra capacity. The courts coped just fine.

The poll tax fell because those people made it plain that their vote would go to which ever political party would abolish the poll tax.

Quite right, FM, I remember it well. In fact the poll tax was quite fair, but those against it were more united in their resistance to it and it became a 're-election issue'.
If those accused of speeding all decided to plead not-guilty I'm sure you are right and the courts would sit longer and later. The fines and costs would be higher as well. However, I do suspect that the Home Office would instruct the Scamera pratnerships to reduce their operations and increase trigger speeds somewhat. In this way they could then say thay all those prosecuted were well over the speed limit and well deserved the penalty. Maybe the courts would be 'encouraged' to award a ban more often for, say, 15 mph over any limit.

With all respect, if everyone did contest their cases, the system of camera partnerships would collapse, as they would have no revenue stream whatsoever.

Even if the funding rules were than changed to allow it to be cross-funded, the camera partnership system would still be doomed to failure, as the most essential ingredient of its existence would have been removed, ie the capability of returning a profit.

But nevertheless I agree in principal with what you say, as the truth is that the overriding majority of the population would never take the trouble to go to court and fight, even if success were assured. If I'm honest, I've spent a massive amount of time in preparing my case and am unlikely to be able to claim more than a fraction of it back, so if it were not for my overriding principals about this I'd still have been better off stumping up the £60 in the first place.

That being said, it will be interesting to see how the numbers of folk going to court increases, as a greater number of motorists get closer to "totting up" bans, and realise that they need to fight to save their jobs, mortgages etc. Certainly, the membership of the web resource that helped me seems to be growing at an exponential rate...

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

Only if enough people end up with Not Guity verdicts.




I am not aware of any great increase in numbers of totters arriving in court. Thats not to say that you are wrong, just that I haven't noticed it from the sittings I do. Be interesting to get some figures.

I am aware of a friend, on 9 points, who has sold his high performance car and bought something slower. He now drives within the limit at all times, as opposed to his previous practice of setting his own limit and hoping he would spot the cameras in time. He reports a much more pleasant life, driving is now a pleasure, cheaper insurance, lower fuel bills etc. He can't be the only person who has taken that route.

There has certainly been an increase in both web sites and users of those sites. What we never find out is how many of those users succeed and how many end up paying out a lot more than they needed to.

On the subject of magistrates courts' impartiality and the fact that the magistrates' court service is a camera partnership partner...

I'm concerned about something that I don't believe has been discussed. I'll call it bias by association.

I think we should be concerned that biases will arise due to association. Magistrates must talk to court managers and administrators. In some or many cases they may become friends. We have thus created a channel for the vested interests of the partnerships to be communicated to magistrates.

I think this raises a very real risk of injustice, irrespective of whether or not the judiciary meets the test of impartallity required under human rights legislation.

It's only safe from bias where the entire court (buildings, admin, finance, bench, advisers etc) are entirely independent.

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

I was working on the assumption that only FPNs fund the camera partnerships. Therefore surely any case that goes to court deprives the partnership of its income, regardless of the verdict.

Thus if everyone contested their fines the revenue stream to the partnerhips under the current regime would dry up.


But if he now got "caught out", perhaps by missing an unexpected 10mph reduction in an urban speed limit, what would he then do? Pay the FPN, lose his licence, and perhaps his job, house etc, or realise that the stakes are so high he'd be better off trying to defend it, and all it stands for?

That was the point I was making, as surely the numbers of people getting into this situation must be on the up. All these additional fines and points can't be going into a black hole, they must be going onto peoples licences somewhere!

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

So where do the monies levied from fines heard in court go to? How does the partnership get its funding?

Aw shucks, JT got in first. Damn his quick wit

fisherman,

Many of your comments are well made but I believe you do not see the wider picture.

It must be recognised that s.172 DOES amount to a breach of the ancient privilege against self-incrimination (although this is denied by many if not all 'safety' partnerships) that in recent times was guaranteed by the incorporation of the Convention on Human Rights (Article 6) into the Human Rights Act 1998. This is not disputable - it is expressly acknowledged in the Privy Council judgment on the Margaret Brown case and elsewhere. However, the breach of the self-incrimination privilege is accepted if it is proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate purpose.

I do not take issue with s.172 by itself PROVIDED there is a tension in the system which ensures that it is used only where and to the extent necessary in the wider public interest. Up until the advent of the speed camera era, there was such a tension. Before speed cameras, s.172 was not used (or not widely used) in speed enforcement because there was no technology to detect excess speed remotely. So it was used (and only needed to be used) in a relatively small number of cases (such as hit and run).

The s.172 obligation to name the driver goes back to the 1930 Road Traffic Act and remains in almost exactly the same form in the 1988 Act. However, the gravity of the fact that it compels self-incrimination is recognised by the fact that the power may be exercised ONLY by a person authorised expressly by a chief officer of police. The power is not available generally to police officers. This point is the subject of a very important decided case - Foster v Farrell - where the conviction of a person conviced on evidence taken by constables who were NOT specifically authorised was quashed. Today, of course, the power is handed out to be exercised on a mass scale by the civilian manager of a central ticket office. Hardly - I think - what the original legislators contemplated or intended.

The tension I referred to above would exist if this special power to compel self-incrimination could only be exercised by properly authorised police officers in face-to-face interview. The need to allocate resources effectively would ensure that the power was used only where and to the extent necessary in the wider public interest. However, the addition to RTA 1988 introduced by RTA 1991 allows the s.172 power to be exercised in writing. This was of course absolutely necessary to facilitate the large scale enforcement envisaged at the dawn of the speed camera era. Even then, it is doubtful that Parliament ever envisaged the application of s.172 to be counted in the millions of cases every year. There were only a few dozen speed cameras in 1993 and even as late as 1995 I think there were only a few hundred. Now there are 5000 at least and more being added every day.

Now, the encroachment on the privilege against self-incrimination arising from the widespread use of s.172 is compounded by s.12 Road Traffic Offenders Act, which permits the written response to be used in evidence. The entire speed camera enforcement system relies on the use of these two distinct mechanisms to investigate and collect admissible evidence of driver identity: s.172, which requires the RK or any other person (including, ultimately, the driver himself) to identify the driver; and (ii) s.12, which allows the driver's written response to written s.172 questioning to be given in evidence.

It is clear that the present level of speed enforcement could not be sustained without the fast-track enforcement mechanisms constituted by written s.172 notices and the use of written responses under s.12. If any significant proportion of offenders prosecuted (or threatened with prosecution) actually exercised their right to a court hearing, the sytem would overload instantaneously. The threat of conviction could not be realised if offences were investigated and brought to trial in the usual way. The authorities are relying on a breach of the self-incrimination privilege to sustain the enforcement policy. It is one thing to argue that an occasional breach of that privilege (s.172) is 'necessary' for a wider public good. By contrast, it is impossible to argue that the systematic or institutionalised breach of the privilege (implicit in the use of s.172 written response under s.12) is proportionate. Approximately 2.5 million people per annum are threatened with prosecution for a criminal offence which could only be brought successfully by the deliberate employment of an evidential mechanism that represents a clear breach of the privilege against self-incrimination. How can the systematic violation, or threat of violation, of a fundamental right be seen as anything but wholly disproportionate?

There is now no check or balance in the system to regulate this abuse of our human rights. The safety partnerships are self-sustaining orgaisations that will inevitably look to widen and deepen their influence and control. Nothing prevents the doubling, tripling, or quadrupling (or even more) of speed enforcement measures other than the administrative capacity of the partnerships and that can be easily and cheaply increased at will. The single foundation on which this nightmare is constructed is s.12. Without it, the scale of speed enforcement would become self-regulating and truly proportionate to the road safety need.

Section 12 is the instrument of mass prosecution. I am determined to see it defeated.

It's like pumping water into a sponge. At first, it shows no sign of water content at all. So with the driving population. Even at 2.5M per annum, there are enough drivers around for the points to be spread reasonably thinly - for another few years. But the partnerships have about 3.5 billion offences a year to aim at. Once the sponge is at full capacity, the water will pour out as fast as it's pumped in.