Safe Speed Forums

edited

I am not sure that this will stand up in court.

It looks like a gradual errosion of the guidlines though. Maybe because they have been incompetent so often.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

edited

Page 7 is interesting - 94-98 is their baseline - 40% reduction ksi and 50 children killed by 2010 - on the latest dft figures which area is going to be near that?
Perhaps the bit about non compliance means that we don't have to see the scams any more - let the trees grow wild. then they say it is based on visible speed enforcement - so are we suppossed to see them or not.
AH HA next para - the police can carry out covert speed enforcement - so that rules out camera man( unless he's a cop)
Lots more conflicting things in p8

And lots more waffle.

In short, this document can say one thing, or another or another, depending on how we wish to look at it.

Wheres the crystal clarity people when you need them??

After all the panto / disclimers - anyone know if the 15 or so rules are sanctrosant - things like visibility rules etc, as there's some new site rules in there for after 2005.
The bit on visibility i'd like to know about as i've got my eye on some locally ( including the A5 ONE) i want to complain about reckon that 30 feet is more like it in one case - the markings on the road are visible before the camera comes into view.

It seems to me that this is precisely how it should be. The "rules" are not part of the relevant legislation, therefore they are not relevant in court. All a court has to decide is whether or not the law has been broken (i.e. was the person driving in excess of the posted speed limit?). If it is proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the law was broken, then the accused is convicted and sentenced. How would you propose it should work?

What I don't understand is how the police are allowed to exercise discretion when they have proof that the law was broken. I recall a case that was prosecuted (nothing to do with motoring) where most people thought they should have simply left it alone. Without going into the details of the case, the police defended their actions by saying that, in general, when they become aware that a crime has been committed, they have a moral responsibility to pursue a prosecution. So, if a camera van is recording the speed of every car that is targeted by the operator, but only drivers who are above a threshold are prosecuted, I don't understand how the police can justify this. They have proof, on tape, that a crime has been committed, e.g. a driver was doing 33 in a 30 limit, but they don't prosecute because their threshold was arbitrarily set at 35. If they did the same thing for assault, say, people would be outraged - "Oh, yes, we accept that you were mugged in the street, but we won't prosecute because they didn't injure you seriously enough or steal enough money from you".

This recognises the "line in the sand" nature of speed limits which is very different to most other offences.

However, there are plenty of other examples where the police decline to prosecute despite knowing that an offence has been committed, for example in only very rarely prosecuting the fathers of children conceived by girls under 16.

Discretion is an essential part of police work - any police officer on patrol (whether traffic or not) will routinely see offences committed which he decides not to prosecute.

And total zero-tolerance speed enforcement would create the conditions for a revolution

_________________
"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

Let me rephrase my last bit.
Of course the speed limits are absolute.
What i was musing about was how sanctrosanct are the "rules" and what tolerance is there in cases of a breach by the pratnerships to stop them getting any cash.
EG place a camera behind a tree/sign( good example A5 redgate) - can we stop them getting any money - without a court appearance - as i read it if a court appearance - they get no cash.
And lets face it ( i may be getting a little bit cynical, but it's mostly about cash , with a little tiny bit about safety)

The way I see it, the rules only matter when they are necessary to provide evidence in court that can withstand scrutiny. So calibration of measurement devices etc, those are rules that need to be followed, otherwise a court may decide there is reasonable doubt as to whether the speed limit was broken or not. Note that in these cases, the rules don't matter in themselves, they are just providing useful guidance on what needs to be done to ensure that evidence is admissible, it is the standards of the courts that ultimately decide whether evidence is admissible and whether proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, a camera having been hidden behind a tree casts no doubt on the accuracy of the speed reading, so is of no relevance in court.

Just think about it - if the rules in themselves affected a court's decisions, would you be happy about the writers of such rules being the ones who effectively control our legislation? We have a defined process for legislation involving both houses of parliament, and these rules have not gone through that process, so they have no place in the courts.

Interesting that recently there have been cases of SCPs not using sites because of problems with visibility and signs.

Maybe they don't want it tested in court...........

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/456.asp


BTW found this when searchin the web for the above link. A bit off topic but interesting all the same. Singapore has some of the toughest motoring laws in the world!
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/204.asp

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Ok -no doubt about law - over set figure caught on camera law says you're guilty - end of story.
But in this handbook there's rules on visibility - does that mean that the partnerships have to abide by these or lose out on their share of the cash.
At present we've got cameras hidden /half hidden by signs/trees/bushes: vans trying to merge in with bushes/ hiding behind bridges. They all claim to be safety cameras, their definition is that they are trying to deter speeding by their presence. And if they catch you they can claim some of their "outlay" back.
Now wouldn't it be nice if we could all complain bitterly that so & so camera was not visible from a set distance - and if untill it could be seen they got no cash .
The rules would seem to imply that -

botach

Scamera operative - strange how the mention of cash brings you out. But i've seen your kind in action, better known as wallflowers, for the love of walls. You could teach a colour sergeant in the infantry how to make best use of natural camoflage,(trees/bushes etc)
Next job, once the pratnership folds - teaching tha army how to use natural camoflage.

Pity the rules don't allow you to paint vans

Before someone complains - locally we used to see van hiding in trees about 15 ft from road edge with sign about 5 ft from van.SEE SIGN, KNOW YOU'VE CONTRIBUTED TO THE "SAFETY CAMPAIGN"

Safety Camera under Mulch (SCUM)

edited