Safe Speed Forums

Really interesting forum, first post...don't know if this has been discussed by anyone else.

Got a letter from the police the other day. It told me that I had been monitored "significantly" exceeding the speed limit in a local village. The letter timed the incident but provided no more detail. I was warned about speeding but not charged.
I suspected this "monitoring" came from local "community speedwatch" people I had passed earlier. It looks as though I was caught by these village volunteers who are given radar guns. They then pass any speeders' details onto the police who then send out the letter detailed above.

Fair enough you might say, but I wasn't speeding. I specifically remember the day. I knew these people were around, I spotted them as I rounded the corner and checked the speedo, (safely under 40mph). I drove past carefully and lawfully. I wrote to the police officer named in the letter asking for more detail on this alleged offence but have not received a reply yet.

I'm upset by this. I've never been charged with any driving offence before. I've never been involved in an RTA as a driver. But this "Community Speedwatch" system has led to me being accused of (if not charged with) an offence by the police with no evidence being presented. I don't know how this record will be stored or used by the police. I don't know what the speedwatch volunteers have done with their record of my "speeding" (are they chatting about my car and registration number in their local pub?) -Data Protection Act? Who are these volunteers accountable to? Who is checking that they are not fabricating speeding offences to the police in order to get official speed traps set up in their village? Are the volunteers adavnced drivers like the police? Or do they monitor speed in their own village one day and speed down everybody else's road the next?

There are reasons why we have a police force. They are accountable, audited, professional and in my opinion full of integrity. The disgruntled n.i.m.b.y. "community speedwatch" volunteers that I encountered clearly do not have these qualities. So why I am being accused of speeding by the police? Any one else gone through this?

Personally, I think this kind of scheme must have greater transparency!

Use of radar devices is highly skilled - not so much in terms of operating the device, but appropriate site selection. Radar devices can be affected by a number of environmental and positioning factors. So my first question would be "How well trained are the device operators within this kind of scheme?".

Secondly, what happens to the information collected within these schemes. Is it actioned in the form of the letter (such as the one you received) and then forgotten about? Do they keep a list of informed motorists?

Furthermore, who is funding these schemes? Are there any cases for avested interest in this kind of example?

I think the overall idea of these schemes aims to further reduce outgoings for police forces without fully thinking about the ramifications of the idea. yet another way to save money at the expense of motorists.

I would treat the letter with the contempt it deserves.

Stick it in the Bin, it has no legal power in any form.

_________________
Steve

You have got to believe that this is now safely on record and if you ever get caught doing just about anything that it will be held against you. So the new freedom of information laws, do you have the right to see what is being held aginst you? I will monitor this post in the hope that someone in the know can enlighten us.

Max

1984, close, he was only 20 years out.

_________________
Tailgaters - Please Pass
You have an Accident to go to!

You have been accused of committing a criminal act.
Why don't you threaten the accusers with "defamation of character" or "libel" ?
Maybe the Police should charge them with "wasting Police time".
After all, they will have no useable evidence that you have committed this criminal act.

I do recall reading a news article about schemes where it said words to the effect "repeated actions will lead to further action", but it didn't specifiy whether they mean a mobile camera would be deployed, an a FPN would be sent out or a police officer would visit the alleged offender. Either way this must mean that records are kept in some way.

I can't see how it would be legal for an FPN to even be sent out on the basis of a community speedwatch scheme - the evidence must (should!) be solid before it is issued and if they issued them knowing that the evidence was collected by untrained individuals using an unapproved speed device it would surely break many laws.

Regarding funding - I believe that it is usually community funded - ie. usually the local parish council. I think the radar guns are usually a cheaper sort used for motor racing and baseball pitch speed measurement.

This article has some interesting quotes:
Link

Gareth

Just to update, I received a reply from the local Kent police Roads Policing Officer that informed me that I had indeed been monitored by Community Speedwatch volunteers. The device used was "appropriate" and my speed was 52 mph, (40mph limit). Volunteers have had "training" and the section of road had been assessed for suitability by the police. I'm replying with the following letter.

Dear PC xxx

Thank you for your letter dated 4th of August 2004. I have taken the time to learn a little about the community speedwatch scheme. It isn’t my intention to take up too much of your time with this issue but I feel I need to reply.

The main point I want to make is that I don’t think I was speeding on the 23rd of July. I had seen the speedwatch volunteers on a previous day and knew they were around. I remember rounding the corner and seeing them in the distance. I clearly remember checking the speedo and it certainly wasn’t reading 52 mph. I ensured I drove past the volunteers at no more than 40mph. I have no reason to suspect the car in question has a faulty speedometer and the tyres and wheels are a standard size. This is why I wrote to you in the first place.

I realise I have not been charged and that this scheme is designed to remind drivers rather than punish them. That said, I have a number of concerns.

I am concerned that a record now exists within police files implying that I am guilty of a speeding offence. Yet there is no hard evidence of this and I seemingly have no formal way of challenging this as I would if I had been charged.

I am concerned that a record of this incident exists with individuals who have not as far as I know signed any confidentiality agreement, i.e. what is stopping them talking about the alleged offence, (my car and registration number) in the local pub? Within my role in the NHS I have to ensure that within my organisation we have all the necessary systems in place to protect confidentiality to comply with Data Protection legislation.

I am concerned that the volunteers have a vested interest in reporting as many speeding incidents as possible. I understand that if the road in question is seen to have a speeding problem then a mobile police speed check or even safety camera may be deployed, -something the volunteers would probably welcome. As far as I’m aware, there is no way of checking whether these incidents really happened or not. Is it really all down to trust?

I am concerned that the volunteers, despite their training may have made an error. I understand that radar devices can be affected by a wide range of environmental and positioning factors. In addition, there were cars in front of and behind me at the time of the alleged incident.

Although it has nothing to do with the incident, I am also worried that whilst the police tend to be advanced drivers, applying their expertise wherever they drive, the speedwatch volunteers could record people speeding through their village one day and happily speed down my road the next. The police have professional integrity, but for speedwatch volunteers this is optional.

The theoretical foundations of community policing and community involvement are fine. But at no point during this process have I received any assurance that this incident definitely and beyond reasonable doubt, actually occurred. I can’t argue with a GATSO, Truvelo, SPECS etc or a professional police officer employed by a regulated, audited organisation. But I can’t agree with a system which makes an allegation of an offence with no proper evidence. The volunteers will claim they did everything right, I believe they are wrong. How can this kind of situation ever be resolved? It doesn’t make any difference to me whether I am charged or not, the allegation is more hurtful than any fine or endorsement.

I am also worried that schemes like this can be seen to legitimise the decrease in traffic police numbers and do nothing to combat the main sources of near misses which I have witnessed on my A251 daily commute, for instance tailgating, (which I have to deal with daily) and lack of driver attention/awareness (“looked but did not see” events). Most of these near misses have occurred well within the speed limit due to the weight of traffic.

In summary, I am asking you for assurance that this alleged offence cannot count against me in the future unless hard evidence can be provided that I am wrong and did commit an offence on the 23rd. I would also ask you to note my points, to acknowledge that there is an alternative point of view on the speedwatch project even though I care a great deal about the quality of my driving and road safety as a whole.

Nicely put, well done. I look forward to reading any response.

Max

Good letter, Sam. If everyone at the receiving end one of these unsubstantiated accusations did the same it would make the authorities think twice about doing it.

One of the many problems with these schemes is that there is no mechanism to ensure that the volunteers act in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. They might well tend to target, say, motorcyclists, while allowing cars they know belong to locals to pass through at the same speed without pointing the gun at them. Or they could use it to further local vendettas.

However, it is my suspicion that the volunteers eventually get fed up with standing about in the freezing cold and pouring rain and knowing that nobody they "catch" will end up getting prosecution, so the initial wave of enthusiasm fades away.

_________________
"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

Very well written letter, Sam.

With appropriate changes it could be used as a template to send out to other schemes. I'd certainly like to use it if I get sent a letter such as you did

Sorry for the delay on updating, went to Greece, -according to roadsigns there, speed "is controlled by radar" although I understand they have one of the highest accident rates in Europe. Hmmm.

I got a reply from the police following my letter above. My entry on his database for this project has been expunged and he said that anyone can make a mistake even the police... Basic tone of the letter was polite and he thanked me for my comments on the project. Seemed pretty sincere. I got the feeling he wasn't entirely comfortable with this project although maybe I'm reading between the lines too much. I still think the whole thing is rubbish and a cheap misguided attempt at increasing safety.

If anyone reading the forum gets a similar snotty letter from the police accusing them of speeding without a scrap of evidence, I would recommend that they follow it up as I have done because names are recorded and stored on police files. I was pleasantly surprised however at the politeness and speed of response.

Some other Countries which run these type of campaigns are allowing Prosecutions from them.

How do we know these Radar 'operators' haven't got a Grudge with someone and deliberately target them to get their own back?

_________________
RoADA Member -GOLD 2008
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

Great idea Sam et al, send in a letter as suggested above for every community speedwatch letter received and the project that gives you fair warning will be abandoned and replaced with fixed penalties. Result. And I thought you were all in favour of warnings and discretion.

_________________
It's Champion Man

Oh, you think community speedwatch is fair?

What about the fact that this chap was not speeding anyway?

Do you think that its fair that he was accused of speeding by a bunch of bored villagers? Especially as there was no proof?

Do you think its fair that its their word against his despite the fact that he has never been convicted of any motoring offence before?

I certainly dont and I doubt whether many members of this forum (besides you, that is) do either! Its defamation of character, surely?!?

_________________
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Do you relly think he wasn't speding?

I think you may be a little gullible. I would believe the radar over the slightly annoyed correspondent.

_________________
It's Champion Man

Where is the proof?
Why, if the local constabulary believed he had broken the law, was his entry expunged from the database?
Why, if it had been thought by the constabulary that he had broken the traffic laws, did the police admit that even they make mistakes? Clearly they realised they had in this case.

I am not gullible championman. I do see the best in people before the bad. If I was gullible, I wouldn't be on this forum complaining about scamera's, instead I would be believing all the 'Partnership' spin about how they save lives!

_________________
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Thanks for your comments itschampionman,

I'm not sure when you last received a letter on police headed paper accusing you of an offence but if you had, and you knew you were innocent, I suspect from the tone of your posts that you would challenge it.

Imagine getting a letter from the police accusing you of shoplifting. You weren't of course, but the letter alleges that you were seen stuffing goods in your bag by a local resident. The letter broadly says "you were observed shoplifting, this time we won't charge you -but stop doing it you thief". You don't know what police record is held of this. You don't know who saw you or why they have alleged this. There is no CCTV to prove them wrong or you right. You are given no indication of how to challenge this or put your side of the case forward. You subsequently learn that the "observer" has a vested interest in fabricating these sightings. Do you still think my response was inappropriate?

I'm sorry you doubt my integrity. I have of course no way to prove I wasn't speeding, but why would I lie to a forum like this?

If the speedwatch volunteers had been kitted out with the kind of radar gun which videos offenders concurrently (I forget the system's name), then proof could be offered. As it stands, no proof is offered and anyone who receives a letter as I did, has no definitive reason to believe they were speeding and may not change or reflect on their driving habits.

The basic point is that you cannot accuse someone of committing an offence without proof. That's why we have libel laws.

In addition, your theory that Community Speedwatch will be dropped and fixed penalties will become more prevalent is a bit far fetched. Community policing initiatives such as this are in their infancy but are here to stay whether I agree with this one or not. I think it is far more likely that any weight of public opinion on the subject will just make them think more carefully about the way they word their correspondance and run the project. The initial letter I received hinged on an alleged offence. It was worded very curtly -they were trying to scare me. I thought the campaign was supposed to make people think about the human and community impact of dangerous driving, to help drivers to be more reflective. A "YOU'RE NICKED" style letter doesn't educate, encourage empathy or self awareness. -Nor does a single minded focus on speed in my opinion.

Sam, I guess it's just the cynical world in which we live that causes folks to raise an eyebrow when others protest their innocence over an accusation.
'Methinks he doth protest too much' or Christine Keelers immortal "Well he would say that wouldn't he?" spring to mind.
You know in your own mind that you weren't speeding, without the hard proof you sought from your accusers you won't convince others of this unfortunately.