Safe Speed Forums

Wiltshire speed watch scheme 'helps to fill camera gap'
23 September 2010 Last updated at 12:46

Residents are trained how to use speed guns The Community Speed Watch scheme trains residents to use hand-held speed monitoring devices
Speeding motorists in Wiltshire are still being caught, despite the disbandment of the county's speed camera unit, council bosses have said.
Concerns were raised when the closure - due to government funding cuts - was announced last month.
Community Speed Watch (CSW) schemes were still monitoring and catching persistent speeders, the council said.
Most recently, three were fined in the village of Dauntsey near Malmesbury and given penalty points on their licences.

Still worthwhile
The CSW scheme, which is supported by Wiltshire Council and Wiltshire Police, trains residents to use hand-held devices to monitor the speed of vehicles in their local communities.
Five drivers in Dauntsey were monitored on three separate occasions exceeding the speed limit.
The vehicle details and movements were passed to Wiltshire Police.
The council said the fact that some people had been caught speeding using the CSW scheme showed it was still worthwhile despite the abolition of the Wiltshire Safety Camera Unit.

Correct, no legalforce.

No announcement yet on when the SCP is closing down...

Incorrect; all that is required is 2 witnesses neither of whom need be a police officer.

Real-world example?

viewtopic.php?p=230679#p230679

Now point to the mystery legislation that requires a police officer to adduce evidence before a prosecution for speeding can take place.

Incorrect; all that is required is 2 witnesses neither of whom need be a police officer.

Incorrect; all that is required is 2 witnesses neither of whom need be a police officer.

Your opinions are all very interesting but that is where they remain, unfounded opinion.

There is only a requirement for 2 witnesses and the same 2 can, if required I'D the driver if they are able. They can use a speedometer, doesn't have to be type approved, to back up their opinion as CSW do. Some of course do use type approved equipment.

The law is OK with 2 witnesses, it doesn't really matter if you are not happy with that as your opinions are unfounded. Now crack on and say why the law requires a police officer.

As DCB says, I asked first.

It is certainly true in most areas of law that a policeman does not have to witness the crime being perpetrated for a prosecution to be started - there would be even fewer convictions for rape if that were the case. So, if Greenshed is indeed wrong, I think it incumbent on his detractors to quote the appropriate legislation rather than to launch a stupid ad hominem attack on him.

Your opinions are all very interesting but that is where they remain, unfounded opinion.

There is only a requirement for 2 witnesses and the same 2 can, if required I'D the driver if they are able. They can use a speedometer, doesn't have to be type approved, to back up their opinion as CSW do. Some of course do use type approved equipment.

The law is OK with 2 witnesses, it doesn't really matter if you are not happy with that as your opinions are unfounded. Now crack on and say why the law requires a police officer.

As DCB says, I asked first.

You asked first!? You made an unsubstantiated claim, then asked us to disprove it, and that makes it correct? You live in a world of strange logic funny-man!

I disprove your claim by the fact that there is no such case, and I cite as evidence the collected wisdom of mankind, throughout which no record of such a case exists. How else is one supposed to prove that something which did not happen didn't happen?

Saying that it merely takes the opinion of two witnesses again is not the same as saying it has actually happened, if that helps you formulate a reply.