RE: Cop to appeal against speeding fine
Wednesday 7th September 2005
There is no escapeA police officer caught doing 35mph in a 30mph speed limit by a speed camera is to take legal advice and contest the ticket. He was on the way to Hartlepool Hospital to interview a crime victim at the time.
Cop to appeal against speeding fine
One law for everyone, says local partnership
There is no escape
The Durham Constabulary officer, who did not wish to be named, said that he had received a £60 fine and had three points put on his licence.
The local speed camera partnership said that he should be treated the same as everybody else. Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership's PR manager Mick Bennett said: "Whenever a police vehicle is caught by a camera, the force is notified and asked to provide an explanation. If that explanation is not satisfactory then a fine is issued." He said that unless there is an emergency, services such as the police are not above the law.
It makes a pleasant change following a rash of cases where it has appeared that the police are above the law.
Discussion
I can imagine that unless he has a very good reason/defence (I can't imagine driving to an interview is an emergency) he would be under pressure from above to take the points.
On the other hand - if he knows something about the camera partnership (i.e. not operating on correct procedures) that causes him to win the case it could be very embarrasing for them.
Reading the article it appears that councillers have been campaigning for a limit increase - 1,500 motorists caught in four hours really suggests the limit is unrealistic.
But unrealistic limits are very good for business. 90 grand in four hours is a pretty good turnover, especially for roadside trading but sounds more like extortion to me.
>> Edited by cdp on Wednesday 7th September 11:39
On the other hand - if he knows something about the camera partnership (i.e. not operating on correct procedures) that causes him to win the case it could be very embarrasing for them.
Reading the article it appears that councillers have been campaigning for a limit increase - 1,500 motorists caught in four hours really suggests the limit is unrealistic.
But unrealistic limits are very good for business. 90 grand in four hours is a pretty good turnover, especially for roadside trading but sounds more like extortion to me.
>> Edited by cdp on Wednesday 7th September 11:39
The article states that councillors are campaigning to raise the speed limit to 40mph, but officers are recommending that it remains at 30mph because of its 'good accident record'.
I thought the speed camera partnerships had to have evidence of a certain number of accidents happening in the last 3 years in order to be given permission to operate in that area? Or is that just for fixed cameras?
Either way if the road has a good accident record, then the mobile unit was not there for the premise of making the road safer. Forget Safety Camera Partnerships, they should go back to being called Speed Camera Partnerships if this is the underhand way they operate.
I thought the speed camera partnerships had to have evidence of a certain number of accidents happening in the last 3 years in order to be given permission to operate in that area? Or is that just for fixed cameras?
Either way if the road has a good accident record, then the mobile unit was not there for the premise of making the road safer. Forget Safety Camera Partnerships, they should go back to being called Speed Camera Partnerships if this is the underhand way they operate.
The comment in the original report: ". . . that unless there is an emergency, services such as the police are not above the law." is nonsense. Police are never, ever above the law. To suggest otherwise is rather silly. However, police are, in certain circumstances, allowed to exceed speed limits. But, the legislation that allows this exemption does not mention emergency.
"And now he is prepared to go to court to dispute the ticket "
What is there to dispute? "You've been nicked mate" is what you or I would be told in the same circumstances.
There is no difference between a PC going to interview a crime victim and (say) me going to a meeting with a client. We're both doing a job, and are both subject to the same laws.
I recall a mate of mine (a PC in the Met at the time) who was caught speeding. When he asked the PC who caught him whether it would make any difference if he said he was a copper too...was told "Nope. It just makes you a bigger c
t !
What is there to dispute? "You've been nicked mate" is what you or I would be told in the same circumstances.
There is no difference between a PC going to interview a crime victim and (say) me going to a meeting with a client. We're both doing a job, and are both subject to the same laws.
I recall a mate of mine (a PC in the Met at the time) who was caught speeding. When he asked the PC who caught him whether it would make any difference if he said he was a copper too...was told "Nope. It just makes you a bigger c
t !
I suspect his argument will be along the lines of statement he had to take had some time critical element about it - say he wanted to get the info quickly before they forgot, or something along those lines. There are plenty of counter arguments to this, but it will likely be enough to get it dropped.
chim666 said:
What is there to dispute? "You've been nicked mate" is what you or I would be told in the same circumstances.
Ah but, maybe he's been monitoring this site.
What if he gets in court, and argues that:
"Arbitrary rules are always wrong". "I am a GOOD driver, so the rules shouldn't apply to me". "The speed was not excessive for the conditions, regardless of the limit". "Speed limits per se do not save lives".
If he says all that, are we going to support him in his bid to get this unfair charge revoked?
Nope, thought not.
Please, lets not increase the 30 mile limit to 40. Everyone is always in such a rush, 30 is twice as safe as 40.
I also think that Police should be automatically exempted from traffic fines in the same way the Fire and Amulances are. On top of what they do they shouldn't have to worry about going through the hassle of defending speeding issues, they have enough on their plates.
I also think that Police should be automatically exempted from traffic fines in the same way the Fire and Amulances are. On top of what they do they shouldn't have to worry about going through the hassle of defending speeding issues, they have enough on their plates.
swilly said:
From another point of view:
Should he or anyone else even GET the ticket in the first place.
Plod or not its criminal that he got the ticket at all.
By supporting the issue of the ticket you are also supporting the role of scamera's.
Shame on you
Sorry!
I never said I supported the role of scameras, and I accept what you (and others) have said in that whilst the law should be the same for all, the anti-scamera campaign should apply to all also. However I will still watch with interest to see whether he gets off.
swilly said:
From another point of view:
Should he or anyone else even GET the ticket in the first place.
Plod or not its criminal that he got the ticket at all.
By supporting the issue of the ticket you are also supporting the role of scamera's.
Shame on you
Succinctly put swilly.
A couple of observations.
The ACPO 'guidelines' are now completely irrelevant in many counties and have always been just 'guidelines'. So 10% plus 2 - ie 35 in this case - is meaningless.
However it was not so long ago that the normal trigger point was 40 in a 30 for many forces. Almost certainly 38 was the lower end of the trigger range. And we thought that was unreasonable.
Now we seem to think that 35 (or 33 if you are in Notts or 31 in LanCASHire) seems very reasonable, even if the limit is thought to be too low by the locals!
Just what is going on here?
Is the PH public's blanket dislike of motoring restrictions making us blind to the reality of the changes taking place - to the point of acceptance?
If the Nanny state has indeed managed to divert the issue from what is and what is not reasonable to a general distrust of the police whilst generating significant revenue for a local quango and the Chancer of the Exchequer - then it is both cleverer and more dangerous than I thought.
As I recall Durham is one of only two forces which are not part of a Scamera partnership. I don't suppose it is at all possible that neighbouring Cleveland are a little upset that Durham seem to be anti-scam? He is not one of thier own, so they have an opportunity to 'look good' in the eyes of their public. It's just a shame that the nanny state tinkering has put them in that position.
>> Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 7th September 13:11
wab172uk said:
£60 it gets overturned in court. Another case of them and us.
I would put my money on that he get's off because of what he knows. I have heard that there are serious questions surrounding speed camera equipment and it's use. That many bits of this kit are not in type approval because of on going program of failures and modifications - stuff they know about but joe public never finds out about.
Andy
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff