"Drive within the speed limit and you'll be safe"
Discussion
The squirmy barstewards.
The case was dropped because there wasn't adequate signage of a camera.
Surely anyone getting lasered and caught speeding by a mobile camera will get off then, if the fact there isn't adeqaute signage is a show stopper.
Nice to use that excuse from the "guidelines" that they ignore one minute, but then use another to save face in the above case!
Nice to see yet more evidence building up, and it's funny as almost no one now things speeding is what it really is. Talking to no motoring locals I was surprised to see them mentioning speed camera's in a negative way, but saying speeding was really bad. What I gathered was that the perception of speeding was people driving too fast full stop, not breaking the speed limit.
It's all down to perception. Speeding is ok if you don't draw attention to yourself, or are doing it safely and considerately, as many of the locals near me probably do day in day out that drive.
Propoganda has lost here now, because the general view of "speeding" is people going too fast for the conditions, and when people who are driving safely as they always have done are caught for this "speeding", they are confused and angry.
It's the partnerships downfall in a way that they ignore what is appropriate, and make everyday drivers hostile towards them!
Good thing I suppose
Dave
The case was dropped because there wasn't adequate signage of a camera.
Surely anyone getting lasered and caught speeding by a mobile camera will get off then, if the fact there isn't adeqaute signage is a show stopper.
Nice to use that excuse from the "guidelines" that they ignore one minute, but then use another to save face in the above case!
Nice to see yet more evidence building up, and it's funny as almost no one now things speeding is what it really is. Talking to no motoring locals I was surprised to see them mentioning speed camera's in a negative way, but saying speeding was really bad. What I gathered was that the perception of speeding was people driving too fast full stop, not breaking the speed limit.
It's all down to perception. Speeding is ok if you don't draw attention to yourself, or are doing it safely and considerately, as many of the locals near me probably do day in day out that drive.
Propoganda has lost here now, because the general view of "speeding" is people going too fast for the conditions, and when people who are driving safely as they always have done are caught for this "speeding", they are confused and angry.
It's the partnerships downfall in a way that they ignore what is appropriate, and make everyday drivers hostile towards them!
Good thing I suppose
Dave
Exactly, they squirmed out of any reasonable judgement in the case towards accuracy of equipment being called into question by bringing that up.
If that was the case why did it take so many court appearances to decide upon it?
Sounds like this case struck a nerve and they (CPS) bailed out in a way to save face for the pratnerships and everything that revolves around that camera.
Makes me laugh that they are so incompetent. It's like a big bloody joke!
Dave
If that was the case why did it take so many court appearances to decide upon it?
Sounds like this case struck a nerve and they (CPS) bailed out in a way to save face for the pratnerships and everything that revolves around that camera.
Makes me laugh that they are so incompetent. It's like a big bloody joke!
Dave
safespeed said:
The case was dropped because there wasn't adequate signage of a camera.
Except it wasn't because there's no legal requirement to sign a camera.
Bad reporting or CPS fudging? You decide...
Does that set a public prescedent that the CPS will drop all cases where mobile cameras are not properly signposted!!!?????
Or does it mean that is easier to admit rather that say the case was dropped as an expert has stated that 5,000,000 LTI2020 cases may not be fit for evidential purposes... Hmmm....
justinp1 said:
The case was dropped because there wasn't adequate signage of a camera.
Except it wasn't because there's no legal requirement to sign a camera.
Bad reporting or CPS fudging? You decide...
Does that set a public prescedent that the CPS will drop all cases where mobile cameras are not properly signposted!!!?????
Or does it mean that is easier to admit rather that say the case was dropped as an expert has stated that 5,000,000 LTI2020 cases may not be fit for evidential purposes... Hmmm....
Any way will be found to get around the fact that dodgyscopes are, er, dodgy.
i.e. they will find a way to make any case (which looks like a dodgyscope has been proven to be faulty) to be somehow unique and thus peculiar to that particular case.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff