Monday 6th September 2004

Speed prosecutions illegal says secret source

Mis-use of equipment means 8,000 motorists have suffered

---

Safe Speed has recently learned that at least 8,000 motorists have been prosecuted illegally using speed cameras outside the conditions of type approval. The information originated from a confidential police source through a trusted intermediary.

These cases relate to the "Mini Gatso" portable speed trap. Although the Mini Gatso has type approval, it is not approved for use in a "front facing" mode. Confidential police sources estimate that at least 8,000 motorists have been illegally prosecuted using the Mini Gatso in front facing mode. There are no plans to set aside these illegitimate prosecutions.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "Speed cameras are out of control. They don't target dangerous drivers, they don't make the roads safer and they don't even properly follow their own important regulations. It is all looking increasingly like a 'dash for cash' as greedy partnership managers build empires at the public's expense."

Richard Bentley, Traffic signs and regulations expert said: "It is crucially important that with signing, regulation and court procedures that the requirements and statutes are fully adhered to. Authorities seem to forget that the more stringent requirements in law are placed upon them to get it right in the first place. Breeches of regulations can and will lead to challenges and undermine public confidence in the entire legal process."

 

[Davel]

But how will the average motorist ever know if his or her conviction was by one of these cameras?

I very much doubt that we will ever be told if our conviction was 'unsafe'....

[james_j]

"...There are no plans to set aside these illegitimate prosecutions..."

It's almost as if the whole thing were a corrupt scam with revenue as the main driving force.

[Cooperman]

[quote

It's almost as if the whole thing were a corrupt scam with revenue as the main driving force.[/quote]

What, surely not! who would ever believe such a thing.

[Streetcop]

The report fails to add that all the drivers were actually exceeding the speed limit...

Street

[MGV8]

Streetcop said:

The report fails to add that all the drivers were actually exceeding the speed limit... Street

The point is that thay may not have been as the device is not ment to be used this way!

[kevinday]

Gary, how can you say that? The device was not type-approved so you cannot guarantee that the speed reading was correct. The only person who can say for sure is the driver. As we know, in most cases the driver accepts the NIP without question. I would say that most were probably exceeding the limit, beyond that we cannot say with any certainty.

[Streetcop]

They will have been...it's just that the equipment wasn't designed for it...

It's like the drug dealer who is caught after police surveillance. Unfortunately, the right forms weren't submitted prior to the surveillance operation and the drug dealers walk free.

Technicalities...love em...

Street

[safespeed]

Streetcop said:

The report fails to add that all the drivers were actually exceeding the speed limit.

Err, how do you know that? Do you think type approval is purposeless? Perhaps you would be happy pacing out a distance and using an egg timer to see if a speed limit had been exceeded?

[Streetcop]

safespeed said:

Streetcop said: The report fails to add that all the drivers were actually exceeding the speed limit. Err, how do you know that? Do you think type approval is purposeless? Perhaps you would be happy pacing out a distance and using an egg timer to see if a speed limit had been exceeded?

We're not that technical in our force..

Street

[swilly]

Streetcop said:

It's like the drug dealer who is caught after police surveillance. Unfortunately, the right forms weren't submitted prior to the surveillance operation and the drug dealers walk free. Technicalities...love em... Street

...you mean the difference between a Police-state and a Police service serving the public, dont you?

[swilly]

Streetcop said:

The report fails to add that all the drivers were actually exceeding the speed limit... Street

What the report fails to add is that these drivers were 'caught' before they saw the copper, whereas if the device was operated correctly the drivers would have seen the copper, passed the copper, been reminded to check they were driving within the limit and slowed if necessary, prior to the copper getting locked on to them.

In reality the coppers in these cases decided they would have a better chance of catching motorists if they used the device in the manner they did, even though it was incorrect.

Simply a less violent version of the dark, sound proof room and a thick telephone directory to obtain a confession, dont you think?

[Richard C]

safespeed said:

Perhaps you would be happy pacing out a distance and using an egg timer to see if a speed limit had been exceeded?

streetcop said:

We're not that technical in our force.

Priceless

[SJobson]

Streetcop said:

They will have been...it's just that the equipment wasn't designed for it...

If the equipment wasn't designed for it, how can the equipment prove they were speeding?

What is gutting is that the people who were nicked this way will have subsequently admitted to the offence by returning the NIP - at which point, since they've admitted to the offence already, the evidence is no longer necessary. So it'd be very hard to get any of the convictions overturned.

[V8 Archie]

Streetcop said:

It's like the drug dealer who is caught after police surveillance. Unfortunately, the right forms weren't submitted prior to the surveillance operation and the drug dealers walk free. Technicalities...love em...

If drug-dealers, murderers, rapists and conmen/fraudsters get the benefit of technicalities, I fail to see why the otherwise law-abiding motorist shouldn't.

BiB on here are fond of saying "you were breaking the law, accept the punishment like a man". Fair enough, I say, but only if I get given the same chances to avoid punishment as the real criminals. They don't get forced to name people or accept the punishment themselves. They don't get rail-roaded into accepting a punishment (as much) on the grounds that fighting their case will lead to a doubling of the sentence.

If we don't like the laws we should fight to change them. That applies to you as much as us.

Sorry Street, you're talking through your regulation headgear this time. (Assuming it does in fact meet the regulations, of course ).

[The Wiz]

Streetcop said:

It's like the drug dealer who is caught after police surveillance. Unfortunately, the right forms weren't submitted prior to the surveillance operation and the drug dealers walk free. Technicalities...love em... Street

Technicalities to you ... rules to protect the innocent to others. How many similar operations had that force conducted so they should have known what the procedures were. They screwed up .. end of story.

[Streetcop]

V8 Archie said:

If drug-dealers, murderers, rapists and conmen/fraudsters get the benefit of technicalities, I fail to see why the otherwise law-abiding motorist shouldn't.

I know...let everyone police themselves and the biggest/strongest/hardest can survive...

V8 Archie said:

If we don't like the laws we should fight to change them. That applies to you as much as us.

Unfortunately, for my I chose to uphold the laws of the land regardless of my opinion of them.

V8 Archie said:

Sorry Street, you're talking through your regulation headgear this time. (Assuming it does in fact meet the regulations, of course ).

Don't worry Archie..i'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate...I'm not passionate about the situation, I'm just offering the other view..

Street

[SteveCallaghan]

safespeed said:

Streetcop said: The report fails to add that all the drivers were actually exceeding the speed limit. Err, how do you know that? Do you think type approval is purposeless? Perhaps you would be happy pacing out a distance and using an egg timer to see if a speed limit had been exceeded?

The mini-gatso would give the correct reading but is not type approved for this mode of operation because of teh flash intensity most likely.

[V8 Archie]

Streetcop said:

V8 Archie said: If drug-dealers, murderers, rapists and conmen/fraudsters get the benefit of technicalities, I fail to see why the otherwise law-abiding motorist shouldn't. I know...let everyone police themselves and the biggest/strongest/hardest can survive...

Hey, I din't ask for the technicalities to be there. But if the scum of the earth can use them to their advantage it's the least we can expect that society allows the rest of the population the same chance.

Streetcop said:

V8 Archie said: If we don't like the laws we should fight to change them. That applies to you as much as us. Unfortunately, for my I chose to uphold the laws of the land regardless of my opinion of them.

I wasn't suggesting that you break the rules of your job, but you do get a vote at the very least .

Streetcop said:

Don't worry Archie..i'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate...I'm not passionate about the situation, I'm just offering the other view.. Street

[BliarOut]

SteveCallaghan said:

safespeed said: Streetcop said: The report fails to add that all the drivers were actually exceeding the speed limit. Err, how do you know that? Do you think type approval is purposeless? Perhaps you would be happy pacing out a distance and using an egg timer to see if a speed limit had been exceeded? The mini-gatso would give the correct reading but is not type approved for this mode of operation because of teh flash intensity most likely.

Aargh, momentarily blinding drivers.... All in the name of safety you know

[deltaf]

Sjobson said:

What is gutting is that the people who were nicked this way will have subsequently admitted to the offence by returning the NIP

And remember, the only reason they incriminated themselves was after the threat (duress) of an even worse punishment being promised them if they didnt capitulate.

Very democratic, very Uncorrupt dont you think?