Scamera & Trafpol
Discussion
Interesting article in MCN regarding 2 men convicted of speeding at the same court in back-to-back cases;
Case 1. 136mph – 1 yr ban & £500 fine
Case 2. 145mph – 2 yr ban & £5000 fine
Anyway regardless of appropriate/fair sentencing or otherwise, one of the excuses given for the more lenient sentence was that case 1 was caught by a Scamera Van and case 2 by a Trafpol.
Police spokesman said “Safety Camera vans can only record speed, and therefore can’t provide evidence of dangerous driving.”
So if cameras can not detect danger – how come they call’em Safety Cameras?
Any comments?
BTW can you guess which of the above offenders was an off-duty Trafpol
Case 1. 136mph – 1 yr ban & £500 fine
Case 2. 145mph – 2 yr ban & £5000 fine
Anyway regardless of appropriate/fair sentencing or otherwise, one of the excuses given for the more lenient sentence was that case 1 was caught by a Scamera Van and case 2 by a Trafpol.
Police spokesman said “Safety Camera vans can only record speed, and therefore can’t provide evidence of dangerous driving.”
So if cameras can not detect danger – how come they call’em Safety Cameras?
Any comments?
BTW can you guess which of the above offenders was an off-duty Trafpol
Roadcop said:
BTW can you guess which of the above offenders was an off-duty Trafpol
Either way....good job they got done, otherwise there would have been bleats on here about "ONE RULE FOR THEM AND ANOTHER FOR THE REST OF US"..
Actually, although that wasn't my point, it was the point raised in MCN i.e the £500+1yrban (trafpol) vs. £5000+2yr ban (non trafpol) for very similar speeds etc.
catso said:
Actually, although that wasn't my point, it was the point raised in MCN i.e the £500+1yrban (trafpol) vs. £5000+2yr ban (non trafpol) for very similar speeds etc.
Done for different offences though - TrafPol (who I'd suspect is now EX TrafPol) got a very hefty "doing" for speeding, while the other got a hefty for "Dangerous driving" - two separate offences.
catso said:
Actually, although that wasn't my point, it was the point raised in MCN i.e the £500+1yrban (trafpol) vs. £5000+2yr ban (non trafpol) for very similar speeds etc.
very similar speeds?
Both are high but there is a big difference between 136 and 145....try working out the stopping distances of both to find out.
I hear what you're saying, but would it have been the same article if the offenders were reversed?
Not saying either was right or wrong, but those were the offences they could be charged with. If it had been the off duty TrafPol stopped by on duty, he'd have been done for dangerous as well.
Not saying either was right or wrong, but those were the offences they could be charged with. If it had been the off duty TrafPol stopped by on duty, he'd have been done for dangerous as well.
catso said:
catso said:
BTW can you guess which of the above offenders was an off-duty Trafpol
Either way....good job they got done, otherwise there would have been bleats on here about "ONE RULE FOR THEM AND ANOTHER FOR THE REST OF US"..
Actually, although that wasn't my point, it was the point raised in MCN i.e the £500+1yrban (trafpol) vs. £5000+2yr ban (non trafpol) for very similar speeds etc.
The inconsistance of Magistrates for you..
I've had burglars appear before magistrates for vitually the same offence and one has been given a custodial sentence, where the other received community service...
It's a naive man who bets on the sentence dished out by a dotty magistrate...
= 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff