Can this be right?
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A4203811
In which A Busybody said:
"If a driver exceeds the speed limit by more than 10 percent we record the number and description of the vehicle. We will supply a list of these drivers to the police, who write to them with a warning. If that driver re-offends, he or she will be given a final warning and on the third count, gets an instant ticket."
Can any such ticket be enforceable?
In which A Busybody said:
"If a driver exceeds the speed limit by more than 10 percent we record the number and description of the vehicle. We will supply a list of these drivers to the police, who write to them with a warning. If that driver re-offends, he or she will be given a final warning and on the third count, gets an instant ticket."
Can any such ticket be enforceable?
Surely unenforceable? If I remember correctly, part of the 'speed tax' procedure states that a police officer must form the opinion that a vehicle is speeding, prior to using the 'speed tax gun' to record the evidence. Procedure doesnt state that at 'interferring busy body with nothing better to do, ie no real job, ie unemployable chav' must form an opinion etc.
Procedure for the motorist is to immediately phone the police and report that someone in a high vis jacket, but not policeman, is aiming some kind of gun at motorists. Should produce the desired result.
Procedure for the motorist is to immediately phone the police and report that someone in a high vis jacket, but not policeman, is aiming some kind of gun at motorists. Should produce the desired result.
steveherb said:
Surely unenforceable? If I remember correctly, part of the 'speed tax' procedure states that a police officer must form the opinion that a vehicle is speeding, prior to using the 'speed tax gun' to record the evidence. Procedure doesnt state that at 'interferring busy body with nothing better to do, ie no real job, ie unemployable chav' must form an opinion etc.
Procedure for the motorist is to immediately phone the police and report that someone in a high vis jacket, but not policeman, is aiming some kind of gun at motorists. Should produce the desired result.
I agree. I think that they are a barking dog with no teeth to be honest. I guess they are hoping from the warning from the police that that person would drive more slowly through the area. This would actually be a better bit of legislation rather than an instant £60, IMHO and still have the desired affect.
More evidence to the barking dog with no teeth scenario would be the ability to check the alignment and calibration before and after use. I would be sure that in court a civilian witness with no traffic police skills would not stand up well.
I wonder if their collection of numbers/descriptions etc fall under the data protection act.
This made me laugh:
A touch of exageration maybe? Does he live in a shack?
Has he also considered that more than one person may drive the vehicle?
Translation: I am an interfering busybody with nothing better to do than meddle with other people.
This made me laugh:
numpty said:
But my neighbourhood has a big problem. Traffic along our road has increased dramatically over the last few years. Heavy goods vehicles hurtle past and rock people’s homes, waking us up at 5am. Pictures fall off walls.
A touch of exageration maybe? Does he live in a shack?
Has he also considered that more than one person may drive the vehicle?
Numpty also said:
But I’m a bit of a bulldog. I’m determined to keep going.
Translation: I am an interfering busybody with nothing better to do than meddle with other people.
It is vegetable folk like this who drain my enthusiasm for existence per se.
Just look at this imbecile: the sort of pointless, idle inadequate that Heinrich Himler would have found many great works to have performed, no doubt.
Then his mate - the beard (quelle surprise) - and the two trafpols, the very bastions of a society determined to breed a nation of non-testiculared blokes, prissy no marks with herculean inferiority complexes who were rightly bullied but unfortunately allowed the right to vote and speak past puberty, these dogs should be bound, gagged and defenestrated with all possible expediency.
...and breathe (again)
But seriously, these tossers are complete nazis: DIRE !!!
Just look at this imbecile: the sort of pointless, idle inadequate that Heinrich Himler would have found many great works to have performed, no doubt.
Then his mate - the beard (quelle surprise) - and the two trafpols, the very bastions of a society determined to breed a nation of non-testiculared blokes, prissy no marks with herculean inferiority complexes who were rightly bullied but unfortunately allowed the right to vote and speak past puberty, these dogs should be bound, gagged and defenestrated with all possible expediency.
...and breathe (again)
But seriously, these tossers are complete nazis: DIRE !!!
dazren said:Interesting you should say this...
Although I imagine any data gathered may be used to in deciding future deployment of scameravans etc.
Not long after 2 busybodies complete with flourescent vests were watching traffic (with nothing but a clipboard!) on the A4155 in Shiplake, a Talivan appeared.
Just 100 yards from a Gatso (which is never on).
the article said:
The council can’t do much because of lack of resources. They have never conducted a proper survey to see if the road could withstand this volume of traffic.
And there, in a nutshell, we have the heart of the problem:
NIMBY type fed up with artics passing his hovel discounts the idea of requesting that the council do some proper traffic planning and instead knee-jerks to the wooly-headed standard reaction of "Speed is bad, m'kay?"
{edited to add:} Oh, and while we're at it, why is there a traffic problem on this road in the first place? Oh yes, that's right - its because the council has deliberately FUBARed the cross-town routes in a weird attempt to reduce congestion (I know, I know; you couldn't make this stuff up!) thus diverting thru' traffic onto alternative routes such as Coronation Rd.
>> Edited by pdV6 on Tuesday 4th October 12:54
[quote]Some residents felt it was a bit of a fudge and that permanent solutions such as proper signage would be more effective than a group of us standing outside.
But you have to start somewhere. [/quote]
So rather than tell people what speed they should be doing at the time, it is better to tell them days after through the post?
But you have to start somewhere. [/quote]
So rather than tell people what speed they should be doing at the time, it is better to tell them days after through the post?
B 7 VP said:
Good to see that these public spirited citizens taking action on this speedwatch scheme----as long as they start a Drunk Driver watch---with 590 deaths 03/04 and 35% less breathtests due to lack of TrafPol, that would perhaps get priorities in the right place.
Don't be stupid !
According to independent tests conducted by the Scamera Pratnerships, 137% of accidents and dangerous driving are caused by people going 0.1% over the speed limit, so we don't need any traffic police at all.
We can increase safety be replacing all the cats eyes with little micro speed cameras.
puggit said:
Although I imagine any data gathered may be used to in deciding future deployment of scameravans etc.
Interesting you should say this...
Not long after 2 busybodies complete with flourescent vests were watching traffic (with nothing but a clipboard!) on the A4155 in Shiplake, a Talivan appeared.
Just 100 yards from a Gatso (which is never on).
Quell suprise.
Bet its the bloke with the gaff behind the gatso.
Suprised he could hear me shouting
off at 90 in the Tiv...
Technically speaking the two standing together and forming the opinion that a vehicle was speeding is sufficient evidence to convict.
Section 89 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states whilst a person exceeding a speed limit commits an offence the driver shall not be convicted soley on the evidence of ONE WITNESS to the effect in the opinion of the WITNESS the person prosecuted was speeding.
There is no reference or definition of WITNESS so it can be other than BiB.
The speed gun could also add third corroboration to the equation but unlikely as they would have to be trained in its use and certified as a user by a Chief Constable.
There is no doubt that if proceedings were taken on the evidence of these two under the circumstances mentioned then they would be subject to heavy flack by defence as to their ability to judge speed. At the end of the day the final decision would rest with the Magistrates.
Similar action has been taken elsewhere and if the limit is found to be being flouted then it is reported to Bib who send in the heavy gang.
dvd
Section 89 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states whilst a person exceeding a speed limit commits an offence the driver shall not be convicted soley on the evidence of ONE WITNESS to the effect in the opinion of the WITNESS the person prosecuted was speeding.
There is no reference or definition of WITNESS so it can be other than BiB.
The speed gun could also add third corroboration to the equation but unlikely as they would have to be trained in its use and certified as a user by a Chief Constable.
There is no doubt that if proceedings were taken on the evidence of these two under the circumstances mentioned then they would be subject to heavy flack by defence as to their ability to judge speed. At the end of the day the final decision would rest with the Magistrates.
Similar action has been taken elsewhere and if the limit is found to be being flouted then it is reported to Bib who send in the heavy gang.
dvd
Well, it's a shame this little idea doesn't catch on for drunk driving, dangerous driving, driving without due care, faulty vehicles, excessive speed for the conditions, improper use of vehicle signalling or lights, road rage.
All these can cause an accident too, yet if you inform the police about the incidents you never get any real response.
Tis a shame they are focussing on speeding so much, as this idea would be great for all the other problems on the road if the incidences were recorded.
I'm sure really crap drivers would soon be totting up points for road raging people, or having bald tyres or for poor lane discipline!
Worst of all is that if people's simple judgement of speed from probably sound and revving engines and appearance of speed, rather than actual speed, can be used to convict people after so many instances, how come a real observation of something clear cut like jumping a red light cannot be?
Sh1te law system in this country, twisted to suit the needs of the idiotic pratnerships and police.
Dave
All these can cause an accident too, yet if you inform the police about the incidents you never get any real response.
Tis a shame they are focussing on speeding so much, as this idea would be great for all the other problems on the road if the incidences were recorded.
I'm sure really crap drivers would soon be totting up points for road raging people, or having bald tyres or for poor lane discipline!
Worst of all is that if people's simple judgement of speed from probably sound and revving engines and appearance of speed, rather than actual speed, can be used to convict people after so many instances, how come a real observation of something clear cut like jumping a red light cannot be?
Sh1te law system in this country, twisted to suit the needs of the idiotic pratnerships and police.
Dave
Tank Slapper said:
I wonder if their collection of numbers/descriptions etc fall under the data protection act.
This made me laugh:
numpty said:
But my neighbourhood has a big problem. Traffic along our road has increased dramatically over the last few years. Heavy goods vehicles hurtle past and rock people’s homes, waking us up at 5am. Pictures fall off walls.
A touch of exageration maybe? Does he live in a shack?
TBH I do sympathise with him on this. If you have ever been in a house close to a road (perhaps one not built on the best foundations, as per many a residential road) then it can certainly shake when a 42-ton truck goes past. Don't forget that many houses were biult close to the road when it was a dirt track, not ever considered for HGV traffic.
Hence:
PDv6 said:
the article said:
The council can’t do much because of lack of resources. They have never conducted a proper survey to see if the road could withstand this volume of traffic.
And there, in a nutshell, we have the heart of the problem:
NIMBY type fed up with artics passing his hovel discounts the idea of requesting that the council do some proper traffic planning and instead knee-jerks to the wooly-headed standard reaction of "Speed is bad, m'kay?"
OK, so there ought to be a better way of addressing this, but what chance would you have of getting an overstretched council to do a traffic survey? And if they did it, what would it show? Yes, that there is too much traffic. So where's the money to do something constructive like build a bypass? What would the council do then, if not impose some sort of lower speed limit anyway? They can't afford to take the problem away so they'll try to reduce its effects. Of course it's not right, but in the current climate you have to clutch at any straw going if you want to get funding for something from a council. I know -- I've seen it.
Moo Moo said:
article said:
Some residents felt it was a bit of a fudge and that permanent solutions such as proper signage would be more effective than a group of us standing outside.
But you have to start somewhere.
So rather than tell people what speed they should be doing at the time, it is better to tell them days after through the post?
No, but can't you feel the frustration? There are lots of proper solutions but no funding for them. In the meantime people who care try to find some way to tackle at least the consequences if not the causes.
I don't agree with vigilante enforcement of speed limits. But I do sympathise with those who are having their lives adversely affected by drivers who are not considerate for those living close to roads. I've seen the traffic coming through my village, and I know that there are some drivers who lack the basic essential attitude for good driving, and there are those who don't seem to notice their surroundings and drive accordingly.
Should it really be necessary to erect signs to say that people are asleep at 5am and therefore to drive quietly? Or to erect signs to say that at 8:30 parents will be walking their children to school and therefore to be extra vigilant?
No, vigilantes are not the answer, but there is no funding for the right answer and in any case there are some who are beyond salvation in terms of their driving/awareness skills. Forget "modernising" the police by subtraction; Tony would be better modernising the teaching and assessment of driving skills. Don't hold your breath.
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Tuesday 4th October 19:18
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff