Cameras: why it's all over - maybe tomorrow?

[safespeed]

Hi all,

I've added a new page to Safe Speed this morning explaining why it's all over for the cameras.

www.safespeed.org.uk/cameras.html

Idris High Court case tomorrow may decide the matter, at least for a while.

www.safespeed.org.uk/pr109.html

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[apache]

Any guesses on the outcome?

[regmolehusband]

That's an excellent new page. There's some good ammunition in there for future letters to the local press.

Thanks Paul

>> Edited by regmolehusband on Monday 15th March 14:03

[safespeed]

apache said:

Any guesses on the outcome?

Firstly, cross your fingers.

I heard as long ago as last summer that the Government / DfT knew that speed camera policy was failing and were looking for an escape route. For the Government, any escape route has to have "face saving qualities".

This would be just such an escape route - I wonder if they could possibly have had a word with the CPS to "take a dive"? Wouldn't that be nice?

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[gh0st]

Fingers crossed Paul

Have just read both pages. It will be interesting how the scamera partnerships defend this one...

[M@H]

Mr Justice Mackey ... not had a good experience with him in the past... lol.


Cheers,
Matt


>> Edited by M@H on Monday 15th March 14:37

[deltaf]

Put it like this. The minute its clear that speed cameras cant be used to extract cash from drivers anymore, then theyll get trashed on a mass scale every night.
I hope the country goes up in flames at scamera sites.
I truly hope they get a good old fashioned kicking tomorrow.
I WILL be celebrating in my own way if Idris wins, if he dosent ill still celebrate, but Ill have a barbecue instead

[Dwight VanDriver]

Oh you optomists.

HMG, I would suspect, are considering a change to 172
so that if a driver is not named then the responsibilty will fall on the Reg. Keeper, as does parking offences. Not sure how they would deal with the points. As they consider speeding serious then lump them on the Reg Keeper as well to make him responsible for who drives the vehicle.

As to overall support for removal of Cameras, I would suspect in a Poll 60 - 70% would support retention. The concept is OK, its the abuse from this original concept that has led to criticism.Plus the fact drivers do not like being told what to do, irrespective of the rights or wrongs.

DVD

[M@H]

The Appeal Judges are going to find themselves between a rock and a hard place on this one though as if they uphold the Appeal it means that everyone gets off the hook on speeding fines, but if they go with the original ruling, then it means that, in theory, any written document that is unsigned will count as a signed written statement.
Cheers
Matt

PS: Dwight, I was under the impression that the driver was named, but the 172 was unsigned.. that was the bones of it in this case.. (?)

M.

>> Edited by M@H on Monday 15th March 15:53

[margo]

Dwight VanDriver said:

HMG, I would suspect, are considering a change to 172 so that if a driver is not named then the responsibilty will fall on the Reg. Keeper, as does parking offences. Not sure how they would deal with the points. As they consider speeding serious then lump them on the Reg Keeper as well to make him responsible for who drives the vehicle.

Forget the points but hit them with a thumping great fine ?

Much as I'd like to believe that safety cameras are either a) on their way out b) to be moved to areas where they might not catch so many people, but might do more good, in light of the results the government's recent 'study' into their placement there's very little chance of either of these scenarios actually occuring IMO.

[Dwight VanDriver]

The camera clicks - there is an offence outstanding.

Reg Owner held responsible from outset until driver comes forward. In other words Guilty until proved innocent?

DVD

[Don]

Dwight VanDriver said:

HMG, I would suspect, are considering a change to 172 so that if a driver is not named then the responsibilty will fall on the Reg. Keeper, as does parking offences. Not sure how they would deal with the points. As they consider speeding serious then lump them on the Reg Keeper as well to make him responsible for who drives the vehicle.

I'll bet you are right on this DVD. Simply allowing a vehicle in your official care to be used to speed will become an offence with the same penalties as the speeding offence itself. Its disgusting but its likely I'd say.

Dwight VanDriver said:

As to overall support for removal of Cameras, I would suspect in a Poll 60 - 70% would support retention.

I think you are hopelessly out in your estimate. 60-70% the other way is more like it. But this varies from poll to poll and we'll never get a referendum on the issue - which would actually tell us.

Dwight VanDriver said:

The concept is OK, its the abuse from this original concept that has led to criticism.Plus the fact drivers do not like being told what to do, irrespective of the rights or wrongs. DVD

Again I agree with you completely. To be honest - if the SCPs had never been formed and GATSO use had been restricted to just a few of the worst (most justifiable locations) there would be none of this politics about them at all.

The SCPs were a phenomenal error on the part of Government - the public sees them as businesses with themselves as the mugs who pay - nothing to do with "safety".

[Don]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Reg Owner held responsible from outset until driver comes forward. In other words Guilty until proved innocent?

If we don't see a change in Administration I see this as inevitable. Even after a change its still possible - but less likely as anyone coming into power will be keen to avoid the less popular policies of the previous lot...

[margo]

Don said:

I'll bet you are right on this DVD. Simply allowing a vehicle in your official care to be used to speed will become an offence with the same penalties as the speeding offence itself. Its disgusting but its likely I'd say.

Disregarding the ethics, or otherwise, of speed enforcement, why is it 'disgusting' ? The claim of 'I didn't know who was driving' is risible if you are the registered keeper of a privately owned vehicle. If this was to be brought into force as described above naming the driver would absolve the keeper of responsibility.

[blueyes]

margo said:

Don said: I'll bet you are right on this DVD. Simply allowing a vehicle in your official care to be used to speed will become an offence with the same penalties as the speeding offence itself. Its disgusting but its likely I'd say. Disregarding the ethics, or otherwise, of speed enforcement, why is it 'disgusting' ? The claim of 'I didn't know who was driving' is risible if you are the registered keeper of a privately owned vehicle. If this was to be brought into force as described above naming the driver would absolve the keeper of responsibility.

... and if the named driver denies it?

Reg. owner... guilty until... well just guilty.. whatever!

[safespeed]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Oh you optomists. HMG, I would suspect, are considering a change to 172 so that if a driver is not named then the responsibilty will fall on the Reg. Keeper, as does parking offences.

A change in primary legislation usually takes a minimum of 18 months - and I think that's outside the term of this parliament.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[kevinday]

margo said:

Don said: I'll bet you are right on this DVD. Simply allowing a vehicle in your official care to be used to speed will become an offence with the same penalties as the speeding offence itself. Its disgusting but its likely I'd say. Disregarding the ethics, or otherwise, of speed enforcement, why is it 'disgusting' ? The claim of 'I didn't know who was driving' is risible if you are the registered keeper of a privately owned vehicle. If this was to be brought into force as described above naming the driver would absolve the keeper of responsibility.

Quite simple really, I own a car anybody may drive, and go away on holiday for two weeks leaving the keys with a member of my family. How could I possible know who was driving the car in my absence?

[rs1952]

Dwight VanDriver said:

As to overall support for removal of Cameras, I would suspect in a Poll 60 - 70% would support retention.

But what would happen if two questions were asked?

"Do you want to keep the speed camera in your street?"

80-95% support

"Do you want to keep speed cameras in other people's streets?"

0-10% support ????

I followed a bloke from the A46/M40 junction down the Fosseway to Cirencester last Saturday afternoon, healthily (in my view !!) taking liberties with every speed limit he came across (10-15 mph above, except in Moreton where it ain't possible to speed anyway, and past the camera in the 50 about two miles south of Fossebridge !!)

Once we got to Ciren, he hit the anchors and did a steady 28 mph - then turned into a side street.

Says it all really, doesn't it ??

[nonegreen]

Every chance that scamera fines become a civil issue and therefore no points can be awarded. This allows the Government to have their cake and eat it. I believe it has been on the cards from the beginning.

[pwig]

To be honest, its the points that annoy me more than anything not having my license for more than 2 years. (get 6 points and back to L plates)