Fine for driver's make-up offence by a mobile scamera
Discussion
Seems they are using them for other offences now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/nort
Still no hands on the wheel is bad enough, but putting make-up on
seems also that she thinks she is above the law - done for Drink driving only the previous week
maybe she should re sit her driving test?
>> Edited by rodney59 on Wednesday 8th March 12:59
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/nort
Still no hands on the wheel is bad enough, but putting make-up on
seems also that she thinks she is above the law - done for Drink driving only the previous week
maybe she should re sit her driving test? >> Edited by rodney59 on Wednesday 8th March 12:59
The article says she was caught by a mobile "speed camera". How can this be I thought they only operated when the trigger speed was exceeded and she was far below the limit. They are not videoing every car that passes the mobile site are they, and is it civilian as well as police officers? Is this the way they are going to implement the crackdown to enforce the mobile phone and seat belt legislation? When the whole of the country is covered by cameras perhaps that is the way road policing will be enforced. Do away with Trafpol and just have loads of unskilled people viewing the videos. Come on I know you know it makes sense. Why have all those highly skilled Police drivers and expensive cars when we can do it cheaper.
NB it's because she was driving slowly that they looked at her in the first place....
so what the feck happened to the "forming an opinion of speeding" and then "confirming" it using the camera before she was filmed??
Not defending this twunt in any way, she should have been bannned for another 10 months for taking both hands off the wheel and doing makeup, but the supercilious lying thieving scumera barstewards are bending the law (as always) at least!
so what the feck happened to the "forming an opinion of speeding" and then "confirming" it using the camera before she was filmed??
Not defending this twunt in any way, she should have been bannned for another 10 months for taking both hands off the wheel and doing makeup, but the supercilious lying thieving scumera barstewards are bending the law (as always) at least!
JMGS4 said:
NB it's because she was driving slowly that they looked at her in the first place....
so what the feck happened to the "forming an opinion of speeding" and then "confirming" it using the camera before she was filmed??
Not defending this twunt in any way, she should have been bannned for another 10 months for taking both hands off the wheel and doing makeup, but the supercilious lying thieving scumera barstewards are bending the law (as always) at least!
I believe they film everyone, but should only 'zap' you to record your speed if they form the opinion that you are exceeding the limit.
Zod said:
£200 for careless driving adn driving while disqualified? That should be a big four figure fine and two year ban.
I agree. It just shows the empasis on punishing speed and not dangerous driving. I say this because just down the road at Wrexham magistrates court I co-incidentally got exactly the same punishment, 6 points and £200 fine and £100 costs. Not for driving without my hands on the wheels and not looking where i was going but the highly dangerous crime of doing 92 in a 70 mph dead straight dual carriageway on a sunny day on an empty road...
I wonder which one of us is a greater risk to themselves and the public... and how this is represented in the punishment!
MrsMiggins said:
NB it's because she was driving slowly that they looked at her in the first place....
so what the feck happened to the "forming an opinion of speeding" and then "confirming" it using the camera before she was filmed??
Not defending this twunt in any way, she should have been bannned for another 10 months for taking both hands off the wheel and doing makeup, but the supercilious lying thieving scumera barstewards are bending the law (as always) at least!
I believe they film everyone, but should only 'zap' you to record your speed if they form the opinion that you are exceeding the limit.
That's right. So we now have evidence that NWP camera vans fail to follow proper procedure.
I think you're being a bit unfair SS, TBH. The operator saw someone doing something blatantly dangerous and took the decision, since they were filming them, to add a date/time stamp to make a successful prosecution more likely. Why does there have to be more to it than that?
Now if the full session video showed them 'zapping' every vehicle on the road and recording their speed without forming a prior opinion and then doing the speeding ones then that's a different story.
Now if the full session video showed them 'zapping' every vehicle on the road and recording their speed without forming a prior opinion and then doing the speeding ones then that's a different story.
safespeed said:
NB it's because she was driving slowly that they looked at her in the first place....
so what the feck happened to the "forming an opinion of speeding" and then "confirming" it using the camera before she was filmed??
Not defending this twunt in any way, she should have been bannned for another 10 months for taking both hands off the wheel and doing makeup, but the supercilious lying thieving scumera barstewards are bending the law (as always) at least!
I believe they film everyone, but should only 'zap' you to record your speed if they form the opinion that you are exceeding the limit.
That's right. So we now have evidence that NWP camera vans fail to follow proper procedure.
Good point. Although I think we kind of knew this for ages. i would like to see some detailed points like this put to the scamera operators. Either they are not bothering to get an opinion of speed, or merely as I think it is simply too difficult to do accurately - certainly not to be able to do for evidential purposes. Regardless of this I think we all know in practice the term 'opinion of excess speed is just a pre-printed start to the police statement as oppose to something which is actually performed. No importance is given to it in practice, but in court this is actually the *primary* piece of evidence which is only confirmed by the device.
MrsMiggins said:
I think you're being a bit unfair SS, TBH. The operator saw someone doing something blatantly dangerous and took the decision, since they were filming them, to add a date/time stamp to make a successful prosecution more likely. Why does there have to be more to it than that?
The required procedure is 'prior opinion of speed, then zap'. I don't think we have that in this case. So I don't think I'm being 'unfair' - but perhaps the proof isn't quite as good as I'd initially thought.
safespeed said:
I think you're being a bit unfair SS, TBH. The operator saw someone doing something blatantly dangerous and took the decision, since they were filming them, to add a date/time stamp to make a successful prosecution more likely. Why does there have to be more to it than that?
The required procedure is 'prior opinion of speed, then zap'. I don't think we have that in this case. So I don't think I'm being 'unfair' - but perhaps the proof isn't quite as good as I'd initially thought.
I think we are missing something... i am pretty sure that the time and date stamp and the timecode of the recording are over the whole video and they are on the image at all times. All the laser device readout does is add the speed in mph onto that when the trigger is pulled. He didnt have to pull the trigger to add the time and date to the video at all.
I think a little bit of devil's advocacy is at work! Good thinking though.
Moreover, evidence that the north wales operators can get their opinion a whole 20% out. That same guys opinion had convicted countless others.
Unlikely to be the case with this lady, but I recall Russ Kane (Capital Radio's "Flying Eye"
telling Chris Tarrent that he had seen a man on the M25 holding a cell-phone to his ear whilst shaving with a battery razor. RK mused as to how the man was steering. CT replied that he must have been a "clever dick"! - Streaky
telling Chris Tarrent that he had seen a man on the M25 holding a cell-phone to his ear whilst shaving with a battery razor. RK mused as to how the man was steering. CT replied that he must have been a "clever dick"! - StreakyForums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff