Manchester scamvans operated by civilians.....
Discussion
There is a comments section......
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/224/224705_fury_as_speed_traps_handed_to_civilians_.html
Fury as speed traps handed to civilians
POLICE have handed over responsibility for running speed traps across Greater Manchester to civilians.
The move has angered anti-speed camera campaigners, who say it could be illegal for civilians to operate some mobile devices.
But Drivesafe, the partnership of police, courts and councils which operates speed cameras in the region, says the change frees up 20 officers to perform other duties, is cost-effective and helps reduce speeds and save lives.
Under the change, traffic wardens and camera technicians are responsible for maintaining and using speed cameras in the county, including mobile laser cameras.
Penalties
The civilians will not stop offenders, but will use the equipment to record evidence and issue penalties by post.
Drivesafe started to employ camera technicians in 2004, a year after it was set up.
It took much of the work of operating cameras away from police officers. But this year traffic wardens have also been seconded to work for Drivesafe to help enforce speed limits.
Police traffic officers are trained to use the equipment, but are concentrating instead on dealing with accidents and crime on the roads.
Drivesafe says 99 per cent of speed camera work is now done by civilians.
Illegal
Paul Smith, the engineer who founded the anti-speed camera pressure group Safe Speed, said it could be illegal for civilians to operate mobile speed cameras. By law, speed cameras require two pieces of evidence to prove the speed of a car to a court.
For static cameras, these are provided by radar data and pictures which show a car against the white markings on a road.
For mobile cameras, this evidence is provided by a laser and a technician, rather than a policeman as in the past - a "witness" is required by law.
A motorist, backed by another road campaign group, is due to challenge a speeding charge in court in Wiltshire. It is thought he will argue that the civilian who caught him allegedly speeding with a mobile laser camera does not have the power in law to provide the principal evidence against him.
Challenges
If he is cleared, it could have major implications for the way mobile speed cameras are used and could prompt challenges from those whose convictions are based on civilian evidence.
Mr Smith said: "There's a big question about whether this is legal or not."
A police source said: "This is trying to make sure police officers do what police officers do best. And this is a cost-effective way of speed enforcement."
Claire Wightman, for Drivesafe, said: "By civilianising these roles, we are ensuring Greater Manchester's resources are being used as effectively as possible.
"Since the creation of our partnership in 2004, at least 20 more police officers have had their time freed up.
"Due to the structure of the partnership, the technicians are working with all other partners' best interests at heart."
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/224/224705_fury_as_speed_traps_handed_to_civilians_.html
Fury as speed traps handed to civilians
POLICE have handed over responsibility for running speed traps across Greater Manchester to civilians.
The move has angered anti-speed camera campaigners, who say it could be illegal for civilians to operate some mobile devices.
But Drivesafe, the partnership of police, courts and councils which operates speed cameras in the region, says the change frees up 20 officers to perform other duties, is cost-effective and helps reduce speeds and save lives.
Under the change, traffic wardens and camera technicians are responsible for maintaining and using speed cameras in the county, including mobile laser cameras.
Penalties
The civilians will not stop offenders, but will use the equipment to record evidence and issue penalties by post.
Drivesafe started to employ camera technicians in 2004, a year after it was set up.
It took much of the work of operating cameras away from police officers. But this year traffic wardens have also been seconded to work for Drivesafe to help enforce speed limits.
Police traffic officers are trained to use the equipment, but are concentrating instead on dealing with accidents and crime on the roads.
Drivesafe says 99 per cent of speed camera work is now done by civilians.
Illegal
Paul Smith, the engineer who founded the anti-speed camera pressure group Safe Speed, said it could be illegal for civilians to operate mobile speed cameras. By law, speed cameras require two pieces of evidence to prove the speed of a car to a court.
For static cameras, these are provided by radar data and pictures which show a car against the white markings on a road.
For mobile cameras, this evidence is provided by a laser and a technician, rather than a policeman as in the past - a "witness" is required by law.
A motorist, backed by another road campaign group, is due to challenge a speeding charge in court in Wiltshire. It is thought he will argue that the civilian who caught him allegedly speeding with a mobile laser camera does not have the power in law to provide the principal evidence against him.
Challenges
If he is cleared, it could have major implications for the way mobile speed cameras are used and could prompt challenges from those whose convictions are based on civilian evidence.
Mr Smith said: "There's a big question about whether this is legal or not."
A police source said: "This is trying to make sure police officers do what police officers do best. And this is a cost-effective way of speed enforcement."
Claire Wightman, for Drivesafe, said: "By civilianising these roles, we are ensuring Greater Manchester's resources are being used as effectively as possible.
"Since the creation of our partnership in 2004, at least 20 more police officers have had their time freed up.
"Due to the structure of the partnership, the technicians are working with all other partners' best interests at heart."
This story appear on page two of the "MEN" last week. Headline on Page ONE - proclaimed that "10,000 uninsured cars had been nabbed by the police und crushed - using ANPR"
The gushing comments were that the police in Manchester were redeployed this way.
Now Mad Doc has two of his own sisters und one brother living in Manchester ...
Mad Doc's relatives say they have not noticed any extra police presence or ANPR vans over past 9 months.
Und in the real world.. police may seize unlicenced und unregistered vehicle - but then they admitted in a different Manchester area paper that the yob driving this car would still go to an auction, get another lethal car for £60-£100 und continue to drive without a licence to do so.
Perhaps they would do better to lock these people up instead then!
The gushing comments were that the police in Manchester were redeployed this way.
Now Mad Doc has two of his own sisters und one brother living in Manchester ...
Mad Doc's relatives say they have not noticed any extra police presence or ANPR vans over past 9 months.
Und in the real world.. police may seize unlicenced und unregistered vehicle - but then they admitted in a different Manchester area paper that the yob driving this car would still go to an auction, get another lethal car for £60-£100 und continue to drive without a licence to do so.
Perhaps they would do better to lock these people up instead then!
Would one's time not be better spent protesting the unjust, arbitrary and indiscriminate application of speed limits per se, rather than nitpicking over whether police or civilians should be enforcing them?
There are so many more important things for the police to do than to get involved in operating a radar gun.
On the one hand many people will say, "Don't police have something better to do than to stop me for speeding?", whilst on the other many of the same people will cavil that a speed infraction can only be recorded by a police officer!
If a law is wrong, who is empowered to enforce it should be a marginal issue at most.
Let the civilians do it.
At the moment the only reason why the scamvans actually work in law is that the primary evidence is supplied by an 'expert witness' as they have a police uniform.
It is going to be a lot more difficult to show that Joe Bloggs can do the same magic trick of assessing the speed of vehicles from half a mile away.
At least you know that if you can be arsed then you will win the case.
Get the police back on the roads catching real criminals or *real* dangerous driving instead of diving out of hedges and hiding in unmarked vans.
At the moment the only reason why the scamvans actually work in law is that the primary evidence is supplied by an 'expert witness' as they have a police uniform.
It is going to be a lot more difficult to show that Joe Bloggs can do the same magic trick of assessing the speed of vehicles from half a mile away.
At least you know that if you can be arsed then you will win the case.
Get the police back on the roads catching real criminals or *real* dangerous driving instead of diving out of hedges and hiding in unmarked vans.
justinp1 said:
...It is going to be a lot more difficult to show that Joe Bloggs can do the same magic trick of assessing the speed of vehicles from half a mile away.
Perhaps unfairly, I assume that the majority of people whose principal occupation is sitting in the back of a van trying to catch out drivers have below-average intelligence and motivation. Perhaps that assumption is wrong, but I make it with some confidence. Even people who are pretty dumb, however, ought to be able, after a few hundred instances of observing an oncoming car and then relating its apparent speed to a digitised reading, to assess oncoming speed with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
If from an elevation of 200 feet a bird can assess the speed of a running mouse, I don't see why a witless council worker couldn't assess the speed of a car - even if the bird has a higher IQ than the council worker does.
flemke said:
Would one's time not be better spent protesting the unjust, arbitrary and indiscriminate application of speed limits per se, rather than nitpicking over whether police or civilians should be enforcing them?
flemke said:
If a law is wrong, who is empowered to enforce it should be a marginal issue at most.
I suppose there is some merit in the argument that both:
*only police have the authority
*scamming is a misuse of police time
I'll stick with arbitrary limits are oppressive and immoral though...
james_j said:
Now the morons in society have an additional job open to then (in addition to clamper, bouncer and other "security-related" jobs).
Let's not forget: - bailiffs
- parking wardens
- and parasitic organisations such as the ones that make and market speed cameras, red-light cameras, bendy buses and the other rubbish that blights our lives.
Whenever justice and common sense get mixed up with a private profit motive, justice and common sense seem to be the losers.
We expect political "leaders" to protect us citizens against their depredations, instead of abetting them.
flemke said:
james_j said:
Now the morons in society have an additional job open to then (in addition to clamper, bouncer and other "security-related" jobs).
Let's not forget: - bailiffs
- parking wardens
- and parasitic organisations such as the ones that make and market speed cameras, red-light cameras, bendy buses and the other rubbish that blights our lives.
Whenever justice and common sense get mixed up with a private profit motive, justice and common sense seem to be the losers.
We expect political "leaders" to protect us citizens against their depredations, instead of abetting them.
The one bit of this I cannot aggree with is the comment about red light cameras, that is one application of cameras that has some legitimate safety arguments attatched. The rest
flemke said:
justinp1 said:
...It is going to be a lot more difficult to show that Joe Bloggs can do the same magic trick of assessing the speed of vehicles from half a mile away.
Perhaps unfairly, I assume that the majority of people whose principal occupation is sitting in the back of a van trying to catch out drivers have below-average intelligence and motivation. Perhaps that assumption is wrong, but I make it with some confidence. Even people who are pretty dumb, however, ought to be able, after a few hundred instances of observing an oncoming car and then relating its apparent speed to a digitised reading, to assess oncoming speed with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
If from an elevation of 200 feet a bird can assess the speed of a running mouse, I don't see why a witless council worker couldn't assess the speed of a car - even if the bird has a higher IQ than the council worker does.
If you feel happy that the evidence 'attained' from an otherwise redundant council worker of the certainty of you breaking the speed limit from half a mile away or more will be correct just because a bird can do it, then you are less than a cynic than I...
In one of the only ever session tapes released which showed how well the operator *did* assess speeds before zapping, they got it right 17% of the time...
In a previous thread about this subject a traffic cop with personal experience on the subject felt happy they could assess speeds at evidential levels, but only up to 150-200 metres.
If you are bored one day, I suggest looking over a motorway bridge and look at cars coming towards you at a distance of half a mile and see how small they are, and how tiny the increase in size is due to perspective as they come towards you, it may cause you to reassess your faith in 'the system'!
flemke said:
If from an elevation of 200 feet a bird can assess the speed of a running mouse, I don't see why a witless council worker couldn't assess the speed of a car - even if the bird has a higher IQ than the council worker does.
what at what frequancy does the bird catch the mouse?
lord summerisle said:
flemke said:
If from an elevation of 200 feet a bird can assess the speed of a running mouse, I don't see why a witless council worker couldn't assess the speed of a car - even if the bird has a higher IQ than the council worker does.
what at what frequancy does the bird catch the mouse?
justinp1 said:
If you are bored one day, I suggest looking over a motorway bridge and look at cars coming towards you at a distance of half a mile and see how small they are, and how tiny the increase in size is due to perspective as they come towards you, it may cause you to reassess your faith in 'the system'!
Would it be feasible, as part of your defence, to take a civilian scamvan operator to a busy road and test out his powers of speed deduction under laboratory oonditions?puggit said:
At last - a legal challenge to civilians in vans!
It's about time. I have been led to understand that civilians, unlike the police, are not authorised -- however capable -- of forming the prior opinion of speeding (just as civilians, unlike the police, are not authorised -- however capable -- of speeding).
Therefore, if there is any doubt as to whether civilians can operate camera vans, it is incumbent upon those who control them to follow the law and not use them. The alternative is to appear to be flagrantly ignoring the law for the sake of prosecuting motorists.
That one of these organisations would boast of using civilians while no doubt being aware of the potential legal issues does really bring down the stature of the organisation even lower than it already is. The fact that they use cost as the basis of this is even more demeaning.
All I can think is, "bring it on". The more that these organisations destroy themselves from within, the quicker public opinion will turn against them.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff