Question for Madcop.
Discussion
Hi Madcop.
This loophole in the speed camera/prosecution laws has got me thinking,(now theres a first!
).
Is it possible the police and camera partnerships could now find themselves open for legal action by those motorists theyve prosecuted using this flawed law, due to the police not disclosing motorists legal right NOT to sign the NIPs?
After all, theres no reminder on the bottom saying"you do not have to sign this", but theres clearly a penalty if you dont fill in the other details.
Also, if the police were to try and use the "perverting the course of justice" route, couldnt the defendent then say the same back to the police, again because they did not inform him of his legal right not to sign? In effect "tricking" millions of motorists into incriminating themselves.
Whats your view on this unique situation?
This loophole in the speed camera/prosecution laws has got me thinking,(now theres a first!
). Is it possible the police and camera partnerships could now find themselves open for legal action by those motorists theyve prosecuted using this flawed law, due to the police not disclosing motorists legal right NOT to sign the NIPs?
After all, theres no reminder on the bottom saying"you do not have to sign this", but theres clearly a penalty if you dont fill in the other details.
Also, if the police were to try and use the "perverting the course of justice" route, couldnt the defendent then say the same back to the police, again because they did not inform him of his legal right not to sign? In effect "tricking" millions of motorists into incriminating themselves.
Whats your view on this unique situation?
I don't think anyone has been tricked as such. It is apparent that the loophole has apparently not been found until the case in question where the magistrates examined the evidence put forward by the defendants solicitor that the Section 172 notice is a confession and therefore with regrds to the laws of evidence is inadmissable unless the person confessing signs the statement.
It is possible that various police officers or departments dealing with administration of justice were aware that this was the case but because it has until now not been tested by a trial and resulting case law been made, then there was no need to pursue the procedure any further than it was in the past.
I would think that although this has been ruled on by magistrates, there will be a lot more legal arguement centred on this debate and certainly it will go onto either Crown Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and ultimately perhaps ECHR. The facts of the finding by the magistrates appear to be roughly the same as those put forwards by Idris about having to the right not to self incriminate oneself.
The finding on this particular case where the battle has been won over the confession not being signed would appear to be a significant one but I personally do not think that it will be the end of the war.
The whole area of regulations about offenders now finding a legal reason to fail to disclose details of who was driving at the time an offence was committed will bring a major difficulty to bring prosecution against anyone who is not stopped at the time of the offence and dealt with there and then.
Because this has such huge ramifications about prosecution of anyone not stopped at the time, for example a vehicle alleged to have been seen being driving dangerously, carelessly or without consideration for others, particularly where this evidence is gained from either civilian witnesses or even captured on Police video tape, then the evidence as it stands on the decision of this case will not be admissable.
You may cheer loudly about the findings in relation to speed cameras and covert vans and the fact that everyone can now have a chance at sticking up the middle finger to prosecution if they happen to be 'having a little fun' but think of the wider consequences other than being able to get off an offence which may have been a genuine mistake and only a couple of miles an hour over the top.
Where is the line now drawn on 'having a little fun'?
Will this include people who have no sense of responsibility whatsoever who will now realise they have impunity from prosecution unless they are stopped for their bad driving at the time?
Will it influence the decision of young feckless drivers (or even experienced pi55ed off PHrs) to try and get away from Police officers trying to stop them for minor traffic offences and create a real problem of pursuit instances for no other reasons than a minor traffic offence? "If you cant stop me and speak to me, you cant prosecute me" sort of attitudes.
Because of these implications, and there may even be more as I write this in a 'busking' format without getting the books out. I fear that the shouts of glee and celebration may be soon overheard by questions about what is going to be done about dealing with incidents of really bad driving that do not either end in an RTA or a physical stop at the time.
I also feel that this will soon be overturned by someone in a much higher authority than magistrates court.
I understand about how people feel about the Section 172 and NIP procedures if from nothing other than reading this forum. However there may be a flip side to the detriment of the sensible, average motorist who has a modicom of self control. This decision, to those who do not give a sh1t and have no self control whatsoever, is impunity.
It is possible that various police officers or departments dealing with administration of justice were aware that this was the case but because it has until now not been tested by a trial and resulting case law been made, then there was no need to pursue the procedure any further than it was in the past.
I would think that although this has been ruled on by magistrates, there will be a lot more legal arguement centred on this debate and certainly it will go onto either Crown Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and ultimately perhaps ECHR. The facts of the finding by the magistrates appear to be roughly the same as those put forwards by Idris about having to the right not to self incriminate oneself.
The finding on this particular case where the battle has been won over the confession not being signed would appear to be a significant one but I personally do not think that it will be the end of the war.
The whole area of regulations about offenders now finding a legal reason to fail to disclose details of who was driving at the time an offence was committed will bring a major difficulty to bring prosecution against anyone who is not stopped at the time of the offence and dealt with there and then.
Because this has such huge ramifications about prosecution of anyone not stopped at the time, for example a vehicle alleged to have been seen being driving dangerously, carelessly or without consideration for others, particularly where this evidence is gained from either civilian witnesses or even captured on Police video tape, then the evidence as it stands on the decision of this case will not be admissable.
You may cheer loudly about the findings in relation to speed cameras and covert vans and the fact that everyone can now have a chance at sticking up the middle finger to prosecution if they happen to be 'having a little fun' but think of the wider consequences other than being able to get off an offence which may have been a genuine mistake and only a couple of miles an hour over the top.
Where is the line now drawn on 'having a little fun'?
Will this include people who have no sense of responsibility whatsoever who will now realise they have impunity from prosecution unless they are stopped for their bad driving at the time?
Will it influence the decision of young feckless drivers (or even experienced pi55ed off PHrs) to try and get away from Police officers trying to stop them for minor traffic offences and create a real problem of pursuit instances for no other reasons than a minor traffic offence? "If you cant stop me and speak to me, you cant prosecute me" sort of attitudes.
Because of these implications, and there may even be more as I write this in a 'busking' format without getting the books out. I fear that the shouts of glee and celebration may be soon overheard by questions about what is going to be done about dealing with incidents of really bad driving that do not either end in an RTA or a physical stop at the time.
I also feel that this will soon be overturned by someone in a much higher authority than magistrates court.
I understand about how people feel about the Section 172 and NIP procedures if from nothing other than reading this forum. However there may be a flip side to the detriment of the sensible, average motorist who has a modicom of self control. This decision, to those who do not give a sh1t and have no self control whatsoever, is impunity.
I tend to agree with most of what youve put M8.
But it has to be said that the vast majority of drivers arent reckless, or criminals, or involved in other illegal activities.
I think the powers that be just forgot that somewhere along the line.
Its also got to be said that those same authorities have had this coming for a long time, such has been their vilification of motorists, for exceeding a dumb limit.
That old saying that what goes around comes around, has very much "come around" now.
Of course theres always going to be some folks who will do exactly what youve said, ie; sticking two digits up at the cops and laffing that they cant be touched.
Typical of the criminal few who know the law better than those who make it and enforce it.
Thats not a condonable action and i DONT support it.
Surprised?
On the other hand i dont condone the wholesale abuse of the system thats been perpertrated by "safety camera" partnerships and officers, some of whom seem to take a personal delight in screwing motorists.
If we had more cops like you doing the job and in charge of policy rather than some smug politician, setting up laws to suit their own monetary agenda, then i reckon motorists would tend to comply to a higher degree.
We dont have a situation like that tho, we've got idiots like brunstrom calling us murderers for doing 35.....
The powers that be, have had this coming for a long time, its payback i suppose, but as ever, the police are stuck in the friggin middle.
An uneviable position to be sure, im glad im not a cop, but then again, im not too happy bout being a motorist in britain 2003 either.
If two fingers are to be stuck in the air at anyone, itd have to be the "government", they introduced this war on motorists, they got what they deserve, their asses kicked.
But it has to be said that the vast majority of drivers arent reckless, or criminals, or involved in other illegal activities.
I think the powers that be just forgot that somewhere along the line.
Its also got to be said that those same authorities have had this coming for a long time, such has been their vilification of motorists, for exceeding a dumb limit.
That old saying that what goes around comes around, has very much "come around" now.
Of course theres always going to be some folks who will do exactly what youve said, ie; sticking two digits up at the cops and laffing that they cant be touched.
Typical of the criminal few who know the law better than those who make it and enforce it.
Thats not a condonable action and i DONT support it.
Surprised?
On the other hand i dont condone the wholesale abuse of the system thats been perpertrated by "safety camera" partnerships and officers, some of whom seem to take a personal delight in screwing motorists.
If we had more cops like you doing the job and in charge of policy rather than some smug politician, setting up laws to suit their own monetary agenda, then i reckon motorists would tend to comply to a higher degree.
We dont have a situation like that tho, we've got idiots like brunstrom calling us murderers for doing 35.....
The powers that be, have had this coming for a long time, its payback i suppose, but as ever, the police are stuck in the friggin middle.
An uneviable position to be sure, im glad im not a cop, but then again, im not too happy bout being a motorist in britain 2003 either.
If two fingers are to be stuck in the air at anyone, itd have to be the "government", they introduced this war on motorists, they got what they deserve, their asses kicked.
shorry mad but i dont agrey with a word of that post.
why should we have to admit driving
you dont have to confess too murder you have to prove they did it
so why is bad driving more inportaint than premeditated murder?
you point just dose not hold water m8.
what would the point in having courts
if all acused were foucsed to write a confetion and then foused to sign it.
there would me even more poor saps banged up for stuff they dident do
hoqw would you feel if a member of your family was picked foused to sign a confesstion and sign it then baged up for some thing they did not do.
You post seems to say you would like a system where the acused as no defence whot so ever?
why should we have to admit driving
you dont have to confess too murder you have to prove they did it
so why is bad driving more inportaint than premeditated murder?
you point just dose not hold water m8.
what would the point in having courts
if all acused were foucsed to write a confetion and then foused to sign it.
there would me even more poor saps banged up for stuff they dident do
hoqw would you feel if a member of your family was picked foused to sign a confesstion and sign it then baged up for some thing they did not do.
You post seems to say you would like a system where the acused as no defence whot so ever?
outlaw said:
You post seems to say you would like a system where the acused as no defence whot so ever?
Outlaw, you have not taken the concept of what I posted in the way it was meant.
Of course anyone who commits a serious crime such as murder should have every opportunity to have the law protect his/her interests to make sure that the facts put before a court are the right ones to convict him/he of that offence.
The difference with the law relating to vehicle identity is that there are 30 million plus vehicles being driven around at some stage or another which need to be monitored and policed for the greater benefit of everyone on the roads, whether they be other motorists or pedestrians or in the vicinity of roads.
Forunately there are nothing like the potential number of serious offences such as murder etc to police.
I understand where you are coming from about the Police having to prove every inch of the way, someones guilt about committing an offence. The signing of a Section 172 notice is not a confession of guilt in any way. By signing the form you are admitting to nothing other than being the driver at the time an alleged offence was committed by a motr vehicles use (or information about the person who may have been the driver).
Having performed that legal requirement, it is then up to the prosecution to prove that the offence took place and that the person who has been required to give the information actually committed that offence.
Signing a Section 172 notice is not tantamount to pleading guilty.
It is a very difficult set of circumstances to make fair and just rules to cover all eventualities for the use of motor vehicles and who was driving them.
I would agree that if a member of my family was alleged to have committed a serious offence and wrongly been accused of it, then I would expect that the prosecuting authority should make every effort to prove that guilt.
I would put the ball back in your court to suggest that if someone seriously damaged some of your property or injured a member of your family and then pi55ed off without leaving any information, you would expect that the Police should have some kind of levers to find the guilty person?
Advances in forensic science are good but the sort of time and costs involved to recover the sort of evidence to convict someone of an offence in relation to the driving of a motor vehicle would not be feesible nor practical especially for the less serious but more common offences such as dangerous driving.
The alternatives would see the work load of the Police and costs exceed to unmanageable levels. The result would be chaos on the roads because offences were not dealt with and there would be a further reduction of human resources to investigate proper serious criminality.
The alternative would be to bring in a regulation that made the registered owner liable for all ofences registered to the vehicle him/herself unless he/she could offer corroborative evidence that the driver was someone else. That would possibly require vehicle log books to be kept, especially for those vehicles that were not family vehicles but vehicles such as company cars or lease cars which could have a number of drivers. There would also be an offence of failing to keep a record. It would not be difficult or exhorbitant to impose. Just look at tachograph legislation in relation to the millions of medium and heavy goods vehicles.
I can tell you that the Govt will not allow this loop hole to exist for too long. I can see all manner of more restrictive and draconian measures coming out of this case. You know what happens when things like this are uncovered
Think about catalytic converters and new vehicles. 
All new vehicles have to be fitted with the sort of data recorder black boxes that are now installed in most police vehicles. The driver is identifiable through an individual code to start the engine etc. If that coded driver is downloaded when an offence is committed, then he is responsible unless he can show otherwise. Data must be held for 1 year. It would not be difficult or expensive to manage a system such as this especially if it were to log on a specific driver and the times the vehicle was in motion under that driver code. No need to record all the rest of the data about speeds etc either. All new vehicles have to be fitted with tachograph heads and records of all journeys will have to be held for 1 year by the registered keeper. Don't say I didn't warn you. I can see that the authorities will say "fine then, if you dont like this system that requires some degree of honesty and integrity then have this one instead"!
Sometimes it is better the devil you know!!!!!
Why cant they just be fair and reasonable huh?
The majority of drivers are just that, yet they are treated like enemy number one, an easy target to be hounded and screwed for cash at every available opportunity.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Dont they understand that the more they try to hold us down, the more we will fight back?
The sad part is, that theres absolutley no need for any of this to be happening, if only theyd be reasonable and be honest.
Thats all it takes.
How hard can it be for them to be 100% truthful with the figures that we're always talking about?
The simple truth of this matter is that the whole scam is run for money, theres no other explanation for it.
Safety is taking a very poor second place to revenue collection.
Its pisses us off so much to see these assholes sitting in UNMARKED vans, flouting the guidelines designed to govern them, putting up speed cameras in places with no accident history (it has and is happening), and then they tell us that sorry, theres no one to come and deal with your elderley mother who some piece of trash has kicked the hell out of.
Honestly Madcop i dont know where you get your strength from, cos ill tell you now, id never work for an organisation that deals with this issue the way the police are having to.
I genuinley feel for you guys that are having to be at the sharp end of public resentment, i couldnt and wouldnt do it.
Its a sad state of affairs when the police arent allowed to do proper law enforcement on the issues that really matter, instead of being used as a private debt collecting agency for this rotten corrupted puke inducing government.
The majority of drivers are just that, yet they are treated like enemy number one, an easy target to be hounded and screwed for cash at every available opportunity.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Dont they understand that the more they try to hold us down, the more we will fight back?
The sad part is, that theres absolutley no need for any of this to be happening, if only theyd be reasonable and be honest.
Thats all it takes.
How hard can it be for them to be 100% truthful with the figures that we're always talking about?
The simple truth of this matter is that the whole scam is run for money, theres no other explanation for it.
Safety is taking a very poor second place to revenue collection.
Its pisses us off so much to see these assholes sitting in UNMARKED vans, flouting the guidelines designed to govern them, putting up speed cameras in places with no accident history (it has and is happening), and then they tell us that sorry, theres no one to come and deal with your elderley mother who some piece of trash has kicked the hell out of.
Honestly Madcop i dont know where you get your strength from, cos ill tell you now, id never work for an organisation that deals with this issue the way the police are having to.
I genuinley feel for you guys that are having to be at the sharp end of public resentment, i couldnt and wouldnt do it.
Its a sad state of affairs when the police arent allowed to do proper law enforcement on the issues that really matter, instead of being used as a private debt collecting agency for this rotten corrupted puke inducing government.
The government could go about it another way,they could scrap all Gatso's and raise the number of points for speeding to say six.This could be monitored the old way by the bib stopping you for speeding.OK it wont make any money for the councils etc it might even cost money but it is more likely to make people (by people i mean decent members of the public)slow down.The villan fleeing the scene of a crime aint going to slow down reguardless of the law.
The big problem with cameras is that they offer no discretion whatsoever. I expect that is most peoples particular bone of contention.
Beibng stopped by a marked, or indeed unmarked car is accptable, because if I am driving when alert etc I should spot them, and therefore take action to slow down, thereby showing I am paying attention. I have the chance to plead my case at the scene and get away with a warning and of course having learnt my lesson.
Being stopped by an officer with a speed gun will also give me the chance to explain and/or justify my actions therefore potentially minimising the dangers of being charged.
However a speed camera will charge me for doing 35 (occasionally less) past it, whether its 8.40am when there are hoards of kids on the streets or 3am and theres no one around.
I chair a local village hall which is broken into or vandalised virtually every other weekend. We tried reporting it to the police, but gave up, for two reasons, the first being they never came out when they said they would which when you have made the effort to sit waiting is exceptionally annoying, and second because invariably one can't get an answer on the non-emergency number. The other option given is to email them, I have email, the other volunteers who run the hall don't.
The government will finally realise that the ordinary man in the street is getting bored of being persecuted for what can be occasional or minor flaws in road discipline, whereas they can't get the police to attend other crimes.
Its obviously not the fault of the police officer on the beat (assumming they are not all extinct by now) however they are the ones that will be picking up the flack.
I therefore am all for this flaw in the NIP process being highlighted, although I share Madcops concern that the government will just take action thats even worse.
edited to correct the worst errors
>> Edited by chrisgr31 on Saturday 1st March 23:14
Beibng stopped by a marked, or indeed unmarked car is accptable, because if I am driving when alert etc I should spot them, and therefore take action to slow down, thereby showing I am paying attention. I have the chance to plead my case at the scene and get away with a warning and of course having learnt my lesson.
Being stopped by an officer with a speed gun will also give me the chance to explain and/or justify my actions therefore potentially minimising the dangers of being charged.
However a speed camera will charge me for doing 35 (occasionally less) past it, whether its 8.40am when there are hoards of kids on the streets or 3am and theres no one around.
I chair a local village hall which is broken into or vandalised virtually every other weekend. We tried reporting it to the police, but gave up, for two reasons, the first being they never came out when they said they would which when you have made the effort to sit waiting is exceptionally annoying, and second because invariably one can't get an answer on the non-emergency number. The other option given is to email them, I have email, the other volunteers who run the hall don't.
The government will finally realise that the ordinary man in the street is getting bored of being persecuted for what can be occasional or minor flaws in road discipline, whereas they can't get the police to attend other crimes.
Its obviously not the fault of the police officer on the beat (assumming they are not all extinct by now) however they are the ones that will be picking up the flack.
I therefore am all for this flaw in the NIP process being highlighted, although I share Madcops concern that the government will just take action thats even worse.
edited to correct the worst errors
>> Edited by chrisgr31 on Saturday 1st March 23:14
chrisgr31 said:
I chair a local village hall which is broken into or vandalised virtually every other weekend. We tried reporting it to the police, but gave up, for two reasons, the first being they never came out when they said they would which when you have made the effort to sit waiting is exceptionally annoying, and second because invariably one can't get an answer on the non-emergency number. The other option given is to email them, I have email, the other volunteers who run the hall don't.
The answer to the question of why it appears that Police resources are targetting the generally law abiding citizen rather than the truly criminal element is that it takes relatively few officers and static equipment to catch lots of prevalent offenders. Thirty Million vehicles on the road, all of whom at some stage will be in a hurry for one reason or another, all of which have the potential to make a mistake with tragic consequences to themselves, someone else or both.
Proper criminal offences on the other hand are not easy to find because they are a lot less prevalent and do not happen at specific areas time and again where the introduction of static equipment is likely to benefit the collecting of evidence and the prosecution of those offenders.
Collecting evidence of the small number of criminal offenders actively engaging in their trade compared pro rata with motorists breaking the rules is very labour intensive. Without superb and accurate intelligence which is difficult to achieve at the best of times, catching people in the act of criminal offending is rare because they are extremely unpredictable.
I have said this on other posts but will state it again. There are hundreds of operations running every day of the week where thousands of officers are tied up watching and waiting in covert vans, houses and other buildings for a single offence to occur so that one or maybe a couple of persitent offenders are targetted and caught in the act.
Occasionally these operations are successful. Very often they are not because the mark of the criminal offender is that he/she is generally unreliable. They do not commit crime to appointments but when the need arises most or when the opportunity happens to come their way.
I have been on such operations many times where tens of officers are engaged performing shifts of 12 hours plus for a week at a time. The offence does not occur in the target area or does not occur at all during the stake out.
Hundreds of man hours are lost to these types of operations where the capture of those who are engaged in these offences is small in comparison to those potentially causing a very real danger to others because of inappropriate speed in relation to their environment or their individual circumstances at the time they are driving and are a greater physical danger to all of us than vandals that happen to smash a few windows or dawb paint around displaying various tags. All very annoying and costly but not likely to endanger life or limb (except their own if caught in the act by a victim).
The government will finally realise that the ordinary man in the street is getting bored of being persecuted for what can be occasional or minor flaws in road discipline, whereas they can't get the police to attend other crimes.
The ordinary 'man in the street' is fed up of what he/she considers to be petty niggling offences designed to collect revenue and supress them further into behaving until the offences of others 'men in the street' happen to interfere with the 'ordinary mans' way of life or cause him/her some financial inconvenience. Then there is a demand that the Police clamp down on this anti social behaviour of ones fellow motoring enthusiast.
N.I.M.B.Y. is the comment of many local paper's 'readers letter' collumns.
The Govt appear to be aware of the potential backlash of middle England over this perceived heavy handed nanny attitude but they are also having to listen to the rest of middle England who support the suppression of the use of the motor vehicle, not just because of the speeding/safety issues but congestion and pollution too.
Its obviously not the fault of the police officer on the beat (assumming they are not all extinct by now) however they are the ones that will be picking up the flack.
I therefore am all for this flaw in the NIP process being highlighted, although I share Madcops concern that the government will just take action thats even worse.
Purely on a selfish angle I would agree that this loophole if it lasts for anytime is a bit of a relief. I think though that the bigger picture in all this will eventually make people think that finding the loophole was not altogether in everyones best interests.
In summing up (M'lud), 30 million vehicles with the potential of serious interference in someones life or death or a handful of medium to serious criminal offences which in the main (unless those offences are of assault) are offences against property and therefore apart from financial loss to the victim, pale into insignificance compared with the damage caused by the inappropriate and careless use of motor vehicles.
>> Edited by madcop on Sunday 2nd March 01:17
Madcop said,
I can tell you that the Govt will not allow this loop hole to exist for too long. I can see all manner of more restrictive and draconian measures coming out of this case. You know what happens when things like this are uncovered
You could well be right, but don't under estimate the level of draconian measures that the motoring public will stand for, as you say, there are 30 million of us. True to form we brits take a lot of winding up, but when we blow,we go big time. Those in power would do well to remember that a lot of people are very pissed off about the govts policy towards motorists, the younger drivers are becoming far more vocal, and even entertaining direct action but as yet they are not organised. Now the 40 to 60 age group are pure radicals,we were about in the 60's 70's and 80's and made a difference to many, now doomed govenment policys so prehaps we are just waiting to be pushed too far. The difference between now and the old days, is today we have the power, influence and most importantly, the money and capability to direct like minded people of most age groups. The generation gap is far less of an issue these days and we do miss a good fight. So be warned those who have the privilge to govern us, DON'T PUSH YOUR F*****G LUCK !!!!
>> Edited by TUSCAN 29 on Sunday 2nd March 12:46
TUSCAN 29 said:
Madcop said,
I can tell you that the Govt will not allow this loop hole to exist for too long. I can see all manner of more restrictive and draconian measures coming out of this case. You know what happens when things like this are uncovered
You could well be right, but don't under estimate the level of draconian measures that the motoring public will stand for, as you say, there are 30 million of us. True to form we brits take a lot of winding up, but when we blow,we go big time. Those in power would do well to remember that a lot of people are very pissed off about the govts policy towards motorists, the younger drivers are becoming far more vocal, and even entertaining direct action but as yet they are not organised. Now the 40 to 60 age group are pure radicals,we were about in the 60's 70's and 80's and made a difference to many, now doomed govenment policys so prehaps we are just waiting to be pushed too far. The difference between now and the old days, is today we have the power, influence and most importantly, the money and capability to direct like minded people of most age groups. The generation gap is far less of an issue these days and we do miss a good fight. So be warned those who have the privilge to goven us, DON'T PUSH YOUR F*****G LUCK !!!!
FUCKING WELL SAID SAVED ME TYPING IT
>> Edited by outlaw on Sunday 2nd March 04:09
Hundreds of man hours are lost to these types of operations where the capture of those who are engaged in these offences is small in comparison to those potentially causing a very real danger to others because of inappropriate speed in relation to their environment or their individual circumstances at the time they are driving.
Mad,
I think by far the majority of people on PH agree with your thinking on this.
To my mind the whole speed camera debate has been warped a bit. People detest them and want rid. I think they're useful for what they're good at, I just don't think they're any good at preventing accidents.
The problem is that a speed camera is unable to judge when someone is using "inappropriate speed in relation to their environment or their individual circumstances ".
They are hence not really enforcing anything other than an arbitary speed limit set decades ago, which has probably been mindlessly reduced since then.
As a result a typical speed camera will catch hundreds of cars that pose no danger to anything, and maybe one or two nutters (their positioning usually doesn't help on this!).
If the cameras were sited nearer schools, parks and around town I very much doubt there would be the current backlash against them, as they would be seen to catch only those stupid enough to drive at inappropriate speed where there is an increased likelihood of car meeting satationary object.
A car travelling at appropriate speed will never crash, as it's driver will always be able to react in time. Appropriate speed however is not necessarily anywhere near the limit.
A tired driver can kill themselves and their passengers, even doing 65mph on a stretch of 3 lane motorway at 4am. A speed camera can neither prevent this or punish it.
Hence I'd like to see more plod on the roads, carrying speed equipment maybe, but as a guide, not a weapon.
Edited because that's not how you spell sutpid.
>> Edited by P*Ting on Sunday 2nd March 04:43
outlaw said:
TUSCAN 29 said:
Madcop said,
I can tell you that the Govt will not allow this loop hole to exist for too long. I can see all manner of more restrictive and draconian measures coming out of this case. You know what happens when things like this are uncovered
You could well be right, but don't under estimate the level of draconian measures that the motoring public will stand for, as you say, there are 30 million of us. True to form we brits take a lot of winding up, but when we blow,we go big time. Those in power would do well to remember that a lot of people are very pissed off about the govts policy towards motorists, the younger drivers are becoming far more vocal, and even entertaining direct action but as yet they are not organised. Now the 40 to 60 age group are pure radicals,we were about in the 60's 70's and 80's and made a difference to many, now doomed govenment policys so prehaps we are just waiting to be pushed too far. The difference between now and the old days, is today we have the power, influence and most importantly, the money and capability to direct like minded people of most age groups. The generation gap is far less of an issue these days and we do miss a good fight. So be warned those who have the privilge to goven us, DON'T PUSH YOUR F*****G LUCK !!!!
FING WELL SAID SAVED ME TYPING IT
>> Edited by outlaw on Sunday 2nd March 04:09
>> Edited by llamekcuf on Sunday 2nd March 11:55
Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff