Vigilante scamera operators...
Discussion
I think it's quite cute. Grey rinse grannies wielding laser guns at the side of the road should make for an interesting sight...
As for the legality:
Hogwash. It wouldn't stand up in court in a million years; well not unless the grey rinse brigade knew that they were operating the device in accordance with the conditions of type approval. Ahem.
As for the legality:
Times Online said:
Drivers who are caught do not receive a fine or points on their licence but they are sent a police letter threatening them with prosecution if they repeat the offence.
Hogwash. It wouldn't stand up in court in a million years; well not unless the grey rinse brigade knew that they were operating the device in accordance with the conditions of type approval. Ahem.
well the very notion of the scheme is pretty flawed, so if I ever did get "nicked" by these saddos it would make me laugh. Oh no, ive got a threatening letter from PC Numpty of the, NIMBY community watch, saying Doris and Ethel caught me on their kodak the other day....
Joanne Sharp said "“I had a bit of time on my hands.." ; yeah your not wrong there sweetheart, how about getting a little number down the local shop or something to keep you out of trouble?
Good on Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation. “A fixed camera or one held by a citizen does nothing to address the problems of drink, drug or dangerous driving",
also made me chuckle when he pointed out: "Rather than tooling up pensioners we should be working on a fundamental solution to the problems on our roads.” Good lad.
"Police admit the volunteers may be exposing themselves to abuse from angry local drivers who know their identities"
No shit PC Numpty, did you think of that yourself or did the whole relief help you.
I cant wait until Doris has to ring the local nick and speak to Insp Paperclip because fred the butcher got angry when he was pinged at 31 in a 30, and he lost control of himself and kicked her zimmer over, thus rendering Doris to fall to the floor under the weight of her LTI 20/20.
This country is going down the shitter quickly and schemes like this are doing nothing to help....
Joanne Sharp said "“I had a bit of time on my hands.." ; yeah your not wrong there sweetheart, how about getting a little number down the local shop or something to keep you out of trouble?
Good on Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation. “A fixed camera or one held by a citizen does nothing to address the problems of drink, drug or dangerous driving",
also made me chuckle when he pointed out: "Rather than tooling up pensioners we should be working on a fundamental solution to the problems on our roads.” Good lad.
"Police admit the volunteers may be exposing themselves to abuse from angry local drivers who know their identities"
No shit PC Numpty, did you think of that yourself or did the whole relief help you.
I cant wait until Doris has to ring the local nick and speak to Insp Paperclip because fred the butcher got angry when he was pinged at 31 in a 30, and he lost control of himself and kicked her zimmer over, thus rendering Doris to fall to the floor under the weight of her LTI 20/20.
This country is going down the shitter quickly and schemes like this are doing nothing to help....
DeMolay said:
I think it's quite cute. Grey rinse grannies wielding laser guns at the side of the road should make for an interesting sight...
As for the legality:
Times Online said:
Drivers who are caught do not receive a fine or points on their licence but they are sent a police letter threatening them with prosecution if they repeat the offence.
Hogwash. It wouldn't stand up in court in a million years; well not unless the grey rinse brigade knew that they were operating the device in accordance with the conditions of type approval. Ahem.
Ah DM what about this:
Section 89 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which deals with speeding generally.
Sub Section 2 - (verbatim)
" a person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted soley on the evidence of one witness to the effect, that in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit. "
Russell v Beesley [1937] - one witness backed up by measurement of distance and time OK.
Brighty v Pearson [1938] - corroboration of the evidence of one witness must be as to the observations made at the same time.(i.e. same time and same place)
The ST article mentions that the check is made by two grannies after schooling by Police. Nowhere does the law state the qualifications required by a 'witness' ie. police only, but as that is open then it can include a member of the public. Two together fulfill Brighty v Pearson for a prosecution to go ahead without the evidence from the handheld. With this, it must add credence to granniepower?
Reading the article its coming to a village near you....soon.
DVD
I've an idea...
Many people have camera 'phones now (or a digital camera of some sort).
We should all take the trouble to take a picture of these odious flourescent-jacketed saddos as we drive past. That should give them something to think about.
Maybe a "rogues-gallery" website for all to see would also help....
Many people have camera 'phones now (or a digital camera of some sort).
We should all take the trouble to take a picture of these odious flourescent-jacketed saddos as we drive past. That should give them something to think about.
Maybe a "rogues-gallery" website for all to see would also help....
TBH, if I lived in a sleepy little hamlet or village, and the road ran through the middle with drivers coming through at 50 or 60 in a 30 zone, I would be miffed too. But If it was a genuine persistent speeder area, the real cameras would be there surely?
Radar triggered traffic lights, or even the hated speed bumps are surely the answer, not sad Norris Cole types in dayglo.
Radar triggered traffic lights, or even the hated speed bumps are surely the answer, not sad Norris Cole types in dayglo.
To be honest, dickhead kids in their crappy corsa's etc, driving at 40+ in a built up residential areas, eally need some deterant. The problem is, as we have said, they only will get a letter, which means nothing. Then again, if it scares them, (they may not know it is a bull letter like us), then thats fine by me.
The problem is, they will be ending letters to people doing 33mph or so, which is not the point.
I would love to do this myself, but would only be zapping the idiots drving too fast, not just edging over the speed limit.
The problem is, they will be ending letters to people doing 33mph or so, which is not the point.
I would love to do this myself, but would only be zapping the idiots drving too fast, not just edging over the speed limit.
Ah DVD what about this:
(Road Traffic Act 1988; admissability of evidence of type approve readings)www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv23
(6) In proceedings for an offence to which this section applies, evidence (which in Scotland shall be sufficient evidence)—
(a) of a measurement made by a device, or of the circumstances in which it was made, or
(b) that a device was of a type approved for the purposes of this section, or that any conditions subject to which an approval was given were satisfied,
may be given by the production of a document which is signed as mentioned in subsection (1) above and which, as the case may be, gives particulars of the measurement or of the circumstances in which it was made, or states that the device was of such a type or that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the statement, all such conditions were satisfied.
Now unless the grey rinse grannies are privy to the type approval conditions then how on earth can they state that the evidence was obtained in accordance with those conditions. Since most (I would guess) police officers don't know, I would find it difficult to believe civilians know. I don't believe the court could take judicial notice of the fact that the devices were used in accordance with type-approval, providing the defence alert the CPS to this beforehand.
I do, however, believe it would take a High Court ruling to settle the issue.
I agree that there is nothing in statute to state a civvy couldn't do it, but I believe they are not empowered to offer evidence unless they've had the training in accordance with the type approval. Hen's teeth?
(Road Traffic Act 1988; admissability of evidence of type approve readings)www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv23
(6) In proceedings for an offence to which this section applies, evidence (which in Scotland shall be sufficient evidence)—
(a) of a measurement made by a device, or of the circumstances in which it was made, or
(b) that a device was of a type approved for the purposes of this section, or that any conditions subject to which an approval was given were satisfied,
may be given by the production of a document which is signed as mentioned in subsection (1) above and which, as the case may be, gives particulars of the measurement or of the circumstances in which it was made, or states that the device was of such a type or that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the statement, all such conditions were satisfied.
Now unless the grey rinse grannies are privy to the type approval conditions then how on earth can they state that the evidence was obtained in accordance with those conditions. Since most (I would guess) police officers don't know, I would find it difficult to believe civilians know. I don't believe the court could take judicial notice of the fact that the devices were used in accordance with type-approval, providing the defence alert the CPS to this beforehand.
I do, however, believe it would take a High Court ruling to settle the issue.
I agree that there is nothing in statute to state a civvy couldn't do it, but I believe they are not empowered to offer evidence unless they've had the training in accordance with the type approval. Hen's teeth?
In a dispute CPS all they would do is produce the Certificate of Approval and bobs yer uncle.
I have used the HR8 in the past for prosecution and whilst I had a general idea of how it work, other than the reading obtained and conditions at the time, like many of the operators today could not give evidence of this and if contested then they call a so called expert from the firm to do so. T&SS used to charge the princely sum of 400 notes IIRC, which even today is a tidy sum.
All I tried to point out in the first post was that the Granny brigade COULD be witnesses, frightening but true.....
DVD.
I have used the HR8 in the past for prosecution and whilst I had a general idea of how it work, other than the reading obtained and conditions at the time, like many of the operators today could not give evidence of this and if contested then they call a so called expert from the firm to do so. T&SS used to charge the princely sum of 400 notes IIRC, which even today is a tidy sum.
All I tried to point out in the first post was that the Granny brigade COULD be witnesses, frightening but true.....
DVD.
This came up in our village about 2 years ago. There was an article in the parish magazine which said Dorset Police were looking for places to trial and our village was in thr running. I wrote to the Chief Connstable and the Dorset Police Federation. The response from the CC's office was that it was not a police initiative at all and the request was from the local Lib Dem councillors. The Police Federation were against it saying the policing was best undertaken by trained officers. It never came into operation.
Y'know, all other things apart. In these days of: "happy slapping", of a total lack of respect for others, and social breakdown in which 6ft+ Policemen are attacked on a day to day basis, one question: "would YOU let your Granny out pointing a radar gun at cars?"
What a bloody stupid idea!!!
What a bloody stupid idea!!!
Well the more of these idiots they let out to target drivers the more drivers will become irate and the sooner these busy bodies with a power complex will get a good kicking.
And before anyone says anything about some granny getting a shoeing being wrong, all you have to remember is this:
If you dont wanna get burned, dont play with fire.
If they put themselves up for vigilante actions (backed by the cops FFS!) then they deserve all theyll eventually get.
BTW DORIS!!! Lasers dont work against Jammers!
And before anyone says anything about some granny getting a shoeing being wrong, all you have to remember is this:
If you dont wanna get burned, dont play with fire.
If they put themselves up for vigilante actions (backed by the cops FFS!) then they deserve all theyll eventually get.
BTW DORIS!!! Lasers dont work against Jammers!
‘Every cloud has a silver lining’
I think we’re all looking at this from the wrong angle.
What we PHers should be doing is signing up to this scheme (pretending to hate said PHers) such that we can get use of the equipment. The initiative will die off very quickly when we show the police, public and press that stationary objects are measured moving at >10mph, proving significant but undetected sweep errors have occurred.
Can you imagine the resulting fallout?
I would love to sign up to this scheme (especially as I’m an electronic engineer), but I have my own life to live…….
>> Edited by smeggy on Monday 4th July 10:31
I think we’re all looking at this from the wrong angle.
What we PHers should be doing is signing up to this scheme (pretending to hate said PHers) such that we can get use of the equipment. The initiative will die off very quickly when we show the police, public and press that stationary objects are measured moving at >10mph, proving significant but undetected sweep errors have occurred.
Can you imagine the resulting fallout?
I would love to sign up to this scheme (especially as I’m an electronic engineer), but I have my own life to live…….
>> Edited by smeggy on Monday 4th July 10:31
Notice that the operator of the device needs to be enforcing the law with the CCs approval for it to be a valid reading -- which I understand these people are not (despite the police training).
I am interested in DVD's assertion that it just takes two witnesses, not necessarily Police witnesses.
Does that mean that me and a mate can go and stand on the corner and get counting cars in our twenty-zone? Perhaps with a stopwatch for addedd efficacy.
I am interested in DVD's assertion that it just takes two witnesses, not necessarily Police witnesses.
Does that mean that me and a mate can go and stand on the corner and get counting cars in our twenty-zone? Perhaps with a stopwatch for addedd efficacy.
7db said:
Does that mean that me and a mate can go and stand on the corner and get counting cars in our twenty-zone? Perhaps with a stopwatch for addedd efficacy.
Providing you have the relevant training; plus the authorisation of the Chief Constable, then I suppose you could.
I still maintain, though, that unless you can demonstrate you were using the device in accordance with the conditions of type-approval then any conviction for speeding would be un-sound. It doesn't matter how many certificates are produced that try and fudge the issue. The fact of the matter is that s.20 of the RTOA requires it in order for a speed measurement to be admitted as evidence. I'm surprised that more lawyers haven't had a go at this one.
This is pathetic...but it's also worrying. I'm looking at a new job in N'hants, and if I get it may well move there in the next 12 months...but do I really want to live and work anywhere near there?!?
Having said that, are West Mercia that much better???
As for the vigilantes...I can see some chav scum giving them a good toeing, and then whose fault will that be?!? Not the incompetent small-minded politico or SCP pratt who dreamt up this abortion, that's for sure!
Having said that, are West Mercia that much better???
As for the vigilantes...I can see some chav scum giving them a good toeing, and then whose fault will that be?!? Not the incompetent small-minded politico or SCP pratt who dreamt up this abortion, that's for sure!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff