N E V E R pay a fine until you've seen the pic..
Discussion
Got home last night to a letter from plod informing me of their intention to prosecute me for driving at 59mph through a stealth tax collection device at Ryton flyover on the A45 heading towards Coventry. Initial thoughts were to send off my licence for it's 3 gold stars for good driving, but then I remembered the circumstances...
As the A45 has several such stealth tax collection devices on it which I have driven past many hundreds of times, I found it a little unlikely that on this particular moring I'd decided to speed past it. Thinking back, I remembered the morning in question...I was getting tailgated by a driver in a people carrier (nice one love, I'm sure your bus will outbrake my Alfa and whiplash is such great fun...) who then decided to go for the classic overtaking manoevre right past the camera. The camera was one of those driver facing one picture types, a "Truevlo" I believe, rather than the back of car facing "Gatso" type with multiple stripes on the road.
As it flashed I checked my speed (50mph officer) and turned to look at her...big blue Galaxy, and going about 10mph more than me.
So today I phoned the Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partership (yeah, whatever...) and got passed from pillar to post before speaking to a helpful person called Ginny who had a look at the picture, spoke to her superior and agreed that in this case the picture was "inconclusive" and charges would be dropped. Apparently the cameras sometimes "do odd things" etc etc. I challenged her and said that no, nothing odd had happened, someone had committed an offence (yeah, like driving a Galaxy...) and the camera had recorded it, it just so happened that you thought you might try to nail me for it at the same time and get another £60.00 to go to Reichsmarchall Brown.
I think it's a ******* disgrace that I ever recieved that notice of prosecution in the first place, and I wonder just how many drivers out there have paid up and are driving with points when they have done nothing wrong. I'd love to know how Plod actaully calibrates the Truevlos to differentiate between two vehicles travelling parallel at different speeds on one photo, and would I have been able to argue if some divvy had been undertaking me on the inside at 100mph? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty...surely if one phone call sorted the problem there should be some safeguard in place from the start ensuring that if two cars are in shot then only the offending one gets nicked...presuming plod can tell the difference.
Oh well, moral of the story...INSIST on seeing the picture and challenge it EVERY TIME. I've a bloody good mind to ask for a copy of the pic of me alledgedly (OK probably...) hooning my old MX5 down a Welsh A-Road...
Something else made me chuckle today, on the A435 near Studley another "Casualty Reduction Partnership" scam was in place...a guy dressed head to foot in black, with a black woolly had and no flouro yellow anywhere was stood in a bush by a roadsign pointing a pistol-shaped device at cars as they drove by. His stickered-up "Slooooowww Dooownnn" Nissan 4x4 was hidden in a nearby pub car park. Who was he? Copper or not? I wonder if he's still alive, because if any armed response units were in the area they might have accidentally mistaken him for a bank robber with a toy gun and put a cap in his ass.
Rant over, I've got nothing against the force, some of my good friends are coppers, but until this ridiculous double standards dictatorship comes clean about the strategy of sending me a court summons and a fine to just because I happened to be near some other muppet speeding through a camera, and stops insulting my intelligence by sending me a "dispelling the myths" pamphlet about speed traps the day before hiding a camouflaged jobsworth in a bush with a radar gun, the whole corrupt system will have about as much credibilty in my eyes as the Baghdad Tourist Information Service.
As the A45 has several such stealth tax collection devices on it which I have driven past many hundreds of times, I found it a little unlikely that on this particular moring I'd decided to speed past it. Thinking back, I remembered the morning in question...I was getting tailgated by a driver in a people carrier (nice one love, I'm sure your bus will outbrake my Alfa and whiplash is such great fun...) who then decided to go for the classic overtaking manoevre right past the camera. The camera was one of those driver facing one picture types, a "Truevlo" I believe, rather than the back of car facing "Gatso" type with multiple stripes on the road.
As it flashed I checked my speed (50mph officer) and turned to look at her...big blue Galaxy, and going about 10mph more than me.
So today I phoned the Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partership (yeah, whatever...) and got passed from pillar to post before speaking to a helpful person called Ginny who had a look at the picture, spoke to her superior and agreed that in this case the picture was "inconclusive" and charges would be dropped. Apparently the cameras sometimes "do odd things" etc etc. I challenged her and said that no, nothing odd had happened, someone had committed an offence (yeah, like driving a Galaxy...) and the camera had recorded it, it just so happened that you thought you might try to nail me for it at the same time and get another £60.00 to go to Reichsmarchall Brown.
I think it's a ******* disgrace that I ever recieved that notice of prosecution in the first place, and I wonder just how many drivers out there have paid up and are driving with points when they have done nothing wrong. I'd love to know how Plod actaully calibrates the Truevlos to differentiate between two vehicles travelling parallel at different speeds on one photo, and would I have been able to argue if some divvy had been undertaking me on the inside at 100mph? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty...surely if one phone call sorted the problem there should be some safeguard in place from the start ensuring that if two cars are in shot then only the offending one gets nicked...presuming plod can tell the difference.
Oh well, moral of the story...INSIST on seeing the picture and challenge it EVERY TIME. I've a bloody good mind to ask for a copy of the pic of me alledgedly (OK probably...) hooning my old MX5 down a Welsh A-Road...
Something else made me chuckle today, on the A435 near Studley another "Casualty Reduction Partnership" scam was in place...a guy dressed head to foot in black, with a black woolly had and no flouro yellow anywhere was stood in a bush by a roadsign pointing a pistol-shaped device at cars as they drove by. His stickered-up "Slooooowww Dooownnn" Nissan 4x4 was hidden in a nearby pub car park. Who was he? Copper or not? I wonder if he's still alive, because if any armed response units were in the area they might have accidentally mistaken him for a bank robber with a toy gun and put a cap in his ass.
Rant over, I've got nothing against the force, some of my good friends are coppers, but until this ridiculous double standards dictatorship comes clean about the strategy of sending me a court summons and a fine to just because I happened to be near some other muppet speeding through a camera, and stops insulting my intelligence by sending me a "dispelling the myths" pamphlet about speed traps the day before hiding a camouflaged jobsworth in a bush with a radar gun, the whole corrupt system will have about as much credibilty in my eyes as the Baghdad Tourist Information Service.
156er said:
...a guy dressed head to foot in black, with a black woolly had and no flouro yellow anywhere was stood in a bush by a roadsign pointing a pistol-shaped device at cars as they drove by.
Would you get prosecuted by the BIB if you phoned them up and reported seeing a 'terrorist looking guy with a big gun lurking in bushes'..I would be most tempted!
That's the spirit..... Make the barstewards work for their ill gotten gains 
I would be seriously inclined to make an official complaint. Procedures have not been correctly followed. It'll only cost you the price of a stamp
Thinking about it, I think The Sun loves to hear about these sort of things
Go on, you know you want to 
I would be seriously inclined to make an official complaint. Procedures have not been correctly followed. It'll only cost you the price of a stamp
Thinking about it, I think The Sun loves to hear about these sort of things
Go on, you know you want to somebody was pointing a radar gun dressed in civvy clothing, off bridges on the m4 around cardiff and bridgend yesterday and today, my bel 550 was goin bonkers.no sign of police activity. today on foot, yesterday in some small unmarked japcrap 4x4 what was that about? checking average speeds????
Christ that just goes to prove that they are only interested in the money.
Remember that suffolk bus driver who got scammed at 80mph, turns out he was doing 30 but the back of the bus vibrated and set off the camera, and guess who forgot to check it against the white lines in the photo - bastards !!
www.speedsafe.co.uk/news.php
Remember that suffolk bus driver who got scammed at 80mph, turns out he was doing 30 but the back of the bus vibrated and set off the camera, and guess who forgot to check it against the white lines in the photo - bastards !!
www.speedsafe.co.uk/news.php
The ACPO guidelines (which are on pepipoo) say that if there are two vehicles in the shot, that no action SHOULD be taken.
http://pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/ACPO_full.htm
see point 29.3.
If you can be arsed, it'd be worth writing to the SCAMmers and your local paper about it, as they were clearly putting revenue ahead of justice in your case...
outnumbered said:
The ACPO guidelines (which are on pepipoo) say that if there are two vehicles in the shot, that no action SHOULD be taken.
http://pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/ACPO_full.htm
see point 29.3.
If you can be arsed, it'd be worth writing to the SCAMmers and your local paper about it, as they were clearly putting revenue ahead of justice in your case...
Makes no difference to the validity of a charge WHAT is written in guidelines. Guidelines aren't worth tuppence ha'penny in a court of law.
DeMolay said:
Makes no difference to the validity of a charge WHAT is written in guidelines. Guidelines aren't worth tuppence ha'penny in a court of law.
Sure.
Do you think there is any point in the guidelines, or should all the Speed Camera organisations be allowed to make it up entirely as they go along ?
outnumbered said:
Makes no difference to the validity of a charge WHAT is written in guidelines. Guidelines aren't worth tuppence ha'penny in a court of law.
Sure.
Do you think there is any point in the guidelines, or should all the Speed Camera organisations be allowed to make it up entirely as they go along ?
Guidelines are only useful for attacking police procedures where they can be shown to flaunt them. It can also cast doubt on a police witness in court if he is shown to be doing things the guidelines don't advise.
Other than that, they're next to worthless in a court of law.
outnumbered said:The sentence construction indicates that "should" is used in the sense of a 'possibility', not in the sense of a 'duty'. The construct: "that ... should" implies a possibility; when used to imply a duty (or obligation) the word normally follows immediately upon the personal pronoun (first person, singular or plural - 'I should' [do this], 'you should' [do that]) - Streaky
The ACPO guidelines (which are on pepipoo) say that if there are two vehicles in the shot, that no action SHOULD be taken.
hedders said:
...a guy dressed head to foot in black, with a black woolly had and no flouro yellow anywhere was stood in a bush by a roadsign pointing a pistol-shaped device at cars as they drove by.
Would you get prosecuted by the BIB if you phoned them up and reported seeing a 'terrorist looking guy with a big gun lurking in bushes'..I would be most tempted!
Think I would alos be tempted Liebchen. After all - according to our Tone - terrorists are lurkin' everywhere...und he does fit the description of one...und he ist terrorising the innocent....
"Of course I run him over officer - he was dressed all in black and was pointing a gun at me!"
"How was I supposed to know it was a laser gun - wait until he's shot me to establish that he's got a real gun?!?"
"But the government says there are terrorists everywhere, I thought they'd decided to strike at a little-known Warwickshire village! I was defending democracy officer."
"How was I supposed to know it was a laser gun - wait until he's shot me to establish that he's got a real gun?!?"
"But the government says there are terrorists everywhere, I thought they'd decided to strike at a little-known Warwickshire village! I was defending democracy officer."
BliarOut said:
That's the spirit..... Make the barstewards work for their ill gotten gains
Indeed.
I go past 2 cameras every day that are on a national speed limit dual carriage way. Can someone point out to the numpties that the speed limit is 70 and therefor braking to 50 is not strictly necessary.
I was once in a traffic jam, going past one at 2 mph and it went off about 10 times. Never got a NIP though.
Have to agree, ALWAYS get the photos:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=&t=107071
Gwent scamerati...
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=&t=107071
Gwent scamerati...
I would definitely report the guy dressed in black. How are we supposed to tell if it is a real gun or not in his hands.
If more motorists got together and called in about this sort of activity, then they would soon get fed up with sending the armed response units out to deal with it.
If more motorists got together and called in about this sort of activity, then they would soon get fed up with sending the armed response units out to deal with it.
Some good points here...I'm hlaf tempted to make the complaint.
The way I see it, the law has 2 options.
Option 1-Park a squad car visibly at the accident "blackspot" or a yellow camera (hopefully with the glaring design/procedural/corrupted scam flaw ironed out this time) and people see it, check their speed, slow down if nescessary and that bit of road becomes alledgedly "safer". If little Johnny runs out to retrieve his football there's a good chance all will be well because the visible police presence will have alerted people to the possible danger spot and people are hopefully switched on.
Option 2-Hide camouflage man in the bushes to earn some cash for the day, drivers think "what the hell is that", concentrate 95% on the possible lunatic pointing a Glock at them, chances are they never even saw little Johnny who now resembles a keema nan. Well worth £60.00 I must say.
About as sensible as the mobile phone law...I have a proper handsfree kit, and whilst it is legal (and to be clear I am NOT saying advisable, just legal) for me to look down by the passenger's knee to dial a number, it's illegal (but surely more sensible) for me to take the phone out of it's cradle, and hold it in my line of sight to dial the number before replacing it to talk.
Oh look, I've just hijacked my own thread, but surely there's a case to review this law in some way...???
The way I see it, the law has 2 options.
Option 1-Park a squad car visibly at the accident "blackspot" or a yellow camera (hopefully with the glaring design/procedural/corrupted scam flaw ironed out this time) and people see it, check their speed, slow down if nescessary and that bit of road becomes alledgedly "safer". If little Johnny runs out to retrieve his football there's a good chance all will be well because the visible police presence will have alerted people to the possible danger spot and people are hopefully switched on.
Option 2-Hide camouflage man in the bushes to earn some cash for the day, drivers think "what the hell is that", concentrate 95% on the possible lunatic pointing a Glock at them, chances are they never even saw little Johnny who now resembles a keema nan. Well worth £60.00 I must say.
About as sensible as the mobile phone law...I have a proper handsfree kit, and whilst it is legal (and to be clear I am NOT saying advisable, just legal) for me to look down by the passenger's knee to dial a number, it's illegal (but surely more sensible) for me to take the phone out of it's cradle, and hold it in my line of sight to dial the number before replacing it to talk.
Oh look, I've just hijacked my own thread, but surely there's a case to review this law in some way...???
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff