N Wales. Done for 31 in a 30. Proof at last?
Discussion
Chester Chronicle has a report on a Flintshire Council meeting with Brunstrom in attendance going on about road deaths being the same as 10 jumbo jets a year crashing.
Chair of meeting, Cllr John Beard says:
"I am a magistrate and have noticed there are people who receive the same penalty for doing 31, 35 and 37 mph in a 30 mph zone. It is the same penalty for everyone and people are aggrieved that the punishment does not always fit the crime. I think there should be a grading of severity".
Brustrom replies: "I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who are speeding. nodody who is caught speeding can claim they are innocent ( sic). It is a dangerous offence"
So there we have it. A magistrate has dealt with cases of 31 in a 30; he mentions it to Brunstrom who does not deny it.
QED.
Chair of meeting, Cllr John Beard says:
"I am a magistrate and have noticed there are people who receive the same penalty for doing 31, 35 and 37 mph in a 30 mph zone. It is the same penalty for everyone and people are aggrieved that the punishment does not always fit the crime. I think there should be a grading of severity".
Brustrom replies: "I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who are speeding. nodody who is caught speeding can claim they are innocent ( sic). It is a dangerous offence"
So there we have it. A magistrate has dealt with cases of 31 in a 30; he mentions it to Brunstrom who does not deny it.
QED.
Tafia said:Right, and the citizens who pay his wages have no sympathy whatsoever for a self-important, snotty political hack who on a good day has the intellectual capacity of a dandelion.
Brustrom replies: "I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who are speeding. nodody who is caught speeding can claim they are innocent ( sic). It is a dangerous offence"
dazren said:
Is there any way of tracking the person done for 31 in a 30? I'm sure Paul Smith would like to have a chat with them.
DAZ
I guess he would need to talk to the magistrate who made the remarks and tried the offences. Sounds like more than one driver to me. I have sent a scan of the article to Paul Smith and the ABD.
Hey, I have just found the magistrates phone number. I won't post it here in case he gets calls.
>> Edited by Tafia on Friday 28th April 16:24
I read the report of the same meeting in the Flintshire Leader in which this clown Brunstrom came up with some amazing soundbites.
Councillor Hannah wanted to know why cameras did not have calibration certificates and the arrogant and ignorant fool stated that " the concillors question was nonsense ....cameras were " bomb-proof(sic)"
Simply that the cameras as any Instrument or Control engineer knows are subject to measurement error as is EVERY measurement technique and instrument. I know that Radar Doppler effect is certainly not accurate to +/- 0.5 mile/h as it would HAVE to be to support a conviction of someone at 31 mile/h. This is implicit in Brunstroms ACPO code of practice ( 10% +2 mile/h)....but the CPS misleading refer to the CoP as 'guidelines' whenever possible and probably BS did not understand it when he signed it anyway.
And he referred to Flintshire with the highest number of fixed cameras in Wales as a shining example of road safety......
Councillor Hannah wanted to know why cameras did not have calibration certificates and the arrogant and ignorant fool stated that " the concillors question was nonsense ....cameras were " bomb-proof(sic)"
Simply that the cameras as any Instrument or Control engineer knows are subject to measurement error as is EVERY measurement technique and instrument. I know that Radar Doppler effect is certainly not accurate to +/- 0.5 mile/h as it would HAVE to be to support a conviction of someone at 31 mile/h. This is implicit in Brunstroms ACPO code of practice ( 10% +2 mile/h)....but the CPS misleading refer to the CoP as 'guidelines' whenever possible and probably BS did not understand it when he signed it anyway.
And he referred to Flintshire with the highest number of fixed cameras in Wales as a shining example of road safety......
vonhosen said:
This is implicit in Brunstroms ACPO code of practice ( 10% +2 mile/h)
What's 10%+2mph got to do with it ?
ACPO guidelines set many years ago as the minimum speed at which tickets were issued, in order to avoid prosecution embarrassment in Court due to permitted inaccuracy in vehicle speedometers.
As anything goes these days, that has gone out of the window.
If you're ignorant of this, I expect you'll rubbish it next. All I can say is that I heard it from a senior traffic police officer a long time ago, and its existence has been documented and widely known for a considerable time.
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Saturday 29th April 00:22
sean5302 said:
I'm fascinated with this.
Brunstrom is the chief constable of a police force. Is it up to him to decide which bits of the Law his force will uphold?
How do they get the mandate to decide?
Yes. The police choose which laws to enforce which is why arguments of "we are only upholding the law" are at best simplistic and at worst flawed.
Who sets the priorities? - The CC
How does he set them? - A combination of personal preference, local pressure groups and how far he has his tongue up a certain orfice of the home secretary - which is why the police are not independant of the Government and effectively do their bidding
Who selects the CC? - Basically a bunch of unelected and unaccountable people that you have never met or heard of or have any influence over.
mybrainhurts said:
This is implicit in Brunstroms ACPO code of practice ( 10% +2 mile/h)
What's 10%+2mph got to do with it ?
ACPO guidelines set many years ago as the minimum speed at which tickets were issued, in order to avoid prosecution embarrassment in Court due to permitted inaccuracy in vehicle speedometers.
As anything goes these days, that has gone out of the window.
If you're ignorant of this, I expect you'll rubbish it next. All I can say is that I heard it from a senior traffic police officer a long time ago, and its existence has been documented and widely known for a considerable time.
Well don't listen to what people tell you, read them for yourself then you'll know.
I don't think it's me that's ignorant of the ACPO guidelines but it seems that many people are under a false impression of what they say. They don't say that prosecutions shouldn't take place until speed goes beyond that point, they say that the minimum action that should take place at that point (unless exceptional circumstances exist) is the issue of a FPN. That is entirely different to what you are saying. It is a guideline that you would be expected to be doing something beyond a point (but still can below it), rather than not expected to do something until a point is reached.
In other words (what it says is) officers shouldn't be using their discretion for speeds 10%+2mph & above, over the limit, unless exceptional circumstances exist, but they can prosecute for any amount over the limit capable of proof, where they deem it necessary to.
It's a positive instruction to do something, not to not do something.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th April 08:34
vonhosen said:
In other words (what it says is) officers shouldn't be using their discretion for speeds 10%+2mph & above, over the limit, unless exceptional circumstances exist, but they can prosecute for any amount over the limit capable of proof, where they deem it necessary to.
Not long ago a serving trafpol with 20+ years experience said to me:
"If you're doing 50 mph in a built-up area, I have a big problem with that. If you're doing 150 mph on a completely open road, I have no problem with that."
Funny thing how bureaucrats and politicians ensconced in offices think they have a greater ability to employ judgment and discretion than does a trained practitioner who is actually observing the facts and circumstances.
flemke said:
In other words (what it says is) officers shouldn't be using their discretion for speeds 10%+2mph & above, over the limit, unless exceptional circumstances exist, but they can prosecute for any amount over the limit capable of proof, where they deem it necessary to.
Not long ago a serving trafpol with 20+ years experience said to me:
"If you're doing 50 mph in a built-up area, I have a big problem with that. If you're doing 150 mph on a completely open road, I have no problem with that."
Funny thing how bureaucrats and politicians ensconced in offices think they have a greater ability to employ judgment and discretion than does a trained practitioner who is actually observing the facts and circumstances.
You can't rely on meeting someone who shares your viewpoint though & we will all view risk differently for any set of given circumstances to some degree. It is a very subjective issue & speed limits offer a way to deal with it by making it totally objective for speeds above the limit. They create an unambiguous line & you go beyond it knowing full well the possible consequences of that action. If you want to protect your licence, your best bet isn't to hope that you meet someone who share's your opinion, but instead drive safely within the law.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th April 10:08
7db said:
I would be interested to see the CPSs justification of both the evidential and public interest limbs for a prosecution of 31 in a 30.
Judicial review, anyone?
Don't get me wrong 7db.
I'm not calling for everyone doing 31 in a 30 to be prosecuted at all, merely setting the record straight on this ACPO guidelines fallacy that gets banded about, whilst also expressing an opinion that anyone who does 150mph on our roads & believes that if it's safe at the time they should/would not get prosecuted for it, is kidding themselves.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th April 10:24
And we've not actually seen any "proof" of antone being done for 31 in a 30.
I think the OP quoted the chap as saying he was aware of people being done, not that they had been up before him for having done so.
And just for the record, I don't think people should be prosecuted for 31 in a 30.
I think the OP quoted the chap as saying he was aware of people being done, not that they had been up before him for having done so.
And just for the record, I don't think people should be prosecuted for 31 in a 30.
Dibble said:
And just for the record, I don't think people should be prosecuted for 31 in a 30.
I know what you mean Dibble and I don't mean to twist your words but the question "What if 20 was a more appropriate speed at the time?" comes to mind, as we all know 25 in a 30 can still be deadly.
I think the problem is that proving dangerous or due care is harder than speeding so if it's all you got, use it. The problem with this approach is that it requires intelligence, descretion and the power and ability to stop the vehicle. Something cameras or vans can't offer us.
Dibble said:Yes, it looks like there's evidence of 33 and 34 (equally preposterous imo) but the ABD is currently looking into the 31 in a 30 issue, if anything emerges it'll appear on here.
And we've not actually seen any "proof" of antone being done for 31 in a 30.
I think the OP quoted the chap as saying he was aware of people being done, not that they had been up before him for having done so.
And just for the record, I don't think people should be prosecuted for 31 in a 30.
flemke said:
Funny thing how bureaucrats and politicians ensconced in offices think they have a greater ability to employ judgment and discretion than does a trained practitioner who is actually observing the facts and circumstances.
They, all, universally, suffer this delusion. It is the poor chumps at the front end who get stuck with the rubbish.
turbobloke said:
And we've not actually seen any "proof" of antone being done for 31 in a 30.
I think the OP quoted the chap as saying he was aware of people being done, not that they had been up before him for having done so.
And just for the record, I don't think people should be prosecuted for 31 in a 30.
I don't think that everyone should be prosecuted for 31 in a 30, but there will be circumstances that it may be justified to use the speed limit enforcement in cases of 31 in a 30.
(as gopher has eluded to)
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th April 10:44
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff