We're guilty of speeding until proven innocent
Discussion
MCN said:
WE’RE GUILTY OF SPEEDING UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
BY STEVE FARRELL, MCN, 26 December 2006
Speed camera partnerships say it's up to us to prove our innocence
A SPEED camera authority has said it doesn't need to show us any evidence to back up its speeding accusations - because we're all automatically guilty. Riders who ask for speed camera photos to prove their innocence are being told they must go to court and risk a £2000 fine and double points on their licence in order to see them.
Camera partnership says it's up to us to prove we didn't break law - but we have to go to court to do it
SPEED camera authorities have told riders they don't Iced to show us any evidence to back up then accusations because we're all automatically guilty and it's up to us to prove we're innocent.
Riders who ask for speed camera photos to prove they weren't speeding are told they must go to court and risk a £2000 fine and double the points on their licence in order to see them.
Gatso photos can he used to verify speed by making a simple distance over-time calculation. The distance travelled by the bike is determined by counting how many of tile two meters apart lines it has crossed between the first and second photo, and that figure is then divided by the half-second interval between the two.
Last year MCN reader Bryn Carlyon was supplied with these pictures and MCN used them to prove he was innocent, saving him the ordeal of going to court. After our story, camera authorities around the country agreed photos would he issued on request as a matter of course,
But now Camera authorities, including Staffordshire Casualty Reduction Partner ship, have said they will only supply one of the two pictures-making the calculation impossible. Riders are told they must go to court to see the second photo because they are presumed guilty.
Carlyon said last week that he feared the policy could lead to innocent riders accepting fixed penalties for speeding because they fear stiffer penalties threatened by partnerships if they go to court. Asked why the second photo was not supplied when requested, Staffordshire Casualty Reduction Partnership spokeswoman Jeannie Hoddinott said last week: “The onus is on the driver of the Vehicle to prove thier innocence, not on the Partnership to prove guilt. Therefore if any driver is adamant that they were not doing the speed they were allegedly detected at, then they have the right to go to court and prove so."
She said the partnership didn't set court penalties but that "a driver can be fined up to £2000 and have six points placed on their licence." A driver or rider who accepted a speeding fixed penalty without going to Court would only face three points and a £60 fine.
Carlyon, 48, from Mid¬-Glamorgan, said: "A lot of people won't go to court. They're afraid to go to Court just in case they are wrong."
MCN reader Richard Brown, 53, from Worksop, Nottinghamshire, has requested both Gatso photographs of an alleged offence from tile Staffordshire partner ship and been refused. He said: "It's absolutely diabolical, It's disgusting, With that threat hanging over tile I'm obviously going to take the easy option and accept the £60 fine and three points."
Hoddinott claimed the partnership was acting out of generosity by supplying just one photo. She said: "We are not obliged to send out any form of photography and we do so only out of courtesy so the registered keeper can identify the driver of the vehicle. Some partnerships send out no photography at all. Therefore Staffordshire's approach to this is quite lenient."
A spokesman for West Midlands Camera Partnership said both photos were issued on request but that the road markings would be deliberately cropped out to make the distance-over-time calculation impossible. He said: "They send you them both but they're cropped down so it's just showing you and the vehicle." He added: "It's only for the purposes of identification." Other partnerships said their normal response to a request for evidence would be to send one photo and that they would only send both if specifically asked.
If you have been sent one Gatso photograph by a camera partnership or told you can't have both, e-mail your details and a daytime phone number to steve.farrell@emap.com
`They're afraid to go to court just in case they are wrong'
pic:WRONGLY ACCUSED BIKER BRYN CARLYON
BY STEVE FARRELL, MCN, 26 December 2006
Speed camera partnerships say it's up to us to prove our innocence
A SPEED camera authority has said it doesn't need to show us any evidence to back up its speeding accusations - because we're all automatically guilty. Riders who ask for speed camera photos to prove their innocence are being told they must go to court and risk a £2000 fine and double points on their licence in order to see them.
Camera partnership says it's up to us to prove we didn't break law - but we have to go to court to do it
SPEED camera authorities have told riders they don't Iced to show us any evidence to back up then accusations because we're all automatically guilty and it's up to us to prove we're innocent.
Riders who ask for speed camera photos to prove they weren't speeding are told they must go to court and risk a £2000 fine and double the points on their licence in order to see them.
Gatso photos can he used to verify speed by making a simple distance over-time calculation. The distance travelled by the bike is determined by counting how many of tile two meters apart lines it has crossed between the first and second photo, and that figure is then divided by the half-second interval between the two.
Last year MCN reader Bryn Carlyon was supplied with these pictures and MCN used them to prove he was innocent, saving him the ordeal of going to court. After our story, camera authorities around the country agreed photos would he issued on request as a matter of course,
But now Camera authorities, including Staffordshire Casualty Reduction Partner ship, have said they will only supply one of the two pictures-making the calculation impossible. Riders are told they must go to court to see the second photo because they are presumed guilty.
Carlyon said last week that he feared the policy could lead to innocent riders accepting fixed penalties for speeding because they fear stiffer penalties threatened by partnerships if they go to court. Asked why the second photo was not supplied when requested, Staffordshire Casualty Reduction Partnership spokeswoman Jeannie Hoddinott said last week: “The onus is on the driver of the Vehicle to prove thier innocence, not on the Partnership to prove guilt. Therefore if any driver is adamant that they were not doing the speed they were allegedly detected at, then they have the right to go to court and prove so."
She said the partnership didn't set court penalties but that "a driver can be fined up to £2000 and have six points placed on their licence." A driver or rider who accepted a speeding fixed penalty without going to Court would only face three points and a £60 fine.
Carlyon, 48, from Mid¬-Glamorgan, said: "A lot of people won't go to court. They're afraid to go to Court just in case they are wrong."
MCN reader Richard Brown, 53, from Worksop, Nottinghamshire, has requested both Gatso photographs of an alleged offence from tile Staffordshire partner ship and been refused. He said: "It's absolutely diabolical, It's disgusting, With that threat hanging over tile I'm obviously going to take the easy option and accept the £60 fine and three points."
Hoddinott claimed the partnership was acting out of generosity by supplying just one photo. She said: "We are not obliged to send out any form of photography and we do so only out of courtesy so the registered keeper can identify the driver of the vehicle. Some partnerships send out no photography at all. Therefore Staffordshire's approach to this is quite lenient."
A spokesman for West Midlands Camera Partnership said both photos were issued on request but that the road markings would be deliberately cropped out to make the distance-over-time calculation impossible. He said: "They send you them both but they're cropped down so it's just showing you and the vehicle." He added: "It's only for the purposes of identification." Other partnerships said their normal response to a request for evidence would be to send one photo and that they would only send both if specifically asked.
If you have been sent one Gatso photograph by a camera partnership or told you can't have both, e-mail your details and a daytime phone number to steve.farrell@emap.com
`They're afraid to go to court just in case they are wrong'
pic:WRONGLY ACCUSED BIKER BRYN CARLYON
I've just been done myself. Decided to play up as much as possible to make them earn their money. There have been four or five letters backwards & forwards so far. I Don't care what it costs...it's all too easy for them, just like we're driving through a turnstile. In the meantime, appauling driving continues, crime rate soaring, Plod station closes at tea time, one squad car covers our whole town at night, and these greedy tax collecting faceless beaurocrats want us to support the local police. What are they doing with the money.......if it's for better Policing, where is it?
I think the article misses the point intentionally. Whilst I'm no big fan of many speed limits and much of the enforcement, I know that if I believe I'm innocent then the court has to try and prove my guilt and I have to make my defence there.
The purpose of the NIP is to make it easier for both sides to deal with the issue and move on.
The purpose of the NIP is to make it easier for both sides to deal with the issue and move on.
leosayer said:
I think the article misses the point intentionally. Whilst I'm no big fan of many speed limits and much of the enforcement, I know that if I believe I'm innocent then the court has to try and prove my guilt and I have to make my defence there.
The purpose of the NIP is to make it easier for both sides to deal with the issue and move on.
The purpose of the NIP is to make it easier for both sides to deal with the issue and move on.
Gto that but why actively without hold the photos and/or deface them to prevent a double check of guilt. If it is all stored electronically it should be a piece of p*ss to email out a copy!
I've always been amazed at the effort expended by the SCP's on persuading people to accept the FPN.
They have alleged evidence about an offence, offer an easy way of dealing with it, or we'll see you in court. Nice and easy.
Don't get me wrong, I deplore the way they do things, but the only way to really beat them is to have your day in court. Even if you lose, they don't get their £60 (of whatever portion it is) since they only get that from a FPN. If everyone did that, the courts would colapse under the weight, the SCP's would be bankrupt within a month and a high-level strategic rethink would be required.
They have alleged evidence about an offence, offer an easy way of dealing with it, or we'll see you in court. Nice and easy.
Don't get me wrong, I deplore the way they do things, but the only way to really beat them is to have your day in court. Even if you lose, they don't get their £60 (of whatever portion it is) since they only get that from a FPN. If everyone did that, the courts would colapse under the weight, the SCP's would be bankrupt within a month and a high-level strategic rethink would be required.
Rob_the_Sparky said:
....why actively without hold the photos and/or deface them to prevent a double check of guilt. If it is all stored electronically it should be a piece of p*ss to email out a copy!
Because the law doesn't require them to. This has to be changed and will also help people who are uncertain of the driver's identity.
leosayer said:
I think the article misses the point intentionally. Whilst I'm no big fan of many speed limits and much of the enforcement, I know that if I believe I'm innocent then the court has to try and prove my guilt and I have to make my defence there.
The purpose of the NIP is to make it easier for both sides to deal with the issue and move on.
The purpose of the NIP is to make it easier for both sides to deal with the issue and move on.
Thats all very good in utopia - but how do you prove you are innocent in court if you have to go to court to see the evidence agaisnt you?
From experience the CPS go out of their way to give you the least information possible so that you cannot mount a serious defence without representation.
But if you were to employ Nick Freeman you would of course be lambasted as trying to find a loophole. You cant win.
The whole speed=distance/time thing is a bit of fudgery too. There was a chap in the papers a while ago who built a device to accurately time the period between the two flashes, and he was coming up with figures that varied markedly from one gatso to another. If the time's wrong, the speed calculation's wrong too!
cmsapms said:
The whole speed=distance/time thing is a bit of fudgery too. There was a chap in the papers a while ago who built a device to accurately time the period between the two flashes, and he was coming up with figures that varied markedly from one gatso to another. If the time's wrong, the speed calculation's wrong too!
David Edgar was his name, unfortunately the establishment got to him.
www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/
Taking a stand, a man on a mission.
1st October 2006
David Edgar wrote to me saying both the police and Gatso are in deep trouble with regards to the endless breaches of Type Approval which he has uncovered during his 30 month campaign.
Remember this is the chap that has proved that the flash times on a Gatso are not consistent with his home made device, see Taking a Stand (Right)
Click for full screen
Hi Steve,
You may remember that a few weeks ago you kindly gave me permission to use some of your web site material in my Crown Court appeal which was to be heard earlier this month, well the material evidence was included in all the trial bundles and will be examined in open court however at the last minute the appeal was adjourned and is now scheduled for a two day hearing at the end of November (previously a one day hearing) this is because both plod and Gatso are in deep trouble with regards to the endless breaches of Type Approval which I have uncovered during my 30 month campaign.
Now relevant to my campaign and the battles I have had with West Midlands police is a recent press story which I have now adapted to promote my Crown Court appeal therefore you may wish to be the first to publish this on your web site.
I hope it is of interest to you and others and ultimately it will generate further press coverage as this Crown Court case is the one we have all been waiting for!
Regards,
David Edgar
FOR THE PRESS..
Find out why West Midlands Police have to resort to violence and intimidation in order to protect their illegal Gatso Speed Cameras: Attend the two day Crown Court Appeal at Wolverhampton Crown Court on the 30th November and 1st December 2006.
David Edgar can be contacted on 01902 608338
Taking a stand, a man on a mission.
1st October 2006
David Edgar wrote to me saying both the police and Gatso are in deep trouble with regards to the endless breaches of Type Approval which he has uncovered during his 30 month campaign.
Remember this is the chap that has proved that the flash times on a Gatso are not consistent with his home made device, see Taking a Stand (Right)
Click for full screen
Hi Steve,
You may remember that a few weeks ago you kindly gave me permission to use some of your web site material in my Crown Court appeal which was to be heard earlier this month, well the material evidence was included in all the trial bundles and will be examined in open court however at the last minute the appeal was adjourned and is now scheduled for a two day hearing at the end of November (previously a one day hearing) this is because both plod and Gatso are in deep trouble with regards to the endless breaches of Type Approval which I have uncovered during my 30 month campaign.
Now relevant to my campaign and the battles I have had with West Midlands police is a recent press story which I have now adapted to promote my Crown Court appeal therefore you may wish to be the first to publish this on your web site.
I hope it is of interest to you and others and ultimately it will generate further press coverage as this Crown Court case is the one we have all been waiting for!
Regards,
David Edgar
FOR THE PRESS..
Find out why West Midlands Police have to resort to violence and intimidation in order to protect their illegal Gatso Speed Cameras: Attend the two day Crown Court Appeal at Wolverhampton Crown Court on the 30th November and 1st December 2006.
David Edgar can be contacted on 01902 608338
Dixie Dean said:
cmsapms said:
The whole speed=distance/time thing is a bit of fudgery too. There was a chap in the papers a while ago who built a device to accurately time the period between the two flashes, and he was coming up with figures that varied markedly from one gatso to another. If the time's wrong, the speed calculation's wrong too!
David Edgar was his name, unfortunately the establishment got to him.
As the name has been brought up I thought I would add this:
www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/vexatious_litigant/index.htm#e
I remember this from the last time Mr Edgars name was mentioned. It looks like that he was definately manhandled in this scenario. Although 'answering back' to a District Judge is not the best way to curry favour - it did not deserve that.
This list of vexatious litigants is another thing though - and I might add that it may be another David Edgar, and even if it is him I do not know the circumstances to his ban from starting proceedings. It may be justified or may be a big part of an overall conspiracy. I dont know though. make up your own minds.
Perhaps someone else has more info?
justinp1 said:
Dixie Dean said:
cmsapms said:
The whole speed=distance/time thing is a bit of fudgery too. There was a chap in the papers a while ago who built a device to accurately time the period between the two flashes, and he was coming up with figures that varied markedly from one gatso to another. If the time's wrong, the speed calculation's wrong too!
David Edgar was his name, unfortunately the establishment got to him.
As the name has been brought up I thought I would add this:
www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/vexatious_litigant/index.htm#e
I remember this from the last time Mr Edgars name was mentioned. It looks like that he was definately manhandled in this scenario. Although 'answering back' to a District Judge is not the best way to curry favour - it did not deserve that.
This list of vexatious litigants is another thing though - and I might add that it may be another David Edgar, and even if it is him I do not know the circumstances to his ban from starting proceedings. It may be justified or may be a big part of an overall conspiracy. I dont know though. make up your own minds.
Perhaps someone else has more info?
Yes I’m quite aware of who he is and the link you’ve provided. I to don’t know to much about his past, however we should not take away the fact of what he believed he could prove with regards the timings on static cameras. The way the establishment had gone out of their way to cover things up, and also to stop him taking his case to court make me believe he was onto something. Maybe he’s ended up the way he is out of sheer frustration. After all he is one against the many and the many have the power.
cmsapms said:
The whole speed=distance/time thing is a bit of fudgery too. There was a chap in the papers a while ago who built a device to accurately time the period between the two flashes, and he was coming up with figures that varied markedly from one gatso to another. If the time's wrong, the speed calculation's wrong too!
However, it has never been shown that the flashes have to have an exact period between them. As long as the Gatso measures the period between the flashes they can have any arbitrary timing, as long as the vehicle is still within the marked section of road. Unless Mr. Edgar knew this for sure he was on a hiding to nothing. Instead he just got a hiding apparently.
Surely if you plead 'not guilty' the prosecution have to provide their evidence at least 7 days before the court hearing. After that time one can change one's plea to 'guilty' and suffer no additional penalty whilst avoiding an actual court appearance or, alternatively, appearing, pleading guilty and pleading any mitigating circumstances and asking for the minimum penalty.
If an individual pleads guilty after reviewing the prosecution evidence, this shoulkd bring no additional penalty and it does give the opportunity to put forward any mitigation. I did this years ago in a speeding case and got away with a fine and no points, as the magistrates took into consideration the proven fact that my new, 2-week old car had a defective speedometer, hence my 45 in a 30. In fact they were very pleasant and sympathetic and appreciated my taking the time to appear before them to apologise and to plead guilty with mitigation.
If an individual pleads guilty after reviewing the prosecution evidence, this shoulkd bring no additional penalty and it does give the opportunity to put forward any mitigation. I did this years ago in a speeding case and got away with a fine and no points, as the magistrates took into consideration the proven fact that my new, 2-week old car had a defective speedometer, hence my 45 in a 30. In fact they were very pleasant and sympathetic and appreciated my taking the time to appear before them to apologise and to plead guilty with mitigation.
MR2Mike said:
cmsapms said:
The whole speed=distance/time thing is a bit of fudgery too. There was a chap in the papers a while ago who built a device to accurately time the period between the two flashes, and he was coming up with figures that varied markedly from one gatso to another. If the time's wrong, the speed calculation's wrong too!
However, it has never been shown that the flashes have to have an exact period between them. As long as the Gatso measures the period between the flashes they can have any arbitrary timing, as long as the vehicle is still within the marked section of road. Unless Mr. Edgar knew this for sure he was on a hiding to nothing. Instead he just got a hiding apparently.
Surely this would make it more complicated for actually checking the speed by using the road markings,or is the flash period printed on the photos as well?
Dixie Dean said:
justinp1 said:
Dixie Dean said:
cmsapms said:
The whole speed=distance/time thing is a bit of fudgery too. There was a chap in the papers a while ago who built a device to accurately time the period between the two flashes, and he was coming up with figures that varied markedly from one gatso to another. If the time's wrong, the speed calculation's wrong too!
David Edgar was his name, unfortunately the establishment got to him.
As the name has been brought up I thought I would add this:
www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/vexatious_litigant/index.htm#e
I remember this from the last time Mr Edgars name was mentioned. It looks like that he was definately manhandled in this scenario. Although 'answering back' to a District Judge is not the best way to curry favour - it did not deserve that.
This list of vexatious litigants is another thing though - and I might add that it may be another David Edgar, and even if it is him I do not know the circumstances to his ban from starting proceedings. It may be justified or may be a big part of an overall conspiracy. I dont know though. make up your own minds.
Perhaps someone else has more info?
Yes I’m quite aware of who he is and the link you’ve provided. I to don’t know to much about his past, however we should not take away the fact of what he believed he could prove with regards the timings on static cameras. The way the establishment had gone out of their way to cover things up, and also to stop him taking his case to court make me believe he was onto something. Maybe he’s ended up the way he is out of sheer frustration. After all he is one against the many and the many have the power.
Whilst I maintain that there *may* be a shred of truth in the case, to an outsider being on the list of vexatious litigants whilst not being any of the evidence supported by a third party does add an amount of doubt to him holding the Holy Grail of antigatso.
Dont get me wrong - he may have been onto something - but if it is the same guy on the list he must have thought he was 'onto something' enough times to take people to court enough times to be banned from bringing cases to court by *A High Court Judge*.
This honour (no pun intended) does not get thrown around lightly, in fact only about 200 people out of a population of 60 million are on this list - and unless a conspiracy of truly X-Files proportions exists whereby he has been 'gagged' by the High Court then being put on this list must bring some doubt over the evidence attained without verification from an 'expert' third party.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff