SPEED CAMERAS

[elchunk1978]

Just thought i'd let you all know that the traffic branch and mobile crews have been told by senior members in the police to target overtaking lanes and areas coming into speed reductions. This is being done to keep statistics up and increase revenue, so keep them eyes peeled! and remember they must be visible, at most 10ft from the raod and should be wearing a high vis jacket according to protocal!

[SS2.]

elchunk1978 said:

..and remember they must be visible, at most 10ft from the raod and should be wearing a high vis jacket according to protocal!

And if they're not ?

[elchunk1978]

If you get caught you can get a form from the station (cant remember its name) but you can report these facts on it and send it with your payment for the fine. This will then be refered back to the inspector in your local police station and what action he thicks should be taken. Then with some luck he will recommend a caution instead of a fine to avoid the matter being taken to court!

[Jasandjules]

elchunk1978 said:

Just thought i'd let you all know that the traffic branch and mobile crews have been told by senior members in the police to target overtaking lanes and areas coming into speed reductions. This is being done to keep statistics up and increase revenue, so keep them eyes peeled! and remember they must be visible, at most 10ft from the raod and should be wearing a high vis jacket according to protocal!

What, plod targetting motorists for pension funds? Surely not............

[havoc]

SS2. said:

elchunk1978 said:

..and remember they must be visible, at most 10ft from the raod and should be wearing a high vis jacket according to protocal!

And if they're not ?

Stop and take photos of them!

Chances are at least some of them (esp. scameras rather than trafpol) won't like it and will try and bully/bluster you into deleting them, but tough...you're perfectly entitled to photo them.

Then follow-up as per the post above, but with some evidence on YOUR side...

[SS2.]

elchunk1978 said:

This will then be refered back to the inspector in your local police station and what action he thicks should be taken. Then with some luck he will recommend a caution instead of a fine to avoid the matter being taken to court!

The 'guidelines' regarding conspicuity, visibility etc, were associated with a cost recovery (netting off) scheme for Safety Camera Partnerships across England and Wales. This scheme was phased out last year. The guidelines have never applied to speed enforcement by 'proper' police officers.

Regardless, compliance or otherwise with the guidelines never had any bearing on the prosecution of offences detected / alleged by the SCPs anyway.

Edited by SS2. on Friday 11th January 12:24

[havoc]

SS2. said:

Regardless, compliance or otherwise with the guidelines never had any bearing on the prosecution of offences detected / alleged by the SCPs anyway.

Ahem:-
1) It's a code-of-practice. That is it's title: ACPO Code of Practice. THEY call it guidelines to try and con Mags/Judges that they don't need to follow it...
2) See Davidra's new thread...sounds like one judge didn't like what he saw and DID throw a case out where one specific rule wasn't followed...

[SS2.]

havoc said:

Ahem:-
1) It's a code-of-practice. That is it's title: ACPO Code of Practice. THEY call it guidelines to try and con Mags/Judges that they don't need to follow it...

Actually, I was referring to the snappily titled 'Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales for 2006/07' - see here.

But with regard to the ACPO 'Code of Practice' - unless it could be demonstrated that a failure to comply with ACPO recommendations resulted directly in the measurement of inaccurate or unreliable data, then I wouldn't hold much hope for a defence based solely on that non-compliance.

Have a read of William Scheiner v DPP

havoc said:

2) See Davidra's new thread...sounds like one judge didn't like what he saw and DID throw a case out where one specific rule wasn't followed...

The judge threw out that case because the scammer operator had not been forming prior opinion of vehicles' excess speeds. That is not a guideline or a suggestion within the Code of Practice, it is law.