Speed Camera Notice (Peculiarities??)

taxiphil

Wig wrote:

Taxiphil

you are entitled to say what you want, believe what you want, but you could look up the acronym "IANAL" IMO.

My beliefs are as follows:
The Human rights act has been challenged on this already, it was decided that where the HRA conflicted with another law if in persuing the other law the law enforcement and legal system was acting in the greater public benefit then that would override the HRA. In other words so there is not anarchy on our roads and in order to police by means of speed cams, your rights are overruled.

You do have to disclose who was driving because of the above HRA reference, and for the simple fact that you are responsible for your car, you have to be sure if you lend your car to someone that they are insured to drive it. Otherwise you are guilty of allowiing your vehicle on the road uninsured. Not many theifs take a car and then bring it back and if they do (friends etc) they are guilty of taking a vehicle without permission.

You can claim you don't know who was driving fine all well and good (the point is you have to reply), but the court will decide if you are telling the truth or not, and unless you are a chief constable you're not going to get away with it, because magistrates will always err on the side of the state and you will have to be the one to appeal (should you feel like doing something really stupid).

Only just seen your reply, Wig, so apologies for bouncing this thread to the top but I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points here.

Firstly, the European Court of Human Rights haven't yet made a ruling on this, but there was an appeal lodged by a chap called Idris Francis in 2004, and the ECHR are still chewing it over (see story on BBC News here). I think it's going to be another year or so until they make their ruling, but it could have far reaching consequences for the rights of the motorist when they receive an NIP form. So, until the ECHR give clarification, we are in muddy waters. But if they rule in Mr Francis' favour, it could open the way for thousands of motorists to appeal.

Secondly, the magistrates don't always err on the side of the state if you claim you can't remember who was driving. There are plenty of cases where they have chosen to believe this defence, and they're not all involving chief constables! Although it is something of a lottery and can depend upon which side of bed the magistrate got out of that morning. You also have to consider that many police forces will simply take the decision to drop the case if you enter a defence about not knowing who the driver was, so it may not even get as far as court.

darbooka

I spoke wtih the police about the fixed penalty issue, and they said they would provide a copy of the photo upon request but that the photo only shows the rear of the car (so probably it will won't be of much help in identifying the driver); and, they said that even when a driver does remember that it was him/her behind the wheel and admits it on the S172 form, they will still send that driver to a Magistrate if the license is a foreign/international one. This, they said, was because they don't have any way of assigning the penalty points to a non-UK license, and thus they will be asking the court to invoke a somewhat higher financial penalty in lieu of the points. They said that foreign license holders are not even eligible to accept the fine&points because of this situation and so a Magistrate has to decide.
Now, I'm not sure how they calculate a monetary value on penalty points but it sounds quite discriminatory that foreign and legal drivers would have to pay more than Brits merely because of the fact that the police jurisdiction is limited. Seems like punishing someone financially for having a foreign license in comparison to Brits who contravene the same offense.
And, if they are going to send it to Magistrates in any event, then there's not much motivation to make maximal effort to identify the driver before the deadline for returnign the S172 form if the driver's identity is not already clear from the photo evidence - as they'll be sending the keeper to a Magistrate either way.
And if they can charge a foreigner a greater financial penalty in lieu of points, then why not make the option available to British license holders where they can choose to pay more instead of a fine-and-points combo?

darbooka

Now more than 4 months since the alleged offence date.

After replying to the Police to thell them that the photograph that they (finally, two months after my request) sent does not help at all in identifying the driver, the Police have gotten round to writing to say that they are unable to provide further info that will help in identifying the driver, that there is no fixed penalty for cases where the keeper is unable to identify the driver, and that thus the file will be forwarded to the Unit which will issue a summons against the keeper "in due course".

a) How likely is it that they will actually issue a summons within the limitation period?

b) Also, as an indication of the thorough work of the Police: The letter is addressed to Mr xxx xxx while the saluatation is "Dear Madam"
Can this be mentioned in court, at least for purposes of illuminating the thoroughness on which the Police base their penalty collection operations. ie, 2 months to get a simple laser print of the photograph, wrong salutation, and summons so many months after the alleged offence?

c) Considering how much effort I have put in, and time I have waited for their replies in contrast to the fact that they have been unable to prove who the driver is while continuing to keep the file open and collect money, if they take me to court and I am found not liable and the judge agrees that the driver cannot be determined and the Police have not provided evidence as to who the driver is, then could I ask for costs?

tomstickland

I have any answers, but look forwards to hearing how it goes.

northern_munky

I'm also interested to see how this turns out. Not sure I would have done it though, a £60 fine and 3 penalty points against a few months of worry and anxiety, I know what I'd choose, but I know thats how the Police make their money. But someone needs to take a stand against em, so good luck mate.

darbooka

I probably wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it with my own eyes, but after re-re-re-reading the Police letter I now notice that they have skewed the date of the alleged offense, and it now appears as a date significantly later than the date originally specified!! I would not like to think that someone in the Police has intentionally done this to inappropriately extend the limitation period... but even if it's a mistake it doesn't enhance their claim or bolster confidence in the reliability of their information. Fortunately I have all their earlier correspondence and can clearly show their discrepency.
Now I'm really looking forward to see what the Magistrates will say about that!

chrispyphillips

darbooka wrote:

Now more than 4 months since the alleged offence date.

After replying to the Police to thell them that the photograph that they (finally, two months after my request) sent does not help at all in identifying the driver, the Police have gotten round to writing to say that they are unable to provide further info that will help in identifying the driver, that there is no fixed penalty for cases where the keeper is unable to identify the driver, and that thus the file will be forwarded to the Unit which will issue a summons against the keeper "in due course".

a) How likely is it that they will actually issue a summons within the limitation period?

b) Also, as an indication of the thorough work of the Police: The letter is addressed to Mr xxx xxx while the saluatation is "Dear Madam"
Can this be mentioned in court, at least for purposes of illuminating the thoroughness on which the Police base their penalty collection operations. ie, 2 months to get a simple laser print of the photograph, wrong salutation, and summons so many months after the alleged offence?

c) Considering how much effort I have put in, and time I have waited for their replies in contrast to the fact that they have been unable to prove who the driver is while continuing to keep the file open and collect money, if they take me to court and I am found not liable and the judge agrees that the driver cannot be determined and the Police have not provided evidence as to who the driver is, then could I ask for costs?

Darbooka, I'll PM you now!

Wig

taxiphil wrote:

Firstly, the European Court of Human Rights haven't yet made a ruling on this, but there was an appeal lodged by a chap called Idris Francis in 2004, and the ECHR are still chewing it over (see story on BBC News

Hello taxiphil, and only by chance I came back to this thread today (I knew I'd seen "darbookah" before)

First, although I implied the ECHR has already ruled on this particular issue, I meant that I think there has been a ruling in another area, which showed that where the greater public interest is served, a national law will override an ECHR issue. Yes we are still waiting for the Idris Francis case, and as I understand it he is fighting for failure to sign the form. There is another issue which I don't think he is fighting on which is the arguement of being suitably cautioned under PACE.

Secondly, the magistrates don't always err on the side of the state if you claim you can't remember who was driving. There are plenty of cases where they have chosen to believe this defence, and they're not all involving chief constables! Although it is something of a lottery and can depend upon which side of bed the magistrate got out of that morning. You also have to consider that many police forces will simply take the decision to drop the case if you enter a defence about not knowing who the driver was, so it may not even get as far as court.

No they aint all chief constables, and they don't always err on the side of the state but they are far more likely to if you are just some Joe Bloggs with no good excuse. Then you will have to appeal. The point I was making was you HAVE to reply you cannot do nothing. Once you have replied if you decide you can't identify the driver then the police may prosecute. You are still innocent until proven guilty. But you may be found guilty - of knowing who was driving but failing to identify the driver.

Wig

darbooka wrote:

a) How likely is it that they will actually issue a summons within the limitation period?

b) Also, as an indication of the thorough work of the Police: The letter is addressed to Mr xxx xxx while the saluatation is "Dear Madam"

c) I am found not liable and the judge agrees that the driver cannot be determined and the Police have not provided evidence as to who the driver is, then could I ask for costs?

Darbookah please update this thread when you have new information.

A)That depends how long it has been since the date of Offence. More than 5 months 2 weeks, I would doubt they would proceed. IANAL

B)No, it has no relevance in court IANAL

C) Yes if found innocent you can claim your costs - what costs will you have? And it is at the discretion of the judge/magistrate to allow costs or not.


What's the latest? Probably you haven't heard anything because of the xmas period, - something else that has worked in your favour.

Also an update after hearing nothing to 7 months post date of offence would be appreciated as that means you are in the clear. IANAL

darbooka

http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/public-services/rail/rail/safe-speed-dangerous-20mph-zone-mystery-$461629.htm

Safe Speed: The dangerous 20mph zone mystery
Wednesday, 20 Dec 2006 15:11
Safe Speed has today criticised Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive for failing to consider figures that show 20mph speed limit zones have crashes which are, on average, more dangerous than those in 30mph zones.

Official figures show that the likelihood of a casualty being fatally or seriously injured in 2005 was:

11.85% in 20mph zones and
10.26% in 30mph zones

There are a range of possible explanations including:

* A greater proportion of 20mph zone crashes include vulnerable road users

* 20mph zones are created in places where dangers are greatest

* 20mph zones create an illusion of safety, where people take less care

* Some drivers in 20mph zones are so busy attempting to maintain 20mph that they simply don't brake before impact, possibly because they are looking at their speedos when something goes wrong.

* 20mph zones encourage drivers to actually travel at 20mph when 10 or 15mph may have been a better choice.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(https://www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "It isn't safe to continue to roll out 20mph zones willy nilly until we have a proper understanding of the higher average crash severity that they are associated with. As is common with modern road safety interventions this has not been investigated - they do it because they believe it should work."

"At first 20mph had to be 'self enforcing' with traffic calming measures used to create an environment in which 20mph seemed like a natural speed. But since then there has been 'mission creep' and 20mph zones are being installed widely without such features."

"If drug companies behaved like this there would be a national outcry, but with road safety everyone has an opinion. Far too often they claim that 'it's obvious' that a given intervention should work. This cavalier attitude has taken us from being the fastest improving country in Europe to the slowest (in the EU15). Like drugs, road safety interventions come with side effects and unintended consequences."

"The authorities continue to treat road safety as a problem of vehicle physics when in fact it is a complex problem of human psychology."

"It's all very well citing examples of 'model' schemes, but with serious anomalies appearing, the need for properly conducted randomised trials has never been clearer."

"There's no indication that any of the 'speed kills' policies have made our roads safer. Speed cameras, traffic calming, speed limit reductions and so on have all been rolled out across the country with no significant reduction in road deaths or road crash hospitalisations."




Official figures: RCGB 2005, table 13, last section, casualties:

20mph: (8+128)/1147 = 11.85%
30mph: (990+15,458)/160,342 = 10.26%





About Safe Speed
================

The Safe Speed road safety campaign is primarily the work of engineer-turned road safety analyst Paul Smith.

Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 51, an advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience, has carried out over 10,000 hours working on the campaign with well over 5,000 of those hours researching the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety. In addition to those 10,000 hours, Paul has funded to campaign to the tune of £10,000.

We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by any other organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed cameras make our roads more dangerous. Paul has identified and reported a number of major flaws and false assumptions in the claims made for speed cameras, and the whole "speed kills" system of road safety.

The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the World in the first place. Far from saving lives, speed cameras are a dangerous distraction.

Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or appropriate enforcement of motoring laws, but argues vigorously that automated speed enforcement is neither safe nor appropriate.

Safe Speed is very slimly funded by voluntary contributions to the web site.
We are urgently seeking improved funding.

The Safe Speed web site contains more than 350,000 words of road safety analysis and information. We are seeking publishers for 'the book of the web site'.

It has turned out to be quite an amazing story and there are opportunities for journalists and broadcasters to explore how all this came about, what it means, and where road safety has gone so badly wrong.