Speed Camera Notice (Peculiarities??)

waster_2

oldbill1969 wrote:

Please don't forget speeding kills and heaven forbid if someones relative or friend was killed as a result of someone speeding we would all want that person brought to justice (Apart from the few who believe that the Police are bullying people when they ask who was the driver) thereby allowing the offender to get away scott free

I wish we could get away from this old chestnut. It is NOT speed that kills but inappropriate speed that kills. Surely the arguments about motorways, 3am, clear dry summer night versus frosty, foggy, dark winters aftrenoon outside primary school when pupils are leaving do not need to be continually rehearsed to demonstrate that cameras are only a blinkered, inflexible revenue generating cash cow. Cameras cannot and do not take account of the conditions and circumstances prevaialing. additionally, many of the roads upon which they have been located have had their speed limit reduced for no better reason than to generate income. If you believe the rubbish about being where accidents occur then you do not know the area or circumstances. Many of the accidents used to justify camera installation would never have been prevented by the camera in any case. I can quoate numerous examples locally to me.

tomstickland wrote:

once being a 3 lane A road and being in countryside with nothing there.

Yes, a car hitting a pedestrian could kill them. However all sense of proportion seems to have deserted this country with regard to the risk-speed distribution.

As above I would say what the blo*dy hell was the pedestrian doing in the road in the first place? Pedestrians need to be more aware, safety conscious and demonstrate a modicum of intelligence when using the highway and in particular when crossing roads. I accept that in the country footpaths are few and far between, but again using common sense pedestrians would normally be safe and secure. Unfortunaely those injured or killed in such locations would probably suffered the same fate even if cameras were installed locally.


The bottom line is that cameras' are cash cows and we are stuck with them for no other purpose but to generate income for safety (that's a joke!!) patnerships. The trouble is that the UK is becoming more and more a big brother nanny state and we are all being used as cannon fodder for those in power.

DAMNOME

darbooka wrote:

In any event, nobody 'summonsed' because that's not a word!Summoned, perhaps.

Typing error - but thanks for pointing it out to me in bold.
I wish i was as superior as you.

I hope you are the same when you appear before the Magistrates' for your hearing...
I'm sure they will listen to your wisdom then fine you for the s.172 and hammer you with costs.

:rotfl:

darbooka

DAMNOME wrote:

when you appear before the Magistrates' for your hearing...
I'm sure they will listen to your wisdom then fine you for the s.172 and hammer you with costs.

Oh, really? That is quite a decisive comment. On what wisdom or fact do you base your certainty? Are you a member of the judiciary, or a wannabe Magistrate?

Time will tell if you're right; but from calculating the limitation period in which they are eligible to have any claim heard in Court, there's certainly not much time left. Seems like they waste a lot of time and resources doing anything but counting money, especially in situations where the accused does virtually anything other than pay-up-pronto-whether-or-not-guilty. Their correspodence was quite adamant on the face of it but they sure seem hesitant or reluctant or unable to put actions where there words are and bring it on. But that's OK, meanwhile I'll just prepare my costs request so it'll be ready. It won't be huge, but at least I'll be sure not to waste any of their time - I'll have it all prepared and clear and organized to submit for quick review of any Magistrate who hears the case.

DAMNOME

You will only be able to claim costs from central funds if your case is dismissed and your claim will then be taxed by the Justices' Clerk.
But I'm sure you already know that as you seem to know everything.

darbooka

Awwwww, you exaggerate. :beer: But I do try to learn sumfin new each and every day. :cool:

oldbill1969

waster wrote:

I wish we could get away from this old chestnut. It is NOT speed that kills but inappropriate speed that kills. Surely the arguments about motorways, 3am, clear dry summer night versus frosty, foggy, dark winters aftrenoon outside primary school when pupils are leaving do not need to be continually rehearsed to demonstrate that cameras are only a blinkered, inflexible revenue generating cash cow. Cameras cannot and do not take account of the conditions and circumstances prevaialing. additionally, many of the roads upon which they have been located have had their speed limit reduced for no better reason than to generate income. If you believe the rubbish about being where accidents occur then you do not know the area or circumstances. Many of the accidents used to justify camera installation would never have been prevented by the camera in any case. I can quoate numerous examples locally to me.




As above I would say what the blo*dy hell was the pedestrian doing in the road in the first place? Pedestrians need to be more aware, safety conscious and demonstrate a modicum of intelligence when using the highway and in particular when crossing roads. I accept that in the country footpaths are few and far between, but again using common sense pedestrians would normally be safe and secure. Unfortunaely those injured or killed in such locations would probably suffered the same fate even if cameras were installed locally.


The bottom line is that cameras' are cash cows and we are stuck with them for no other purpose but to generate income for safety (that's a joke!!) patnerships. The trouble is that the UK is becoming more and more a big brother nanny state and we are all being used as cannon fodder for those in power.

Point 1- You won't be a 'cash cow' if you drive within the speed limit and this debate becomes pretty poinless if everyone drove within the required limits.

Point 2- the argument about camera's not taking account of prevailing conditions is pretty pointless as they take into account the required speed limit.

It follows that to state that Camera's should be more flexible with regard to road conditions is a nonsense as that would create more confusion in the Criminal Justice System. At least with the Camera's being set and everyone staying within the limits nobody gets caught and we all know where we stand. Simplicity personified;)

darbooka

Bill, I won't ask if the old in your nickname relates to your age, but does 'bill' imply have an affinity or affiliation for coppers? Just curious.

oldbill1969 wrote:

At least with the Camera's being set and everyone staying within the limits nobody gets caught and we all know where we stand. Simplicity personified;)

Impractical oversimplification, in my humble opinion. There are many situations in which even when someone doesn't stay within the speed limits the actual offender still cannot ultimately be 'caught' unless someone unnecessarily and ignorantly volunteers to accept responsibility for an ALLEGED offense despite lack of evidence proving who was ACTUALLY DRIVING the car (claiming responsibility for an offense that someone else committed could be illegal in itself, even when doing so involves helping to fund the Police and the Council.)

I would submit that a more practical simplification would be:
We would all know where we stand, when in the event of an alleged offense the Police either:
a. are on site in person to identify the actual driver;
b. send SPECIFIC camera location details AND the photographic evidence they claim they have at first instance along with the Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days (the earlier the better, to better enable potentially doubtful drivers to remember or research who was driving, in a timely manner). Also, if the evidence is sound then why not provide it at first instance?; or
c. when a vehicle keeper (aka alleged offender) sends a written request for location details and/or a copy of the photographic evidence to help identify the driver, the Police don't take weeks/months to reply - by which time it will likely be substantially more difficult for the vehicle keeper to identify who the driver was.

I would presume that the Police would respond with a simplification of self-convenience to the effect of: Even though we can call up the photo evidence on the computer within seconds and just press 'print', and although our IT system can print out a copy of the photo automatically together with the Notification of Intended Prosecution, why even bother when so many people who aren't sure whether or not they are driving will be so frightened by the wording of our standard form letters that they'll accept liability whether or not we can prove that the keepers committed the alleged offense and whether or not the keepers actually know at all if they were driving at the time.

I am not advocating speeding. I am not advocating breaking laws or shirking responsibility. I am saying that Police are not entitled to 'discounts' in their obligations to adhere to requirements of thoroughness and burdens of evidence when prosecuting alleged offenders where there is genuinely no evidence to PROVE the IDENTITY of the person DRIVING the car. Unfoundedly demanding payment in such situations is sheer intimidation.

oldbill1969

darbooka wrote:

Bill, I won't ask if the old in your nickname relates to your age, but does 'bill' imply have an affinity or affiliation for coppers? Just curious.



Impractical oversimplification, in my humble opinion. There are many situations in which even when someone doesn't stay within the speed limits the actual offender still cannot ultimately be 'caught' unless someone unnecessarily and ignorantly volunteers to accept responsibility for an ALLEGED offense despite lack of evidence proving who was ACTUALLY DRIVING the car (claiming responsibility for an offense that someone else committed could be illegal in itself, even when doing so involves helping to fund the Police and the Council.)

I would submit that a more practical simplification would be:
We would all know where we stand, when in the event of an alleged offense the Police either:
a. are on site in person to identify the actual driver;
b. send SPECIFIC camera location details AND the photographic evidence they claim they have at first instance along with the Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days (the earlier the better, to better enable potentially doubtful drivers to remember or research who was driving, in a timely manner). Also, if the evidence is sound then why not provide it at first instance?; or
c. when a vehicle keeper (aka alleged offender) sends a written request for location details and/or a copy of the photographic evidence to help identify the driver, the Police don't take weeks/months to reply - by which time it will likely be substantially more difficult for the vehicle keeper to identify who the driver was.

I would presume that the Police would respond with a simplification of self-convenience to the effect of: Even though we can call up the photo evidence on the computer within seconds and just press 'print', and although our IT system can print out a copy of the photo automatically together with the Notification of Intended Prosecution, why even bother when so many people who aren't sure whether or not they are driving will be so frightened by the wording of our standard form letters that they'll accept liability whether or not we can prove that the keepers committed the alleged offense and whether or not the keepers actually know at all if they were driving at the time.

I am not advocating speeding. I am not advocating breaking laws or shirking responsibility. I am saying that Police are not entitled to 'discounts' in their obligations to adhere to requirements of thoroughness and burdens of evidence when prosecuting alleged offenders where there is genuinely no evidence to PROVE the IDENTITY of the person DRIVING the car. Unfoundedly demanding payment in such situations is sheer intimidation.

In response to your reply I would ask is it really practicable for there to be a person on site to assist identification when the volume of cars passing is so great, how could that person possibly prove identification while the car was speeding past and how much would it cost for a person to be employed to stand, at each camera location in the country. Police cost would have to rise significantly which thereby places a greater financial burden on the general public whether they speed or not.

With regard to sending out photographic evidence, this again increases costs when in many cases there is no need.
The majority of the people who I know have been caught speeding were well aware who was driving. Granted there will be a few (percentage wise) who genuinely don't know. These people are then able to request the photographic evidence without increasing the burden for eveyone.

I'm sure it will suit a lot of people that they may take months to send a photograph out, as in the genuine cases this could assist any potential unknown identity defence in Court. Not withstanding the fact that the statute of limitations expire at six months and at this point the Police case is lost anyway.

Good debate btw;)

oldbill1969

As for the oldbill bit.....I could just be plain old William who feels quite old in these modern times or I could be from the Constabulary..... I'll pose a question now, do you know what killed the cat ?

oldbill1969

oldbill1969 wrote:

As for the oldbill bit.....I could just be plain old William who feels quite old in these modern times or I could be from the Constabulary..... I'll pose a question now, do you know what killed the cat ?

A speeding motorist:rotfl: