Gatso Roadside Cameras

Wee_Willy_Harris

liam8282 wrote: »

You posted up the guidelines!

The link you provided to WYP states they use the thresholds provided by ACPO.

ACPO Thresholds are guidelines!

The thresholds as provided by ACPO clearly state, straight after the thresholds, as clear as can be, that they do not and cannot replace an officers discretion. End of story.

The thresholds are listed within the guidlines. As your own post states, the caviat of discretion is stated AFTER the thresholds, so even YOU state they are distinct.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Paradigm wrote: »

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news/1338/labour-accused-of-using-fixedpenalty-notices-to-raise-revenue

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/DRIVER-IN-39ILLEGAL39-SPEED-CAMERA.1929570.jp

Couldn't help myself

The first story merely demonstrates the extent of speeding. Clearly, this supports the need for safety cameras. Teh second story is a driver unhappy with being caught doing 34 in a 30. Not 31, or 32, or 33.

Harry_Flashman

liam8282 wrote: »

West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership enforcement officers do not use hand-held devices "

Slightly misleading - they do sit inside vans pointing cameras at drivers.

liam8282

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The thresholds are listed within the guidlines. As your own post states, the caviat of discretion is stated AFTER the thresholds, so even YOU state they are distinct.

Yes, they are distinctly only a guideline, which are to be used after the officers discretion.

What matter is it that the officers discretion paragraph is after the table, it doesn't alter anything it says by the positioning of it.

Even before the table it says:

"The guidance to police officers is that it is anticipated that, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the issue of fixed penalty notices and summonses is likely to be the minimum appropriate enforcement action as soon as the following speeds have been reached:"


Emphasis on guidance to police officers. At the end of the day if the offence of going over the speed limit has been committed, the first instance is the officers discretion, after that the table is used accordingly to determine the level of punishment.


I am failing to see why there is any question about this?

liam8282

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Teh second story is a driver unhappy with being caught doing 34 in a 30. Not 31, or 32, or 33.

Less than the ACPO threshold of 35 mph!

Perhaps the police officer used his discretion? :rotfl:

Wee_Willy_Harris

liam8282 wrote: »

Yes, they are distinctly only a guideline, which are to be used after the officers discretion.

What matter is it that the officers discretion paragraph is after the table, it doesn't alter anything it says by the positioning of it.

Even before the table it says:

"The guidance to police officers is that it is anticipated that, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the issue of fixed penalty notices and summonses is likely to be the minimum appropriate enforcement action as soon as the following speeds have been reached:"


Emphasis on guidance to police officers. At the end of the day if the offence of going over the speed limit has been committed, the first instance is the officers discretion, after that the table is used accordingly to determine the level of punishment.


I am failing to see why there is any question about this?

I think everybody recognises that the big, reflective sign with the number on it is posting the maximum permisable speed on that stretch of road. Drive faster that the number on that big, reflective sign and you are breaking the speed limit. Even you would agree with that.

Now all we are discussing is the likelyhood of prosecution for exceeding it modestly. It has been stated that drivers have been prosecuted for speed alone at 1, 2 or 3mph over that limit. I have yet to see one single, varifiable example of that.

I have, however, seen and produced plenty of varified evidence that it wouldn't happen.

Paradigm

liam8282 wrote: »

Less than the ACPO threshold of 35 mph!

Perhaps the police officer used his discretion? :rotfl:

Or everyone's a liar!

I'll let you get on with it mate

liam8282

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I think everybody recognises that the big, reflective sign with the number on it is posting the maximum permisable speed on that stretch of road. Drive faster that the number on that big, reflective sign and you are breaking the speed limit. Even you would agree with that.

Now all we are discussing is the likelyhood of prosecution for exceeding it modestly. It has been stated that drivers have been prosecuted for speed alone at 1, 2 or 3mph over that limit. I have yet to see one single, varifiable example of that.

I have, however, seen and produced plenty of varified evidence that it wouldn't happen.

I agree with the points about going over the speed limit etc.

But I think it gets confused when it gets to prosecution again.

I agree it is highly unlikely that somebody who has barely gone over the speed limit will be prosecuted, but it has been made clear that they can and will be punished with a FPN. Even for doing 3mph over.

I suppose it is only because most drivers do not contest these FPNs in the first instance, is the reason that many cases will not get to prosecution.

The only debate would be possible over manned cameras, as pointed out before fixed cameras should really have the margin for error built in (to point out the obvious they have no discretion, so must give the maximum by default).

Then it all comes back to the discretion of the police officer for those particular circumstances and what punishment they see fit, with the maximum being prosecution, but again most cases are probably resolved with FPN.

Wee_Willy_Harris

liam8282 wrote: »

I agree with the points about going over the speed limit etc.

But I think it gets confused when it gets to prosecution again.

I agree it is highly unlikely that somebody who has barely gone over the speed limit will be prosecuted, but it has been made clear that they can and will be punished with a FPN. Even for doing 3mph over.

I suppose it is only because most drivers do not contest these FPNs in the first instance, is the reason that many cases will not get to prosecution.

The only debate would be possible over manned cameras, as pointed out before fixed cameras should really have the margin for error built in (to point out the obvious they have no discretion, so must give the maximum by default).

Then it all comes back to the discretion of the police officer for those particular circumstances and what punishment they see fit, with the maximum being prosecution, but again most cases are probably resolved with FPN.

I would still describe a FPN as a prosecution.

As for the 3mph over in your statement, again I have yet to see such an example despite the millions of FPNs issued.

liam8282

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I would still describe a FPN as a prosecution.

As for the 3mph over in your statement, again I have yet to see such an example despite the millions of FPNs issued.

Ok, but why the fixation on 3mph, there have been links to press articles which state that drivers have received FPNs for doing 34mph.

This is still under the ACPO threshold of 35mph.

You said drivers do not get FPNs, as determined by the ACPO thresholds, but that clearly isn't the case.