Gatso Roadside Cameras

Wee_Willy_Harris

liam8282 wrote: »

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.

The "fixation" with 3mph is in reply to posters who insist that people get done for exceeding the 30mph by 1, 2 or 3mph. The ACPO guidlines, along with a number of press reports and catagoric statement by Police forces indicate this not to be the case. If you have evidence to show that it is, feel free to post it.

liam8282

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The "fixation" with 3mph is in reply to posters who insist that people get done for exceeding the 30mph by 1, 2 or 3mph. The ACPO guidlines, along with a number of press reports and catagoric statement by Police forces indicate this not to be the case. If you have evidence to show that it is, feel free to post it.

You agree that 1mph over the speed limit is breaking the law.

You posted the guidelines that police use.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at. You are just being pedantic for the sake of it now.

All of your press reports and statements prove nothing, especially when other people have posted conflicting press reports that show people have been given FPNs for speeding under the APCO thresholds. Exactly the same format of evidence you chose to support your argument.

Also, the police statements only talk about prosecution, which is very clever wording by the police, as it does not cover FPNs, a FPN is not a prosecution.

Wee_Willy_Harris

liam8282 wrote: »

You agree that 1mph over the speed limit is breaking the law.

You posted the guidelines that police use.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at. You are just being pedantic for the sake of it now.

All of your press reports and statements prove nothing, especially when other people have posted conflicting press reports that show people have been given FPNs for speeding under the APCO thresholds. Exactly the same format of evidence you chose to support your argument.

Also, the police statements only talk about prosecution, which is very clever wording by the police, as it does not cover FPNs, a FPN is not a prosecution.

No-one has provided any verifiable report of anyone being issued a FPN or prosecuted in any other way for exceeding the posted speed limit by 1, 2 or 3 mph. THAT is the point I am making.

rev_henry

Paradigm wrote: »

Strictly speaking you are right, however, not accepting the FPN would mean prosecution is almost certain to follow with all that entails re: costs, time, court, greater fines etc.

To the average guy in the street, certainly for us then, having to go to court was out of the question. As far as I'm concerned a FPN is a prosecution in all but name.

Sorry, is an FPN not also called a NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION? Meaning if you accept it (pay the fine, whatever you want to call it) you have accepted prosecution?

Paradigm

rev_henry wrote: »

Sorry, is an FPN not also called a NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION? Meaning if you accept it (pay the fine, whatever you want to call it) you have accepted prosecution?

It's really the other way round The NIP comes first then it's the cofp (conditional offer of fixed penalty) but yes, a FPN is basically a prosecution without the involvement of court....if that makes sense

rev_henry

Paradigm wrote: »

It's really the other way round The NIP comes first then it's the cofp (conditional offer of fixed penalty) but yes, a FPN is basically a prosecution without the involvement of court....if that makes sense

Ah yes, thanks.

Harry_Flashman

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No-one has provided any verifiable report of anyone being issued a FPN or prosecuted in any other way for exceeding the posted speed limit by 1, 2 or 3 mph. THAT is the point I am making.

Conversley, have you provided one that they haven't?

I think quite a few people have provided all the evidence possible on an open forum that this does happen.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Conversley, have you provided one that they haven't?

I think quite a few people have provided all the evidence possible on an open forum that this does happen.

I can find no evidence at all that motorist are prosecuted, via FPN or otherwise, for doing 31, 32 or 33 in a 30mph speed restriction. That is what I have been saying all along. I hear plenty of people CLAIMING that it happens. I say it doesn't and can find no evidence at all to contradict that.

trets77

king100 wrote: »

They will also know by average how long the film takes to run out.

Ie Speed camera 1 takes on average 1 month to run out

Speed camera takes 2 months on average to run out.

getting back to the the OP question . the above quote does not add up , as i thought they had to give you a Notice within 14 days ???

http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/does-nip-have-be-served-within-14-days.html

emptying a camera every couple of months would make the offences caputured null and void .

Harry_Flashman

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I can find no evidence at all that motorist are prosecuted, via FPN or otherwise, for doing 31, 32 or 33 in a 30mph speed restriction. That is what I have been saying all along. I hear plenty of people CLAIMING that it happens. I say it doesn't and can find no evidence at all to contradict that.

So you claim it doesn't happen, but can't provide any evidence of that (beyond 'claiming' it)?

There are plenty of people 'claiming' that it does happen. How are their 'claims' less valid than yours?