speed camera van in SHUT LAYBY

[Deleted User]

Car_54 wrote: »

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, says
"27.—(1) The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use ...(e) by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him."
So DVLA are indeed obliged to provide data to anyone who satisfies the SoS's requirements: they have no option.

I guess this one is again down to interpretation, but surely the DVLA staff are acting on behalf of the SoS and therefore have his decision-making responsibilities in these matters delegated to them. As such, the staff "may make any particulars ….". That suggests they don't have to. Also, what's 'reasonable cause'? A PPC comes along and says 'I want to know the keeper of this vehicle because I think he owes me money'. I would suggest that's a long way from being a reasonable cause. Anyway, this element of the thread should really be moved to another thread in the parking section. I won't continue discussing it here because it's off the OP's original topic, but I'll contribute to another thread covering this topic - if there is one.

[Deleted User]

a.turner wrote: »

86% of your last 27 posts were incorrect assumptions.

You've obviously got too much time on your hands. I could ask you for your detailed assessment of these 27 posts, but I won't. Instead, I'll just say - go away.

Mercdriver

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Yes, I've seen one of those - Bishop Burton near Hull. They should get out an do some real policing, and stop belly-aching about how they need extra funds.

Real policing? Like catching criminals? You broke a law - a criminal law. That makes you a criminal. Therefore they are catching criminals. That is their job. Don't break the law and you won't get fined. If you are man enough to break the law then you should be man enough to take the consequences of your actions.

a.turner

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

You've obviously got too much time on your hands. I could ask you for your detailed assessment of these 27 posts, but I won't. Instead, I'll just say - go away.

So you did post again

I haven't assessed anything I took a leaf out of your book and made up some numbers

[Deleted User]

Mercdriver wrote: »

Real policing? Like catching criminals? You broke a law - a criminal law. That makes you a criminal. Therefore they are catching criminals. That is their job. Don't break the law and you won't get fined. If you are man enough to break the law then you should be man enough to take the consequences of your actions.

I think you mean the OP broke a law. I didn't. Incidentally, how long does one remain a 'criminal'?

a.turner

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

I think you mean the OP broke a law. I didn't. Incidentally, how long does one remain a 'criminal'?

And you keep coming back

Mercdriver

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

I think you mean the OP broke a law. I didn't. Incidentally, how long does one remain a 'criminal'?

Until the conviction is 'spent'.

So you have never driven above the prescribed speed limit? That would make you one of the very few indeed. You have such a beef about the issue, I would say that you have been caught more than once and have failed the 'attitude test' roadside by saying something like "Why don't you go and catch some criminals"...

I personally am unsure on the effectiveness of cameras as a lot of people learn where they are and drive according to the camera location rather than to the road conditions and speed limit. They don't necessarily change behaviours until offenders are on 9 points and have to obey to keep their licences. To get rid of the cameras we would need more traffic police to monitor road speed. Cameras are teaching people to have the mindset of driving so as to not get caught rather than to think of actual real hazards in front of them that they need to moderate their speed for.

But I don't think your issue is with the cameras themselves but with speed limits being enforced. It is folly to try and have some criminal offences be unenforced. That way lies anarchy.

DoaM

Car_54 wrote: »

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, says
"27.—(1) The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use ...(e) by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him."
So DVLA are indeed obliged to provide data to anyone who satisfies the SoS's requirements: they have no option.

May does not infer an obligation, rather a choice.

[Deleted User]

Mercdriver wrote: »

Until the conviction is 'spent'.

So you have never driven above the prescribed speed limit? That would make you one of the very few indeed. You have such a beef about the issue, I would say that you have been caught more than once and have failed the 'attitude test' roadside by saying something like "Why don't you go and catch some criminals"...

I personally am unsure on the effectiveness of cameras as a lot of people learn where they are and drive according to the camera location rather than to the road conditions and speed limit. They don't necessarily change behaviours until offenders are on 9 points and have to obey to keep their licences. To get rid of the cameras we would need more traffic police to monitor road speed.

But I don't think your issue is with the cameras themselves but with speed limits being enforced. It is folly to try and make some criminal offences to be unenforced. That way lies anarchy.

Wrong and wrong. Caught once (36 in 30 limit) in 44 years of driving. Speed course attended. Never had points. Agree with some of your other points, but not about the notion of the definition of a criminal.

[Deleted User]

Just wondering how one shrugs off the likes of post #59. Guess it's best just to ignore it.