Speed camera van motorway

[Buzz Billsberry]

P.s don't forget to vote for A on the pole its about time Karl had his licence revoked and did a 6 month stretch, he's just a bad ass mavrick speeder who dosen't give a toss about anyone but himself, send him down i say!

After all this is the type of man he is...storking round the Le-Mans camp site half naked  at 4 in the morning!!

Do you see what type of person we are dealing with...and he looks so gay!

Buzz

[XTR2Turbo]

Guys, just don't speed!

Its a risk thing

You speed , you take a risk of a fine and points

just accept the penalty or slow down

The only time I've ever been over the speed limit  <!--emo&  was driving to St Bee's on the Friday before C2C 2005.  I was over taking a van on a duel carriage way and sped up abit to get out of his blind spot.

I was apparently doing 78mph and got 3 points.

You could argue that it would have been more dangous  staying in his blind spot, but as been stated though I was braking the law and therefore just paid the fine.

Kirk  

Highway code used to say it was acceptable to speed moderately to effect a safe overtaking move as long as you returned to the legal speed immediately afterwards.

[pistonbroke]

There was also a time when plod had to follow you for a 1/4 mile or so and check your speed over the given minimum distance.

So a small laps of concentration wouldn't have been punished  

But that was in the days of  motorway's built for speeds of 100mph plus , car's with ****e tyres , crap  brakes and cartspring suspension , amongst other things .

[satman]

Buzz,. If every lawyer took the same view as you there would be no such thing as "technicalities", and many of them would be out of work.

You are right to say that a forward facing picture will greatly increase (probably secure0 their chances of a successful prosecution but as I said in the posting in ANY prosecution the other side will be relying not only on their own evidence but supporting evidence such as your admission. If they didn't, they would simply write to you saying, "we know that was you-forget the paperwork just pay up and take three points".

There are many cases where the prosecution, in speeding cases struggle to make the charge stick, especially with rear flash gatso's not so perhaps with one bobbies evidence corroborating the other in a patrol car (or when filmed by the police car following),  since he will have a crystal clear shot of you getting out of the car,but what Ive said earlier is done at the stage when you receive the NIP.

You may have a car that looks unique, your Westie may look the same as 100 others,. one could even be driving around sporting your plates. what would you do if you KNEW it definitely wasn't you caught by a camera (flashed from the rear). You'd never been to that place in your life etc,.,. you gonna roll over and accept it ?

All I know is, I know someone who did exactly what Ive said in the first posting, with the ticket office and he said he'd love to have his day in court knowing he'd been threated by secondary prosecution to make a statement of admission. The matter went away within 72 hours.

the choice is yours, and no I don't condone speeding either, before you ask, but neither will I roll over and make life extra easy when there are legal ways and means available, to get me out of an oversight of a couple of miles an hour which is the ever increasing way we are all being penalised.

[Karl Woolf]

P.s don't forget to vote for A on the pole its about time Karl had his licence revoked and did a 6 month stretch, he's just a bad ass mavrick speeder who dosen't give a toss about anyone but himself, send him down i say!

After all this is the type of man he is...storking round the Le-Mans camp site half naked  at 4 in the morning!!

Do you see what type of person we are dealing with...and he looks so gay!

Buzz

Buzz isn`t it obvious, I was doing the funky chicken.

What really worries is

a) what were you doing with a camera around a campsite at 4am  

b) I was that pi$$ed I don`t rember you taking the photo  

c) WHAT where you doing  with a camera around a campsite at 4am  

I`ve calmed down abit now over the speeding, sure I`ll fire up again when (if)  the letter lands,

But hey $hit happens, all goverments suck, lifes a b***h then you die.

Now shall I start a poll on the news headline for "green" taxing people to help save the planet

   

 

[JonnyBoy]

didn't they recently publish stats that suggested that a mere 5% of RTA related fatalities were the result of speeding?

So, why is combatting speeding such a big thing?

(coul dhave my numbers completely wrong here)

[Buzz Billsberry]

Buzz,. If every lawyer took the same view as you there would be no such thing as "technicalities", and many of them would be out of work.

You are right to say that a forward facing picture will greatly increase (probably secure0 their chances of a successful prosecution but as I said in the posting in ANY prosecution the other side will be relying not only on their own evidence but supporting evidence such as your admission. If they didn't, they would simply write to you saying, "we know that was you-forget the paperwork just pay up and take three points".

There are many cases where the prosecution, in speeding cases struggle to make the charge stick, especially with rear flash gatso's not so perhaps with one bobbies evidence corroborating the other in a patrol car (or when filmed by the police car following),  since he will have a crystal clear shot of you getting out of the car,but what Ive said earlier is done at the stage when you receive the NIP.

You may have a car that looks unique, your Westie may look the same as 100 others,. one could even be driving around sporting your plates. what would you do if you KNEW it definitely wasn't you caught by a camera (flashed from the rear). You'd never been to that place in your life etc,.,. you gonna roll over and accept it ?

All I know is, I know someone who did exactly what Ive said in the first posting, with the ticket office and he said he'd love to have his day in court knowing he'd been threated by secondary prosecution to make a statement of admission. The matter went away within 72 hours.

the choice is yours, and no I don't condone speeding either, before you ask, but neither will I roll over and make life extra easy when there are legal ways and means available, to get me out of an oversight of a couple of miles an hour which is the ever increasing way we are all being penalised.

satman read my post the nuts and bolts is simple IF ITS YOU AND YOUR BANG TO RIGHTS ADMIT IT YOU ARE GUILTY AND YOU HAVE BROKEN THE LAW ITS POINTLESS GOING TO COURT BECAUSE YOU WILL GET THE BOOK THROWN AT YOU. That’s what I'm saying if it isn't you then that’s a completely different situation. by the way we have solicitors in the UK not lawyers that’s and Americanism

and are you prepare to take the risk of themater going away in 72 hours...I don't think so cos' I said in my last reply you might get away with it...

satman I wasn't suggesting that you would condon speeding far from it but its seems like you are prepared to lie in a court of law on a technicality even tho' cos they can't see that its you  but YOU knew it was you ...

Buzz

[Buzz Billsberry]

P.s don't forget to vote for A on the pole its about time Karl had his licence revoked and did a 6 month stretch, he's just a bad ass mavrick speeder who dosen't give a toss about anyone but himself, send him down i say!

After all this is the type of man he is...storking round the Le-Mans camp site half naked  at 4 in the morning!!

Do you see what type of person we are dealing with...and he looks so gay!

Buzz

Buzz isn`t it obvious, I was doing the funky chicken.

What really worries is

a) what were you doing with a camera around a campsite at 4am  

b) I was that pi$$ed I don`t rember you taking the photo  

c) WHAT where you doing  with a camera around a campsite at 4am  

I`ve calmed down abit now over the speeding, sure I`ll fire up again when (if)  the letter lands,

But hey $hit happens, all goverments suck, lifes a b***h then you die.

Now shall I start a poll on the news headline for "green" taxing people to help save the planet

   

 

I'm a fraid Karl it wasn't me who took the picky I'd been in bed 5 hours that night.It  was one of those bone head caterham boys,who incidentlly may have escaped on to this thread!

buzz

[satman]

Buzz,. don't get wound up over this. I'm not sure what age group you are, and perhaps you'll say that your age is irrelevant, my guess is that youre quite young and it seems with respect not well aquainted either with how English law operates,. I'm not trying in any way to be demeaning towards you but I've placed on here a very valid fact regarding the validity of statements, not the same as but with one which runs parallel and has just been tested in the  European Court of Human Rights.,on which in the next few months a decision will be made.

The fact of the matter is,. we as motorists are being penalised far too heavily today, there are more forms of entrapment to catch unsuspecting motorists than we've ever had and in fact some of them are not being applied correctly on the roads by the so called  Safety Camera Partnerships. The system is able to place you as a motorist in a very awkward position especially when you receive a Notice of intended Prosecution. You feel trapped because you have one of seven parts of a form to complete, and it says if you dont complete it (make a statement-because you will be signing it at the end) you will be prosecuted,. (nothing to do with the offence!)

Buzz with respect you have missed the point completely. The NIP is exactly what it says it is,. all it does is to afford you the opportunity to admit the offence or say who was the likely offender. My point is this,. if that notice DID NOT carry with it an additional warning to say that you will be prosecuted if you do not comply then the issuing ticket office would not be causing you to make a statement under pressure, which by fear of prosecution you will do because as you say the alternative may be that you will receive a heavier fine/penalty.

Please don't confuse the issues here. I repeat,. when the notice arrives it is at that stage that you contact the ticket office to point out that any statement you make when returning the form is being made forceably and under pressure of secondary prosecution. In some instances this is enough to make the officer who decides whether the matter will proceed, to question whether that sort of challenge in court will be worth it financially. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any subsequent appearance at court,. that may come later. It isn't anything either to do with telling lies in order to get off the offence,. this is a matter of procedure, and of using a different part of English Law which clearly defines that any statement made under pressure or duress is not admissable in court.

Here there are no Human Rights Issues,. it bears no relevance under Human Rights, though some have pleaded that their rights are affected in the making of statements,. here, we are not talking about the HR issues only the point of when a statement can and cannot be admissable in court. My contention is, and it has already been shown to be effective where an NIP was subsequently removed that you can with the weight of a different part of English Law show that the procedure being adopted in the issuing of such paperwork is not only incorrect but also contrary to law as it currently stands.

Whilst drivers remain intimidated by this, the ticket offices will do nothing to put it right. If you challenge it you will have done nothing more than show them you understand what you can do to bring them to book, in court if they wish to take the chance.

Being challenged like this is very unusual to them and to most they do not understand how to deal with it, hence it is easier to get rid of the possible problem by getting rid of the matter,. and that can only be to your benefit.

You didnt tell any lies you only applied chapter and verse of the law as you understand it.

the alternative of course is do nothing, and bury your head in the sand.

[Buzz Billsberry]

To be honest I can't be bothered with this anymore as for being wound up hardly ambigutity in the written word is a fine thing thats what solicitors really practice well. I was just putting over a simple point about taking responsibility for your own  actions. I have only read thro' the first paragraph of your reply and was dying of bordom not what I want on a tuesday night or any night for that matter you can have your little victory for now. I'm sure you mean well and have good intentions thats fine.Also many thanks for your completement on my age I haven't been called young for along time !

I take ownership if I break the law and I know I'm guilty. Perhaps thats me just been honest heyho!

Buzz aged 10 1/2  

[highwayman]

See my first post, now this is my last post on this subject!

QED

Thanks for somewhat justifying the camera safety partnerships and my job, which is at the end of the day to design safe roads, they are safe until we drive on them.

The End

[Tomcat]

I have an interesting one, have just received a NIP for my wifes MPV (registered in my name though) and on the day in question at least 4 people drove the vehicle up and down the stretch of road where the camera van was alladgedly situated (no-one remembers it), we were ferrying stuff around for a friend moving house and who-ever was there at the time took the car to unload it.

All of them are insured - 3 of them actually on the polocy.

Problem is we don't know who it was who was driving at the time, I have sent off for the photographic evidence but what happens if we cannot ascertain who the driver is from the photo, are they generally clear enough to tell?

Is it not illegal to "take the rap" if you are not sure you are guilty??

Cheers

Jan

[steve_m]

Is it not illegal to "take the rap" if you are not sure you are guilty??

Yep, just as illegal as stating you were not driving when you were.

A chap at work was in a similar situation so he gave the names of the possible drivers to the police and told them to get on with identifyig the driver and he didn't hear anymore about it.  Basically the photos are usually very poor and wouldn't stand up in court anyway.

There's enough people who roll over and pay up to keep them in clover without chasing the difficult cases, unless you're obviously taking the pi*s.

What a state of affairs when the mags and the police allow themselves to be manipulated and degraded by such a poor set of laws  

[Tomcat]

Intersting - we I'll just wait and see what the photo shows - this is not an attempt to get out of it (although that would be nice) as clearly one of us was speeding, we just need to find out which one so the relevent person can have the points, or find out what to do if we cannot identify the driver.

Cheers

Jan

[pistonbroke]

See my first post, now this is my last post on this subject!

QED

Thanks for somewhat justifying the camera safety partnerships and my job, which is at the end of the day to design safe roads, they are safe until we drive on them.

The End

Dont see much evidence of the  "safe Roads " your building .