Guest MJG Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm What chance do we think they have??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_LLAMA4x4 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stmWhat chance do we think they have??? I would guess if they have the money and commitment they actually have a chance..... it is after all a fundamental right to a citizen of a civilised world to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not be forced by law to self incriminate.... The same Govt. they are fighting now were beaten on their 'trial without jury' suggestion so maybe there is a little fight in the British people yet.... David LLAMA 4x4 New Online Store Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diesel_jim Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Bit of a double edged sword really, whilst i strongly support our right to silence, and innocent until proven guilty (against the police, and also for driving RoW's in the future!! ) i also think, that, if your car is plinked by a camera, then someone has to pay, as it's clear that the car was going too fast... simple as that. Now, if no-one puts their hand up and says "t'was me orificer", then the onus should stop at the person who's name is on the log book (or in the case of company cars, at the foot of the transort manager... thats me at our place! ) If said owner of car can't trust "their mate who might have been driving" not to break the law, well, they shouldn't lend it out. but form the BBC site, arn't these statements a load of cobblers? The men also have the support of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, which believes cameras can divert motorists' attention away from the roads. If you're so easily put off driving by a 10' grey steel pole with a box on top of it, then surely you don't actually deserve a license? The UK government does not accept this claim." Of course the gov't doesn't accept it... that would mean us mere lemmings having control of our own lives!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I wonder if I will get my £100 back? I understand that one offence (the older, £40 one) was illegally prosecuted anyway as the road signage was incorrect - ie an unlit 30 mph zone with no repeater signs. This did not come to light for some time after they had my cash. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 just came across the same thing being discussed in pistonheads Pistonheads- there's some really interesting stuff in there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I would guess if they have the money and commitment they actually have a chance..... it is after all a fundamental right to a citizen of a civilised world to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not be forced by law to self incriminate.... The same Govt. they are fighting now were beaten on their 'trial without jury' suggestion so maybe there is a little fight in the British people yet.... David LLAMA 4x4 New Online Store Speed cameras are fine - you can take it to court and argue mitigation etc and get it overturned. Red light cameras are completely different. They are a statutory offence, and only plod in his vehicle with blues on can pass through. I have a mate who moved forward 10ft on a crossroads to let an ambulance through and triggered the camera. Magistrate ignored the plea, even though the ambulance was clearly visible in the photo, and he got 3 pts and £60 fine... Justice...?? I think not... Cheers Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyC Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Speed cameras are fine - you can take it to court and argue mitigation etc and get it overturned. Red light cameras are completely different. They are a statutory offence, and only plod in his vehicle with blues on can pass through. Actually both are statutory offences. The problem with speed limits is that most people are near to breaking them (or breaking them) almost all the time they are driving. Mostly, going a few MPH over the speed limit isn't hurting anyone, and isn't going to. Combined with the lowering of speed limits, many roads are now dangerously slow as a result of drivers not being sufficiently engaged in the task of driving to be paying proper attention, and impatient drivers attempting dangerous overtakes when someone sticks to a too-slow speed limit. Over half the drivers in the country now have points on their licences for speeding, and almost all of those were driving safely at the time. The government need to be forced to respect our human rights. The proliferation of CCTV cameras (even ones with speakers now "You, yes, you behind the bike sheds. Stand still laddie!"), GATSOs and other monitoring is leading us blindly into a world that's even worse than George Orwell's vision of 1984. Apart from that, the number of road deaths in this country fell steadily until the late 1990s, and since them have increased slightly. What changed? The introduction of speed cameras. Just think about that, folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stmWhat chance do we think they have??? Not a hope in hel. I mean the camera catches your registration number, which is in your name. So that means you are liable for the ticket. You could go in defence by telling nobody was driving the car, but I doubt very much anyone would take you serious..... Anyway, saying that a your personal details are secret and you cant give these details wouldn't impress anyone in court. That means you get away with murder because you cant tell anyone what you did. Daan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonk Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 "You, yes, you Stand still laddie!") my guess is u're a pink floyd fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveG Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 it will soon be irrelevant anyway as more and more cameras are video based and forward facing. If they win though, maybe everyone will start driving around with masks on! Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 it will soon be irrelevant anyway as more and more cameras are video based and forward facing. If they win though, maybe everyone will start driving around with masks on! Steve Dark glasses and a heavy beard until the day in court. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b101uk Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 "only plod in his vehicle with blues on can pass through" err no, it is still ilegle for them, and thay do it at there own risk, thay are bound by the same rouls as us for red lights and trafic islands etc and must give way, and if involved in a RTA while doing so thay are automaticly to blame, no ifs or buts!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 For Sale:- Gordon Brown look alike masks £60 each! John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Not a hope in hel. I mean the camera catches your registration number, which is in your name. So that means you are liable for the ticket. You could go in defence by telling nobody was driving the car, but I doubt very much anyone would take you serious.....Anyway, saying that a your personal details are secret and you cant give these details wouldn't impress anyone in court. That means you get away with murder because you cant tell anyone what you did. Daan The thing is that the NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) requires the registered keeper of a car to identify the driver - the penalty for not identifying the driver being similar to the offence of speeding. That means that the owner, if he is the driver, has to incriminate himself, something which, under UK law is illegal, hence the right to silence. Saying nothing would require the police (Crown Prosecution Service?) to find their own evidence rather than to use a confession obtained under duress. Seems unfair to me, I hope the ECoHR agrees. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 it will soon be irrelevant anyway as more and more cameras are video based and forward facing. If they win though, maybe everyone will start driving around with masks on! Steve As Steve says, there are more and more forward facing SPECS cameras now. They measure your speed over a set distance by reading your numberplate and working out the avarage. I noticed the other day that they have put some up in the roadworks on the North West corner of the M25, I bet they remain after the works have gone! Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02GF74 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Apart from that, the number of road deaths in this country fell steadily until the late 1990s, and since them have increased slightly. What changed? The introduction of speed cameras. Just think about that, folks. Ah yes, the old manipulation of statistics . What about the fact that the number of vehciles on roads in UK is increasing but the driving standards probably aren't so probability menas there will be more incidents. Not a hope in hel. I mean the camera catches your registration number, which is in your name. So that means you are liable for the ticket. You could go in defence by telling nobody was driving the car, but I doubt very much anyone would take you serious..... yeah but all the photo shows is a car of the same colour/model with the same registration number. My tip is to keep a set of registration plates but slightly different e.g. with Euro logo, one without, coloured borders, fonts etc and rear window sticketr that can be changed quickly. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b101uk Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 hear is the info you need re: speed cammras and NIP's etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diesel_jim Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Red light cameras are completely different. They are a statutory offence, and only plod in his vehicle with blues on can pass through. I have a mate who moved forward 10ft on a crossroads to let an ambulance through and triggered the camera. Magistrate ignored the plea, even though the ambulance was clearly visible in the photo, and he got 3 pts and £60 fine... Justice...?? I think not... As a result, i now won't ever move out of the way for anyone trying to come through. maybe just s but for an ambulance or fire engine, but certainly not over the white line. the police, they can just sod off! B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BogMonster Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Red light cameras are completely different. They are a statutory offence, and only plod in his vehicle with blues on can pass through. I have a mate who moved forward 10ft on a crossroads to let an ambulance through and triggered the camera. Magistrate ignored the plea, even though the ambulance was clearly visible in the photo, and he got 3 pts and £60 fine... That's interesting. Next time I am over there if it happens to me the ambulance can wait. If the patient dies then their family can sue the government for being so f****** stupid. Might make them reconsider? No on the other hand probably not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Neale Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 "only plod in his vehicle with blues on can pass through"err no, it is still ilegle for them, and thay do it at there own risk, thay are bound by the same rouls as us for red lights and trafic islands etc and must give way, and if involved in a RTA while doing so thay are automaticly to blame, no ifs or buts!!!!!!!!!! No so I'm afraid. There are exemptions specifically for emergency vehicles in relation to the Road Traffic Act. The vehicle does not have to be running on blues and twos (eg in the case of a silent approach). You are right though that the driver has to justify his/her actions and would be prosecuted if involved in an RTC for which they were responsible. Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diesel_jim Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 That's interesting. Next time I am over there if it happens to me the ambulance can wait. If the patient dies then their family can sue the government for being so f****** stupid. Might make them reconsider? No on the other hand probably not thinks like this Stephen make me want to be over "your place" more than here!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Neale Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 The thing is that the NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) requires the registered keeper of a car to identify the driver - the penalty for not identifying the driver being similar to the offence of speeding. That means that the owner, if he is the driver, has to incriminate himself, something which, under UK law is illegal, hence the right to silence. Saying nothing would require the police (Crown Prosecution Service?) to find their own evidence rather than to use a confession obtained under duress.Seems unfair to me, I hope the ECoHR agrees. Chris Hardly unfair Chris. The registered keeper of the vehicle has a duty or a responsibility for that vehicle. The vehicle has been involved in an offence, period. The registered keeper, as the person named as being responsible for that vehicle should realistically know who the user of the vehicle was. What about insurance / licensing issues? What about security? Was the vehicle taken without permission then? If the keeper wasn't the driver, and he/she didn't know who was driving at the time, how do they know that the person who was driving was licensed/insured etc etc? Surely the answer to not getting caught by a speed camera is to be aware of the surroundings and drive within the posted speed limit? Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diesel_jim Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Hardly unfair Chris. The registered keeper of the vehicle has a duty or a responsibility for that vehicle. The vehicle has been involved in an offence, period. The registered keeper, as the person named as being responsible for that vehicle should realistically know who the user of the vehicle was. What about insurance / licensing issues? What about security? Was the vehicle taken without permission then? If the keeper wasn't the driver, and he/she didn't know who was driving at the time, how do they know that the person who was driving was licensed/insured etc etc? Surely the answer to not getting caught by a speed camera is to be aware of the surroundings and drive within the posted speed limit? Matt hear hear!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Hardly unfair Chris. The registered keeper of the vehicle has a duty or a responsibility for that vehicle. The vehicle has been involved in an offence, period. The registered keeper, as the person named as being responsible for that vehicle should realistically know who the user of the vehicle was. What about insurance / licensing issues? What about security? Was the vehicle taken without permission then? If the keeper wasn't the driver, and he/she didn't know who was driving at the time, how do they know that the person who was driving was licensed/insured etc etc? Surely the answer to not getting caught by a speed camera is to be aware of the surroundings and drive within the posted speed limit? Matt Sorry Matt, I got the wrong word. I should have said "Sounds illegal to me" The example I gave was of an owner/driver being sent a NIP. The system requires him to incriminate himself or be guilty of another offence by default. I am not saying that speed limits should not be tightly enforced, in some area they should, much more so than now. They should also be properly signed and that signage maintained. Had I the time and money to re-visit the scene of my first speeding offence I would have discovered that the signs were inadequate and I could have succesfully defended myself in court. That may also have been the case with the second offence but I knew at the time that I was speeding and saw the (front facing) camera go off - in a deserted section of the A43 Silverstone bypass construction site. I am very concious of my speed and often hold people up in 30 zones by driving at or below the limit as circumstances dictate. I am also happy that at certain times and in good comditions it is not a problem to exceed the limit on motorways or other major roads. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Neale Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Sorry Matt, I got the wrong word. I should have said "Sounds illegal to me" The example I gave was of an owner/driver being sent a NIP. The system requires him to incriminate himself or be guilty of another offence by default.I am not saying that speed limits should not be tightly enforced, in some area they should, much more so than now. They should also be properly signed and that signage maintained. Had I the time and money to re-visit the scene of my first speeding offence I would have discovered that the signs were inadequate and I could have succesfully defended myself in court. That may also have been the case with the second offence but I knew at the time that I was speeding and saw the (front facing) camera go off - in a deserted section of the A43 Silverstone bypass construction site. I am very concious of my speed and often hold people up in 30 zones by driving at or below the limit as circumstances dictate. I am also happy that at certain times and in good comditions it is not a problem to exceed the limit on motorways or other major roads. Chris TBH Chris I totally agree with you mate. That's the problem with automated cameras - there is no leeway with them - and unfortunately in the real world not everything is as black and white as those in charge would like to believe.... All the best. Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.