Harry Monk:
I will post the letters written when I receive the next one, but I will say that I was flashed on the eastbound A44 at Chipping Norton, travelling at 36mph in a 30 mph zone.
My defence has nothing to do with the recently lowered speed limit at that camera site.
In the motor vehicle hating republic of Oxon you’ve got your work cut out in getting a fair trial there Harry.Rather you than me.If you’d have set it off with a bicycle you’d have got a medal. I’d bet they’ve cut the limit from 60 mph to 30.
ROG:
Would anyone agree with getting a trucker off a speeding charge if they did 56 in a 30 zone ?
I’m all for a little leeway but if this is a blanket ‘get out’ then it could be a recipe for disaster
It depends on wether that truck was on a motorway with a 30 mph limit put on it for ‘environmental’ or ‘traffic flow’ reasons.But Harry says that he’s been done doing 36 mph in a 30 which I’d bet was a 40 mph limit for an LGV not long ago.So what did they change it from Harry?.
ROG:
Would anyone agree with getting a trucker off a speeding charge if they did 56 in a 30 zone ?
I’m all for a little leeway but if this is a blanket ‘get out’ then it could be a recipe for disaster
It depends on wether that truck was on a motorway with a 30 mph limit put on it for ‘environmental’ or ‘traffic flow’ reasons.But Harry says that he’s been done doing 36 mph in a 30 which I’d bet was a 40 mph limit for an LGV not long ago.So what did they change it from Harry?.
56 in a streetlamp 30 zone - not a reduced to 30 zone
ROG:
Would anyone agree with getting a trucker off a speeding charge if they did 56 in a 30 zone ?
Would you agree with penalising anyone where the law isn’t in place for a proper conviction ?
A proper conviction ? or a loophole to let the worst offenders free ? - there is a difference
If what Harry is about to show us helps to plug a loophole by letting one driver get away with it - then great but if it means all offenders will get away with it then what message does that send out ?
ROG:
Would anyone agree with getting a trucker off a speeding charge if they did 56 in a 30 zone ?
I’m all for a little leeway but if this is a blanket ‘get out’ then it could be a recipe for disaster
It depends on wether that truck was on a motorway with a 30 mph limit put on it for ‘environmental’ or ‘traffic flow’ reasons.But Harry says that he’s been done doing 36 mph in a 30 which I’d bet was a 40 mph limit for an LGV not long ago.So what did they change it from Harry?.
56 in a streetlamp 30 zone - not a reduced to 30 zone
If he’s mad enough to want to do 56 mph in an established 30 mph limit he’d probably be mad enough to do 56 in a 20 limit which we’ve got plenty of near here.But would’nt/should’nt that be a charge of danderous driving not speeding?.But the funny thing is some of those 20 mph limits around here are a political move not safety in which as soon as you cross the London boundary the limit goes back to 30 on the same road and in which smaller side roads have a higher 30 limit than the larger roads which were changed to 20.Also many/most of those small residential roads have no cameras while out of town dual carriageways and motorways mysteriously do have?.
Harry Monk:
This is an entirely legal defence which is only available to the drivers of heavy goods vehicles.
All HGVs or just artics?
I will give you one clue.
ACPO guidelines state that the make and colour of the vehicle must be verifiable from the image, and in the case of articulated lorries, the tractor unit is out of shot when the GATSO photographs the rear of the trailer. The Police have no evidence.
Carryfast:
But would’nt/should’nt that be a charge of danderous driving not speeding?.
Not if just caught by a speed camera
So how did that biker who was caught recently doing 150 mph+ by camera on a dual/motorway class road end up in jail doing more time than some criminals who’ve killed people using knives etc?.Having said that there might be prison sentences just for speeding but if that’s the case where are the breakpoints between a prison sentence and just points and a fine?.But I did say ‘should’nt’ driving a truck at 56 in a built up area with a 30 limit be classed as dangerous driving if it is’nt already wether caught by camera or not.But none of that seems to apply in Harry’s case and many others out there losing their licences for doing nothing morally wrong.
I’m not sure about the morality of it either ROG, but these days you are prosucuted without any discretion by the relevent authorities who blindly follow the law to the letter without any consideration for driver experience, time of day or road and traffic conditions. So although it might be petty, but then why give them a break when they make a small error.
As for the road safety issue, well speed cameras have a place, but despite the publicity and statistics they aren’t as effective as they’d like you to believe a few well placed one’s where other measures have been taken have skewed the figures. They have given the police authorities an excuse to remove experienced traffic officers from duty. It might have changed attitudes in some, but in such a way that they seem to believe provided they stay under the posted limit then they are safe drivers, but in fact they they have very little observation and anticipation skills and are unlikely to even see let alone respond to a hazarderous situation.
The goverment needs to understand that improving driving skills and attitude is the way forward and get away from the simple don’t go above the speed limit message. It’s not even that exceeding the posted limit makes up the majority of speed related incidents, that actually “going to fast for the situation” Source (Contributory factors: Accidents by severity: GB 2005)
Also might be worth noting that if you are caught by a Traffic car, most the of car mounted systems require all the GSM and Tetra (police radio) handsets to be switched off or at least 2 metres away from the equipment.
I am sure that the new GSM based police communications system has a record of when the handsets are logged on and off?
Harry Monk:
This is an entirely legal defence which is only available to the drivers of heavy goods vehicles.
All HGVs or just artics?
I will give you one clue.
ACPO guidelines state that the make and colour of the vehicle must be verifiable from the image, and in the case of articulated lorries, the tractor unit is out of shot when the GATSO photographs the rear of the trailer. The Police have no evidence.
YMMV!
I believe that the guidelines state that the vehicle make and colour should be checked against DVLA/PNC records, preferably whilst the operator is looking at the image during processing, to “prevent keying errors”.
The key word here is should, i would suspect that the authorities would argue that it isn’t possible with artics but that it does not invalidate the prosecution because the registered keeper is sent a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) and would have an opportunity confirm or deny that it was their vehicle involved.
Failing to provide the information required on a NIP is a separate offence under S172 of the Road Traffic Act for which you will be prosecuted. Many camera partnerships have prosecuted people for both the speeding offence and a S172 offence when they have not responded with the required information. When it gets to court you are given a choice, provide the information which enables them to proceed with the speeding offence or they will simply proceed with the S172 offence. It will carry the same, if not more severe, penalty as the speeding!
Unless it is part of the Home Office Type Approval for the specific device used then i am not sure i would be 100% confident of success. If it was part of the type approval then it would immediately mean that the device was being operated illegally and all prosecutions secured from that device would be up for challenge. And for that very reason, i do not believe it would be part of the TA for the make and model to be shown clearly on the film, probably just the registration mark…but i do not know for certain.
The type approval for GATSO’s are available but you have to request a copy from the Home Office.
DonutUK:
I believe that the guidelines state that the vehicle make and colour should be checked against DVLA/PNC records
Yes, those are the ACPO guidelines and if the the Police cannot produce a photograph from which the make and colour of the vehicle can be identified, then they have insufficient evidence for prosecution.
GATSO photographs never show a motor vehicle in the case of articulated lorries, the tractor unit is out of shot when the camera photographs the rear of the trailer.
