muckles:
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)
But wether it’s traffic police or a camera which gets you it’s more likely that politics will be the motivating factor for both the traffic law and it’s enforcement not safety.The fact is that driving a truck at 60 mph+ on a clear,dry British motorway or a car at 100 mph + on the same motorway would get you a penalty here whereas doing the same thing with a similar truck in the States or with the same car on many parts of the German motorway network would not just because of politics.So in that case would we end up in a situation where a British traffic cop would let you off with a warning where the camera would’nt?.I would’nt bet my licence on it.
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.
It’s difficult to work out how the number plate would’nt give them all the info they need Harry and once you’ve answered the NIP with the admission that it’s the correct number plate relating to the correct tractor unit and that you were the driver at the time of the photograph it’s going to be adifficult one to defend?.
If I’m honest, this is all bowlocks! ACPO guidelines are just that, GUIDELINES! There is nothing in law to say they have to abide by them… the 10% + 2 thingy is a GUIDELINE only, some forces stick to them others don’t!
Sorry to say that the Police/Scamera vans have something called the “slip rule” whereby even if they have the colour/make of your car wrong it can be adjusted before court… all they need is your reg number!
If anyone wants to try “Harrys” game, good luck but I think he’s read an email too many & he’s 100% wrong.
Melchett:
If I’m honest, this is all bowlocks! ACPO guidelines are just that, GUIDELINES! There is nothing in law to say they have to abide by them… the 10% + 2 thingy is a GUIDELINE only, some forces stick to them others don’t!
Sorry to say that the Police/Scamera vans have something called the “slip rule” whereby even if they have the colour/make of your car wrong it can be adjusted before court… all they need is your reg number!
If anyone wants to try “Harrys” game, good luck but I think he’s read an email too many & he’s 100% wrong.
Have to say that this is really my position as well.
I think that this would be a highly risky strategy unless you have some definitive answer from a legal expert that can point to a specific requirement in law?
Harry Monk:
If you are currently facing prosecution on a charge of speeding where the camera involved was a GATSO (i.e a rear-facing camera), I am going to be posting an article which explains how you can have the Notice of Intended Prosecution withdrawn just by writing one letter.
I expect to be posting this within the next fortnight with a template of the letter you need to write.
Although I do not habitually speed, I have used this letter before, with a 100% success rate. I anticipate the same result this time and am just awaiting Thames Valley Police’s letter, which I expect to receive soon. This is an entirely legal defence which is only available to the drivers of heavy goods vehicles. Then I will scan and post the correspondence.
If you have received a NIP, don’t send it back yet. If you have been fined and received penalty points, it is possible that you could have them removed and get your money back exploiting the same loophole- a loophole so large that you could drive an articulated lorry through it.
Watch this space!
If anyone wants to run with this, all the best… you’ll need it!!
… roads are going to become less safe as people will be paranoid about looking at their speedometer, instead of observing what is going on around them
Perhaps the reason that speed limits are being lowered in many places is to allow more time and space for these poor drivers to keep an eye on their speed
I still like this saying - speed cameras are funded by volunteers
Thought - how is it that when doing a DSA test with all that a driver has to remember plus a few nerves and a bit of pressure, that the driver keeps to speed limits but after the test they cannot ■■?
If The Tractor Unit Cant Be Seen By The Gatso When It Takes The Picture Of The Rear Of The Trailer , I suppose The Defence Could Be That Somebody Else Had Your Number Plate On Their Trailer I Know A Few Drivers Who Run Without A Number Plate On The Trailer , Maybe This Stops Them Getting Caught On the Gatsos…Not Sure If This Works Or Not But I Suppose If It Does Then Its Cheaper To Get A 30 Quid Fine For No Number Plate Than 3 Points And 60 Quid For Speeding .
ROG:
So are you saying that it’s ‘right’ to ‘get away with it’ even if it may mean that the driver does it again - only next time it may not be just a fine & points !!!
No, I am saying that the Police have to follow ACPO guidelines when persuing a speeding conviction. Same as us, they have to follow the rules
I’m going to guess then that is something to do with the 10% + 2 mph?
this 10% plus 2 or 3 simply is not true, the calibration is built into your speedo in your vehicle, thats why if you use a sat nav if your truck is saying 56mph yet the sat nav says 53 (my truck says 90kms but it actually only does 87) its built in for this reason. the faster you go the more its out (but slower)
as for the moral side, personally i dont think spped cameras catch dangerous drivers, and thats the big flaw with them
If Harry is right the same rule would apply to caravaners, I must copy the relevant bits to the caravan forums!
Just imagine all the Chelsea tractors creating havoc dragging badly loaded caravans at 90mph!
Forums had be a bit quiet, well done getting some debate going Harry
ROG:
If someone is innocent then of course they should have the right to defend themselves - to suggest anything else would be silly
It’s those that broke the law, got caught and are now trying to worm their way out of it that is wrong.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I seem to remember you saying that at one time you had 12 points on your license, are you now saying that given the opportunity of avoiding those points you would have elected to take the moral high ground and accept the penalty ?
I have to say that I can’t really see your plan working Harry, but good luck anyway
ROG:
Is it morally right to find a loophole in order to get out of a speeding charge when the driver has been speeding ?
Why is speeding the only crime where it’s seen as morally wrong to offer any defense by the self righteous amonst us. The fact that a loop hole exists means it’s either a bad law or no crime was comitted in either case its morolly wrong that we should risk losing our jobs.
Mr B:
Why is speeding the only crime where it’s seen as morally wrong to offer any defense by the self righteous amonst us. The fact that a loop hole exists means it’s either a bad law or no crime was comitted in either case its morolly wrong that we should risk losing our jobs.
I can see your point if say the camera was recording incorrectly but if everything was working fine then the driver MUST have been speeding to activate it (unless another vehicle was there at the same time - been known to happen on multi lane roads)
So why should the driver who HAS been speeding get away with it ?
If anyone says that they should then should we be able to pick and choose which laws we obey and which we should not ■■?
If yes to the above then we might as well not have Govt. courts or police - we might just as well have the law of the jungle !!
ROG If there was a way to avoid 3 points and a 60 pound fine you wouldn’t take it? If there is indeed a loophole its not the person using it that’s in the wrong, its the person who passed the law/regulations that is wrong.
How many times have you heard something about a loophole on the news…loads! Why because our justice system is there for the taking by a smart lawyer - we have a bunch of retards running this country.
Speed cameras are a joke anyway, supposed to be the flagship campaign in road safety and people just stick the foot down as soon as they go past. The only way to catch proper dangerous drivers and reduce speed is more police on the roads.
Thought - how is it that when doing a DSA test with all that a driver has to remember plus a few nerves and a bit of pressure, that the driver keeps to speed limits but after the test they cannot ■■?
Probably for the same reason that we don’t bother to ‘shuffle’ the steering wheel through our hands after the test either which can be a great help when you need to put some lock on or take some off quick in some situations.
ROG:
If someone is innocent then of course they should have the right to defend themselves - to suggest anything else would be silly
It’s those that broke the law, got caught and are now trying to worm their way out of it that is wrong.
So what would you say to someone who had a clean licence for 30 years and then got 3 points on it having got caught by a Lastech 20/20 speedscope with no defence against it’s flawed readings■■?.
