View Full Version : Motoring offence
isaacnewton
06-05-2007, 00:51
I've got a summons for a speeding offence:Yikes: . For those familiar with other motoring websites etc. there is a case going through the European Court of Justice at the minute, which if won, would render all speeding convictions invalid.
Some people have allegedly had their cases adjourned citing this case (O'Halloran and Francis vs UK Government), does anyone know if this request can be presented beforehand or do you have to wait until you get to court?
Also, the forms sent by the court refer to me as "Andy" rather than my full name. There is a section for bringing this to their attention but will it delay the case?
:welcome:
It seems unlikely to me that cases would be adjourned on the grounds of a current ongoing case, as the current precedent is not affected until that case is resolved. Cases going through the ECJ can (and often do) take years, so i very much doubt the courts would allow an adjournment of every case involving speeding until that case is resolved, as it would result in a massive backlog.
If i remember correctly the case you are referring to is concerning the use of the NIP and the clash with the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty. Hope the guy who is bringing the case has a lot of financial backing, because if he loses then he faces a helluva legal bill for ECJ time!
Just to clarify though, were you actually speeding? If so IMO you shouldn't try to wriggle out of it, but should pay your penalty for breaking the law. Whatever peoples attitude to speed cameras is, speeding is a crime just like any other and if you have committed it you should pay the penalty.
...Just to clarify though, were you actually speeding? If so IMO you shouldn't try to wriggle out of it, but should pay your penalty for breaking the law. Whatever peoples attitude to speed cameras is, speeding is a crime just like any other and if you have committed it you should pay the penalty.
Agreed. People should only take their case to court if (a) they think they are innocent, or (b) the law needs to be changed (e.g. badly worded, out of date, etc.)
If neither of the above, then pay up and shut up. The last thing this country needs is the USA style scenario of courts full of money-hungry lawyers, playing the system as if it was some sort of poker game.
arcamalpha2004
06-05-2007, 13:49
Supposing ofcourse that everyone who speeds is treated with the same parity, in as much as your work clothes do not work in your favour! ;)
As for the name thing, it could cause a delay if you raise an issue over it, my name is william, I do not mind bill, but why not keep them waiting? who knows, if the case has to be rescheduled and the prosecution cannot attend it may be thrown out! I say "may "
The name on the summons should be in your full name, guilty or not it should be thrown out if they cant get your name right, its not exactly a typo is it.
I doubt is says Andy on the log book ?
my V5 says Chris... just depends on what you write when you send it back to the DVLA
If it does say Andy on the log book then you are bang to rights and may aswell take the points and fine as a lesson.
Btw. Ive got a squeeky clean licence :D
m8internet
06-05-2007, 20:00
I've had various alleged speeding offences against me terminated or thrown out of court, for various reasons
1 :
My driving licence is in my full name (example) Andrew Brian Charlie
I am the only insured driver Andrew B Charlie, as stated on the policy documents
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle Andrew Charlie
As a result, where the Police require to send a notice to the Registered Keeper the reply then goes back that the driver is the same person with a different name
Their forms do not allow for this, or take this into account
As a result a NEW notice has to be issued, but all too often the same notice is issued and this is an incorrect procedure
2 :
The equipment used MUST be Home Office type approved
This list is updated every month
Full calibration is required before the equipment is first used
A system calibration is then required before each daily use, and at the end of that days use
3 :
Speeding offences, or offences relating to excessive speed, MUST be declared to 2 decimal places AND in the correct format
99.99mph would be correct
99mph is NOT correct
This should also appear on the summons, along with date, time, location, AND direction of travel
4 :
Where the location is known and the speed limit was NOT 30mph, the name of the Traffic Order must be included, along with the speed limit that would apply at that time
5 :
There are various time limits for processing of documents
However, a court can decide that more time was sufficient to allow for Police enquiries
In general though they are as follows
14 days for the Registered Keeper to be notifed by post
A further 14 days for the Driver to be notified by post, on receipt of the above confirming the name and address of the driver
6 months for submission of offence to court by CPS/PF
36 months for submission for more serious offences (example : death by dangerous driving)
6 :
The court can only impose sentence based on "live" endorsements
The prosecution will present previous offences that do not appear on the licence, but these should be discounted and excluded, expect in more serious offences where imprisonment is likely
A tip here is to send your licence away as soon as you are caught speeding to have any points that have just expired, removed from your licence
Remember - change of address on a driving licence is FREE!
I've got two traffic offences outstanding, and both are likely to get thrown out
The first accuses me of excessive braking, but my vehicle has AVL fitted and I have already confirmed that the officer did not see the rear brake lights flash, and of driving through a Bus Lane, but at that time the Bus Lane was NOT in effect!
The second accuses me of driving at 88mph in a 50mph zone
In Scotland roadsigns are required to be illuminated, and these were not, but the previous ones were
The speed detection device used was also not Home Office approved
I've had various alleged speeding offences against me terminated or thrown out of court, for various reasons
Well done. You've picked up on technicalities. At the end of the day you were still speeding, which is still against the law. Clearly from what you say you make a habit of it as well. I hope you get caught soon and everything is done by the proper processes and when you get to court they take your licence away.
LSainsbury
06-05-2007, 20:16
Current Affairs? :juggle:
Well done. You've picked up on technicalities. At the end of the day you were still speeding, which is still against the law. Clearly from what you say you make a habit of it as well. I hope you get caught soon and everything is done by the proper processes and when you get to court they take your licence away.
He said "alleged" so not proven guilty ;)
excessive braking ???
Perhaps he was approaching a Gatso at twice the legal limit?
Just a hypothesis.
kryogenik
06-05-2007, 21:12
I've got a summons for a speeding offence:Yikes: . For those familiar with other motoring websites etc. there is a case going through the European Court of Justice at the minute, which if won, would render all speeding convictions invalid.
Some people have allegedly had their cases adjourned citing this case (O'Halloran and Francis vs UK Government), does anyone know if this request can be presented beforehand or do you have to wait until you get to court?
Also, the forms sent by the court refer to me as "Andy" rather than my full name. There is a section for bringing this to their attention but will it delay the case?
Dude, posting on a big forum like this about this subject (as a first post...odd???), you're NEVER gonna get the back up you want.
Go to fastfords/VW's/VX's .com or whatever and check there!
I HATE the GATSO/TRUVELO's as much as anyone else, but I've got balls enough to say if I went through above the limit, I'll hold my hands up and take the rap.
Forget messing about trying to squirm out of it - give your blood pressure a break and send the forms back and move on.
You're not the first and won't be the last.
It's a money making venture - any serious motorist knows that.
BUT if you were doing above the percentage allowed in a restricted area, you're bang to rights. Stop babbling and get it dealt with.
And slow down, ffs.
m8internet
06-05-2007, 22:30
The alleged offences are not against the law, until proven in a court of law
I attend court about once a month as part of my work, so this experience helps greatly
For the traffic offences, I have been reported for so many I have lost count now!
I've never even accepted a roadside FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice), I have advised the officer that I will decline the offer
When I do get an endorsement, and I've only had three, I play it safe for 6 months, driving like Lucy
Two offences within 6 months and you can be pretty sure that any further sentence may result in a ban
Licence has been clean for the last 4 years
As for the excessive speed and driving through a Bus Lane
Normally that would be dealt with by way of FPN, but I declined it at the roadside
I was driving within the speed limit (60mph) and braked for a corner, reducing my speed to 50mph
On exiting the corner my path was blocked by a puddle and oncoming vehicle, and therefore I stopped
The Police car behind (and it was about 15 to 20 vehicle lengths behind) observed and decided I braked hard, even though the ABL did not activate on my car
The officer also advised that he had observed me driving through a Bus Lane and would also report me for that offence
However, the signs (and the Traffic Order for that Bus Lane) clearly state Mon - Sat 07:00 to 09:00 and 16:00 to 18:00
It was Sunday night 23:45
The alleged offences are not against the law, until proven in a court of law
I attend court about once a month as part of my work, so this experience helps greatly
For the traffic offences, I have been reported for so many I have lost count now!
As has been mentioned, it's great that you know all these technicalities that get you off. It also appears you have set up the names on your various documents to maximise the probabilities of being let off on technicalities. You also seem to attract an above average amount of reporting. Seems to me your taking the ****. I hope you get caught proper before someone gets hurt.
cookie_365
07-05-2007, 00:26
I've had various alleged speeding offences against me terminated or thrown out of court, for various reasons
1 :
My driving licence is in my full name (example) Andrew Brian Charlie
I am the only insured driver Andrew B Charlie, as stated on the policy documents
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle Andrew Charlie
As a result, where the Police require to send a notice to the Registered Keeper the reply then goes back that the driver is the same person with a different name
Their forms do not allow for this, or take this into account
As a result a NEW notice has to be issued, but all too often the same notice is issued and this is an incorrect procedure
2 :
The equipment used MUST be Home Office type approved
This list is updated every month
Full calibration is required before the equipment is first used
A system calibration is then required before each daily use, and at the end of that days use
3 :
Speeding offences, or offences relating to excessive speed, MUST be declared to 2 decimal places AND in the correct format
99.99mph would be correct
99mph is NOT correct
This should also appear on the summons, along with date, time, location, AND direction of travel
4 :
Where the location is known and the speed limit was NOT 30mph, the name of the Traffic Order must be included, along with the speed limit that would apply at that time
5 :
There are various time limits for processing of documents
However, a court can decide that more time was sufficient to allow for Police enquiries
In general though they are as follows
14 days for the Registered Keeper to be notifed by post
A further 14 days for the Driver to be notified by post, on receipt of the above confirming the name and address of the driver
6 months for submission of offence to court by CPS/PF
36 months for submission for more serious offences (example : death by dangerous driving)
6 :
The court can only impose sentence based on "live" endorsements
The prosecution will present previous offences that do not appear on the licence, but these should be discounted and excluded, expect in more serious offences where imprisonment is likely
A tip here is to send your licence away as soon as you are caught speeding to have any points that have just expired, removed from your licence
Remember - change of address on a driving licence is FREE!
I've got two traffic offences outstanding, and both are likely to get thrown out
The first accuses me of excessive braking, but my vehicle has AVL fitted and I have already confirmed that the officer did not see the rear brake lights flash, and of driving through a Bus Lane, but at that time the Bus Lane was NOT in effect!
The second accuses me of driving at 88mph in a 50mph zone
In Scotland roadsigns are required to be illuminated, and these were not, but the previous ones were
The speed detection device used was also not Home Office approved
I wonder if you'll be able to escape charges of causing death by reckless driving in a similar way :rolleyes:
Next time you get mugged or your house is broken into you let's hope the 'alleged' culprit is just as imaginative. :td:
The alleged offences are not against the law, until proven in a court of law
I attend court about once a month as part of my work, so this experience helps greatly
For the traffic offences, I have been reported for so many I have lost count now!
I've never even accepted a roadside FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice), I have advised the officer that I will decline the offer
When I do get an endorsement, and I've only had three, I play it safe for 6 months, driving like Lucy
Two offences within 6 months and you can be pretty sure that any further sentence may result in a ban
Licence has been clean for the last 4 years
As for the excessive speed and driving through a Bus Lane
Normally that would be dealt with by way of FPN, but I declined it at the roadside
I was driving within the speed limit (60mph) and braked for a corner, reducing my speed to 50mph
On exiting the corner my path was blocked by a puddle and oncoming vehicle, and therefore I stopped
The Police car behind (and it was about 15 to 20 vehicle lengths behind) observed and decided I braked hard, even though the ABL did not activate on my car
The officer also advised that he had observed me driving through a Bus Lane and would also report me for that offence
However, the signs (and the Traffic Order for that Bus Lane) clearly state Mon - Sat 07:00 to 09:00 and 16:00 to 18:00
It was Sunday night 23:45
Scrub my last post, you dont deserve a licence,
Btw, i hope you never get in my way :mad:
Lord Nikon
07-05-2007, 04:30
Scrub my last post, you dont deserve a licence,
Btw, i hope you never get in my way :mad:
Why doesn't the OP deserve a license?
For stopping rather than driving through a huge puddle? Avoiding an oncoming vehicle? Driving within the speed limit? or observing roadside lane usage signs?
Assuming the poster was telling the truth about all of this, and since we have no reason to disbelieve them, I find that you think he should lose his license rather worthy of further discussion...
i sort of disagree and agree here.
The police are there to uphold the law, as such they should understand the law, and know what proceedures need to take place. They should also be able to read at what times a buslane is in use.
As for speeding.... If i ever get court, i'll hold my hands up to it. I've got a clean lience at the moment, and hope to keep one.
The one place i normally speed is where thes a dual carage way, i get upto about 70, and i always forget that the sliproad to come off is 30, and you have about 50 yards to slow down, so unless you want the seatbelt to cut into you, you need to break before you hit the slip road.... Someone told me that they carnt do it.. but its pratically impossiable to get down to speed. Espically if you are not expecting it. I normally pass it doing about 40.. heck theres a roundabout about 200 yards ahead of that, do i have to slow down more anyway... the distance is just too short.
Why doesn't the OP deserve a license?
For stopping rather than driving through a huge puddle? Avoiding an oncoming vehicle? Driving within the speed limit? or observing roadside lane usage signs?
Assuming the poster was telling the truth about all of this, and since we have no reason to disbelieve them, I find that you think he should lose his license rather worthy of further discussion...
Perhaps it was statements like below in his/her previous posts -
..snip...
For the traffic offences, I have been reported for so many I have lost count now!
...snip
And another post from m8internet said "The second accuses me of driving at 88mph in a 50mph zone. In Scotland roadsigns are required to be illuminated, and these were not, but the previous ones were.
The speed detection device used was also not Home Office approved"
He/she doesn't actually deny speeding, just states technicalities why he/she wasn't charged.
Lord Nikon
07-05-2007, 21:36
And you can 100% state you have NEVER exceeded the speed limit? I have driven on roads where doing 90mph is safe, and on other roads where doing 30mph even though the limit is a national speed limit of 60mph is lethal. The point is sometimes the speed limits are excessively high, and in others excessively low, safe driving isn't always adhering to the speed limit. It's driving within the road's conditions, the conditions of the traffic, and within the driver's and the vehicle's abilities.
This is also where speed cameras fail, on a long winding road, where you can see round every corner, and the speed limit is 50mph on a clear day, with no rain, no pedestrians it can be safe to do 70+ yet that would get you a ticket from a camera. On the same road, in rain, with ice on the road, 25mph may be too fast (this is just a hypothetical example remember) yet the camera cannot determine unsafe driving and won't issue a ticket below the preset limit.
The speed limits in this country, plus the police's ability to enforce them needs serious review, yet it won't happen because unfortunately the government makes money from the tickets, In some cases, unjustly, yet when someone says they have succesfully defended themselves from a ticket, whether that ticket was justly deserved or not, they bring themselves a torrent of abuse, when the truth is the police failed, either to issue the ticket within their own guidelines, or failed to determine that the person they ticketed was in fact within the law.
The police once tried to issue me with a ticket for an illegal U turn, I said to them "There are NO signs prohibiting a U turn on this road anywhere from the start of the road to the point where I turned round, if you can show me one <pointing to the 500 or so yds of road to the point where I turned> then I will admit to it, if not however, why was it illegal?" they looked, then said "sorry" then drove off. They also once tried to do me for speeding at "58mph" until I pointed out that they had only monitored me within a 60mph zone (they missed the sign, and were couldn't see me until well within the 60 zone) yet how many people would have argued the point?
And you can 100% state you have NEVER exceeded the speed limit? I have driven on roads where doing 90mph is safe, and on other roads where doing 30mph even though the limit is a national speed limit of 60mph is lethal. The point is sometimes the speed limits are excessively high, and in others excessively low, safe driving isn't always adhering to the speed limit. It's driving within the road's conditions, the conditions of the traffic, and within the driver's and the vehicle's abilities.
This is also where speed cameras fail, on a long winding road, where you can see round every corner, and the speed limit is 50mph on a clear day, with no rain, no pedestrians it can be safe to do 70+ yet that would get you a ticket from a camera. On the same road, in rain, with ice on the road, 25mph may be too fast (this is just a hypothetical example remember) yet the camera cannot determine unsafe driving and won't issue a ticket below the preset limit.
The speed limits in this country, plus the police's ability to enforce them needs serious review, yet it won't happen because unfortunately the government makes money from the tickets, In some cases, unjustly, yet when someone says they have succesfully defended themselves from a ticket, whether that ticket was justly deserved or not, they bring themselves a torrent of abuse, when the truth is the police failed, either to issue the ticket within their own guidelines, or failed to determine that the person they ticketed was in fact within the law.
The police once tried to issue me with a ticket for an illegal U turn, I said to them "There are NO signs prohibiting a U turn on this road anywhere from the start of the road to the point where I turned round, if you can show me one <pointing to the 500 or so yds of road to the point where I turned> then I will admit to it, if not however, why was it illegal?" they looked, then said "sorry" then drove off. They also once tried to do me for speeding at "58mph" until I pointed out that they had only monitored me within a 60mph zone (they missed the sign, and were couldn't see me until well within the 60 zone) yet how many people would have argued the point?
Thank you for not answering the points I raised, especially where the poster said "For the traffic offences, I have been reported for so many I have lost count now!"
FYI, I have had two traffic offences in 29 years of driving, one where I was doing 74mph on the motorway, and one where I was doing 56mph in a 50 zone - I didn't try and weasel out of the tickets, and I don't boast, as the poster above did, about having so many reports that he has lost count.
I never break the speed limit and i cant see why i need to :rolleyes:
PS> i aint kidding, i do 60mph on the motorway ;)
PS> i aint kidding, i do 60mph on the motorway ;)
I really hope that's sarcasm....
Lord Nikon
08-05-2007, 00:05
Thank you for not answering the points I raised, especially where the poster said "For the traffic offences, I have been reported for so many I have lost count now!"
FYI, I have had two traffic offences in 29 years of driving, one where I was doing 74mph on the motorway, and one where I was doing 56mph in a 50 zone - I didn't try and weasel out of the tickets, and I don't boast, as the poster above did, about having so many reports that he has lost count.
There can be a huge difference between reports and actual offences though,
i was stopped and given 17 HO/RT/1 documents in a 7 day period once. I had all documentation and produced it at a police station, along with making a complaint about harrassment. Subsequently I was stopped again for allegedly speeding (70mph alleged in a 30 zone) and illegal number plates (they weren't, the only questionable part on them was a skull & crossbones as a flag, but the law stated that any flag shown must be a generally recognised one) a quick letter to the chief constable soon cured that problem, especially since I had several independent witnesses who attested I was doing under 30mph.
As for the 74 in a 70 - well, technically the police used to allow 10%+3mph to allow for speedo inaccuracy, so 80mph used to be the point at which a ticket would be issued, I would have been tempted to fight one so close to the limit. I would suggest you go for a drive with a tomtom or similar GPS with you and check the speedo's reported speed with the GPS reported one, there do tend to be discrepancies.
I really hope that's sarcasm....
Why? 70 is a limit, not a requirement.
one where I was doing 74mph on the motorway
I thought you had to be doing 10% over the limit? which would be 77mph... :erm:
scrotnig
08-05-2007, 06:52
I thought you had to be doing 10% over the limit? which would be 77mph... :erm:
This is a popular urban myth, but I'm afraid it's incorrect.
The limit is 70, therefore the police can and sometimes do prosecute for 71mph, try North Wales as an example. And the prosecution will stand up in court as well.
This is a popular urban myth, but I'm afraid it's incorrect.
The limit is 70, therefore the police can and sometimes do prosecute for 71mph, try North Wales as an example. And the prosecution will stand up in court as well.
Course if you're doing 70mph you're speedo is probably showing around 75mph, so someone caught doing 90mph may have thought they were actually doing 100mph depending on how much their speedo over reads.
bmxbandit
08-05-2007, 11:03
I really hope that's sarcasm....
um, a decent proportion of traffic is limited to 60mph on the motorway!
iirc, some vehicles are limited to only 50mph...
I've got no problem with people driving a reasonable speed below the limit (not 30 in a 60 zone) as long as they do it responsibly.
For instance, if there's a straight bit of road where it's safe for people to over take them, then move over and let vehicles past, don't speed up.
If you're doing 40 in a national speed limit area, don't speed up to 45 when you hit a 40 (or even 30mph!) zone! Seen that soo often it makes me think the driver has no idea what speed limit signs mean.
If you've got a tail of traffic behind you and come to a roundabout, go round it even if you need to go straight on, use it as a chance to let others pass.
If you're doing 60 on a motorway, just stay in the 1st lane, but don't go so slow that lorries have to overtake you!
I really hope that's sarcasm....
Not at all, i find it uses less fuel and less tiring on long journeys.
"You can go fast, I can go anywhere" ;)
If you're doing 40 in a national speed limit area, don't speed up to 45 when you hit a 40 (or even 30mph!) zone! Seen that soo often it makes me think the driver has no idea what speed limit signs mean.
I see similar to this a lot on my way home from work.
The limit along the road is 60MPH, it then goes into a town, 1st dropping to 40MPH and then 30MPH past a school.
Often get behind someone doing 40-45MPH along the 60 bit, and they don't bother to slow down for the 40 or 30 :rolleyes: does make me wonder!
I will hold my hand up and say yes I did get caught speeding along the very same road, but was in the 60MPH bit, but at least I didn't try and wriggle out of it, I was going to fast and got caught.
Was the 1st (and hopefully!) last time I got caught, it certainly made me think.
It's not big and it's not clever.
I seem to recall some motoring program lend a camera crew to a bloke who would always get stuck behind someone doing 40 in a national speed limit road, causing long tailbacks.
The crew followed the slow driver to his destination then asked him why he drove at 40mph along that road, he didn't have an answer, it was just something he did and didn't really seem to know what a white disc with a black diagnonal line through it actually meant.
Lord Nikon
08-05-2007, 17:01
There is a lot of information on speed here (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html) (link cleared with Stuart C before posting)
Seems that not all is as it seems with regards speed..
... I would suggest you go for a drive with a tomtom or similar GPS with you and check the speedo's reported speed with the GPS reported one, there do tend to be discrepancies.
I noticed this the other day - my speedo indicates almost 10mph more than the satnav. So, can I add this 10% to the 10% the police allow? That would make 70 + 7 = 77, plus 7.7 = 84.7mph
Wow!
I noticed this the other day - my speedo indicates almost 10mph more than the satnav. So, can I add this 10% to the 10% the police allow? That would make 70 + 7 = 77, plus 7.7 = 84.7mph
Wow!
My Tomtom gives me a difference of around 4mph compared to the speedo.
My Tomtom gives me a difference of around 4mph compared to the speedo.
At 70? Sorry, my post should have specified 70mph.
Actually, I suspect there are differences in speedo settings between different makes of car. If I remember correctly (IIRC), even a few extra psi in the tyres can make a difference.
Seems that not all is as it seems with regards speed..
In what way?? maybe some people just make excuses and lie to themselves.
SPEED Kills, and it does, no excuses :(
BTW, I dont give a monkeys about the good/bad driver stuff, its down to if a lil kid steps into the road.
At 70? Sorry, my post should have specified 70mph.
Actually, I suspect there are differences in speedo settings between different makes of car. If I remember correctly (IIRC), even a few extra psi in the tyres can make a difference.
I meant 4mph difference compared to whatever speed i was doing, although i can't remember if it was +4mph or -4mph. :)
... its down to if a lil kid steps into the road.
Isn't it amazing how at Alton Towers (for example) there are very strict security measures in place to separate people from fast moving pieces of metal, while in our towns and villages we allow children to walk very close to fast-moving traffic with no barriers in sight.
Lord Nikon
11-05-2007, 04:55
In what way?? maybe some people just make excuses and lie to themselves.
SPEED Kills, and it does, no excuses :(
BTW, I dont give a monkeys about the good/bad driver stuff, its down to if a lil kid steps into the road.
Which would point back to an inappropriate use of speed.... see?
motorway, pedestrians not allowed, no-one else around, 90+mph is illegal, but not necessarily dangerous.
School, vehicles both sides of road, children around, 30mph legal but dangerous...
Point proven, speed doesn't kill, inappropriate use of speed kills...
papa smurf
11-05-2007, 07:10
I've got a summons for a speeding offence:Yikes: . For those familiar with other motoring websites etc. there is a case going through the European Court of Justice at the minute, which if won, would render all speeding convictions invalid.
Some people have allegedly had their cases adjourned citing this case (O'Halloran and Francis vs UK Government), does anyone know if this request can be presented beforehand or do you have to wait until you get to court?
Also, the forms sent by the court refer to me as "Andy" rather than my full name. There is a section for bringing this to their attention but will it delay the case?
well isacnewton for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction[newtons 3rd law] so cough up. the maths .....speed= camera=summons=fine=justice
Lord Nikon
11-05-2007, 08:48
Of course, that is assuming the ticket which presumably was issued via a camera, is indeed his vehicle...
Examples (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10901008/detail.html)
Another (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/4626952.stm)
another (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/23/81mph_school_bus/) and links to more at the bottom of the last one.
Vlad_Dracul
11-05-2007, 09:33
I just love speed cameras,and mobile traffic police and red light cameras. The more people they take off the road, the better for me as I do my very best not to speed or jump red lights. I've learned you see. I drive all day at work and you gradually learn not to do it. It stresses you out ,drives up your insurance and could lose you your job...
Lord Nikon
11-05-2007, 09:43
Therein lies the problem though, you don't have to be speeding, if someone near you is speeding then you can be ticketed for it, and have to prove your innocence.
Of course, that is assuming the ticket which presumably was issued via a camera, is indeed his vehicle...
Examples (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10901008/detail.html)
Another (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/4626952.stm)
another (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/23/81mph_school_bus/) and links to more at the bottom of the last one.
That second example clearly shows the incompetence of the system:
It turned out the letters FOT on the car which was photographed by the roadside camera had been mistaken for FDT, the letters on Mr Crossman's tractor.
You would think they would have included a cross-check of vehicle type, rather than simply relying on optical character recognition.
Update - judgement from the European Court of Human Rights.
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6251936.stm)
"Judges acknowledged that both men had been faced compulsion to provide information, but threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are "absolute rights".
Their judgement noted that people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted certain responsibilities" under UK law. This includes an obligation to name the driver of a vehicle after a road traffic offence has been committed. "
Update - judgement from the European Court of Human Rights.
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6251936.stm)
"Judges acknowledged that both men had been faced compulsion to provide information, but threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are "absolute rights".
Their judgement noted that people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted certain responsibilities" under UK law. This includes an obligation to name the driver of a vehicle after a road traffic offence has been committed. "
Sounds sensible to me.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.