"Jools Townsend from the Brake charity, who supports speed cameras, said if the pair won their case it would have a "devastating effect" on road safety in the country."
No, it wouldn't, that's the thing. Good god what planet are these retards from?
|
>> No, it wouldn't, that's the thing. Good god what planet are these retards from?
>>
No, I don't think it's a question of whether they are retards from another planet.
It is a difference of opinion. They are entitled to hold a different opinion from that which you hold. They may be right in their opinion, you may be right in the opinion which you hold - I suggest it is more likely that the truth lies somewhere between the two diametrically opposed points of view.
Calling a group of people who hold a different opinion from yours "retards", is, may I respectfully suggest, not the best way to conduct an intelligent debate.
|
|
|
The link between cameras and safety is tenuous to say the least however there are a minority of camera sites where they are of benefit. Therefore if it were ruled that camera procecutions were unsafe then it would be detrimental to the safety of some roads outside schools etc, furthermore potentaily tens of thousands of convicted motorists could have their convictions overturned, rightly so if done for 45 in a 40 on a clear dual c/way though many would clearly have been blatantly and dangerously speeding in totaly inappropriate circumstances and would be off the hook.
If this were to happen then a new deterant to dangerous and excessive speed in school / residential areas would have to be introduced quickly.
On the otherhand if it were to re focus the enforcment resources away from the 45 mph on a 40 limit dual c/way 1/1000 sec snapshot in time towards unsafe vehicles, drugged and drunk drivers, and the uninsured and RFL evaders then it would certainly be a good thing.
|
Ah the old hands here will remember Idris..... April 2002 and it seems like only yesterday.
Use forum search to see what he was up to last time.
|
|
The whole argument is that under traditional English law,you cannot be required to incriminate yourself.
|
The whole argument is that under traditional English law,you cannot be required to incriminate yourself.
>>
Is it a subtle distinction to argue that ' you are not being required to incriminate yourself; you are being asked to state who was driving a given vehicle at a given time'?
|
Is it a subtle distinction to argue that ' you are not being required to incriminate yourself; you are being asked to state who was driving a given vehicle at a given time'?
I think the basis of the argument is that if you are the owner of the vehicle to say, "the wife" or "my son" is ok though if it WAS you that was driving you have the right to silence therefore if you dont name another party as the driver you have by default incriminted yourself.
(There are exceptions, i.e. if you have left your car in the hands of a garage and they have been caught on a cameras when testing it, you can i guess rightfully say "dont know".)
|
i for one would welcome a damned great hole in the 'safety' camera usage.......
they are mostly ineffective......... because......... they do not differentiate (speed alone versus inappropriate speed for the circumstances and/or poor driving) and are set at the lowest common denominator i.e. the speed at which the worst possible scenario has been calculated..... which irritates when that worst case scenario is not so, which is a fair amount of the time.
furthermore, plenty of people are concentrating on the wrong things when they drive through a camera i.e speedo and not the road ahead or the person behind when they brake fiercely because they're unsure of the limit, but the camera frightens them.
then there's the cameras sited in straight safe bits of road, where an overtake could be achieved relatively safely, which obviouslty means people don't........... but who will then overtake where it isn't as safe
then consider the vast amount of people who don't register their vehicles etc...which ends up with Mr Decent Law Abiding copping all the grief, for an often minor transgression, whilst the unsafe, no documents oik gets away scot free
we'd be far better off with an increase in propelry trained traffic officers who could deal with all aspects of traffic inc speeding...but more importantly could also deal with unsafe vehicles, unlawful vehicles and unlawful drivers
but of course the camera taxation system would have been stopped and traffic cops are expensive.... so the bottom line is money.......... which is frankly appalling when you consider how important the subject matter is (i.e decent road safety and proper civil liberties)
end of rant, but i feel better
|
I was watching something called Road Wars on Sky the other night. It's essentially an hour of mostly Brit cop chases - top program.
Anyway, I had to laugh - they were chasing this car and it was going for it - wrong way round roundabouts, wrong side of the road, 80mph in 30 limits and from the police car camera, you could see a speed camera on the side of the road and JUST as the perp's car passed it, it smashed into the central bollards and went onto the wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic.
Yeah - real safe.
|
|
|
westpig said "and are set at the lowest common denominator i.e. the speed at which the worst possible scenario has been calculated..... which irritates when that worst case scenario is not so, which is a fair amount of the time.
"
So you are arguing doing 40mph in a 30mph limit is not illegal?
I can see the arguments for more traffic police and I agree.. but most arguments against speed cameras seem to me be an attempt to drive at whatever speed the writer likes, irrespective of the speed limit.
So my argument is: keep to speed limits and then argue for more Traffic police.
Given the huge fines paid each year for speeding it would appear much of the driving polpolace break speed limits routinely.
Given that, they deserve all they get.
I speak as a driver.... and as a pedestrian almost mown down yesterday by a car doing at least 40mph in a 30mph limit passing me at a pedestrian crossing and of course not stopping. These people deserve every fine they can get:-)
madf
|
So if he'd have nearly mown you down at 30 and not stopped for the crossing, that would have been ok?
|
|
no, but remove the nearly from that question, and at least you'd probably survive it at 30.
|
|
And if he was doing 20 you could remove the "Probably" from that sentence, so why don't we all drive at 20 in built up areas - more to the point why are all roads with schools on not 20 or 15 limits?
|
Unless I've got a good line of sight, I do drive at 20 (or less) in built up residential areas where people might emerge from behind cars or other obstructions.
It's cost versus return - a blanket 20 limit would be a pain in the backside, unnecessary most of the time, and would be hard to enfore or would cause huge resentment. On the other hand, a 20 limit, rigourously enforced during school hours, around schools would seem to make sense to me.
|
what i'm saying is that the speed limit is set, in the first place, at a limit that for whatever safety considerations have been thought of..........but those safety considerations would not be relevant for 24 hrs a day or 365 days a year. They would be a lowest common denominator i.e at the most dangerous time of the day or for the most dangerous type of weather, time of year etc,etc.
so for example the kids going in/out of a school could be the most dangerous type of thing in that road, but at other times in wouldn't be so
or... if pouring with rain or in the winter was a worry, it wouldn't be if bone dry or in the summer
therefore if you drove past a school at 38 mph at 0845 hours on Dec 1st (week day) in a rain storm, i'd expect a patrol car to book you and you'd thoroughly deserve it, because it would be dangerous....... however, if you did the same thing on June 21st (sun morn) at 0500 with bright sunshine........what's wrong with some discretion and common sense and let you get on with it or at worst some words of advice, because there would be minimal danger.
the camera would not differentiate........ a traffic cop could and in my opinion should
|
|
|
|
|
The arguement they are using in this challenge is in my opinion valid, however whether it will succeed is open to question.
If they win it will mean that any speed camera which photographs the car and does not show the driver will be unlawful. Also virtually all drivers caught by these cameras will be able to challenge any fines and points they have received. Clearing their name might have further ramifications like when insurance companies have raised premiums or worse still when someone has lost either their licence or job.
Personally I feel that a clever fudged answer will be given vindicating their arguement but will only apply to anyone who physically challenged the speeding charge and refused to name the driver. This would mean all existing speeding fines, points etc. will stand.
The final point I would like to make is that all drivers feel that a minor speeding error is being treated too harshly by speed cameras. The annoyance of being caught on camera when in reality they feel they have done nothing really criminal and dangerous shows how low our nanny state is reaching. We have far more cars on the road today than 5 years ago, which was more that 10 years ago, which was more than 20 years ago, etc. but road deaths have not climbed in proportion. This is despite faster cars and road improvements, and overall the speed of most traffic is now slower than at any time in the past 50 years - partly due to speed cameras, but mainly due to congestion.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
His case, if I remember correctly is not for or against speed cameras. It is about the right not to admit to the offence, ie the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The form (172?) which requires the owner of the car to give the driver details is more or less used as a confession of guilt. It is illegal not to supply those details. In effect, this becomes a confession obtained under duress or fear of prosecution. He is arguing that this is a breach of his human rights. If we ignore that the "crime" is breaking the posted speed limit, and substitute it with burglary/GBH/etc then his argument becomes clearer. The courts are full of people who have pleaded not guilty, whether they are or not. It is then up to the prosecution to prove guilt.
Without the form (172?) the only evidence against a speeding driver is a photograph, usually of the back the car. It basically means nothing unless the car has a distinguishing mark, not a numberplate, taking a few into court to prove their availability would kill that one.
|
"The annoyance of being caught on camera when in reality they feel they have done nothing really criminal and dangerous shows how low our nanny state is reaching"
The law says 30 mph. So 33mph is criminal.
If you accept the illogicality of the above argument, then presumably stealing £10 is legal cos it is not a lot of money.
And beating up someone is "not really criminal" if they don;'t have to go to hospital. Or fiddling your taxes..etc..
Obeying speeding laws is NOT nannystatism. It is because of thinking like that there are speed cameras:-((
madf
|
stealing is always stealing, whether it is 1p or £1,000
however 1 mph is not and will never be an offence...... there will be a sliding scale at some point that will kick in, having regard to all the risks...
and that is the problem..... at times, in fact a lot of the time, that level is too low, so often people are tempted to ignore it...
there are times though when that set level is too high.... so an experienced and prudent driver will adjust accordingly and slow down, the ignorant or selfish, will of course do no such thing.........the only problem is that the safe and careful driver is not allowed to adjust his speed upwards when it is safe and prudent to do so, because the limit is set so low....or half way out of the town as is common now, instead of when you get to it
the limits are set for rain, school kids twice a day, poor driving, poor vehicle maintenance etc,etc, not the sunny day at 5am , in a well maintained car when the kids are in bed etc,etc
in other words life is variable, the speed limits aren't
|
|
|
|
|
