Safe Speed Forums

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/nav?page= ... OTHER-NEWS

North Yorks Cops new idea Against speeding bikers.

PCS in HEART BEAT plates on front of bikes- modern bikers don't have any - too unsafe - Heartbeat cops had no helmets/visors -


OOH - THE REST -

Yeah, they will be able to see my face through my black flip down visor.....

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

Another meaningless statistic thrown in to try and justify the policy. These people must think the public are stupid.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Rant alert...

I'm not trying to say that any motorist should be allowed to use excessive speed as and when they see fit, but the problem I have is this...if you use excessive speed that poses no threat to anyone then who cares? (empty motorway at 4am for example)

If you're on a bike and you have a highspeed spill, who's going to casualty? Ok fair enough, if you have a spill and the following traffic piles in the back of you then you're causing a problem to others, but if the only one who's going to be affected is the rider then no one else has the right to comment. Its the same as the helmet laws - if I choose to ride with no helmet, it me that's going to be affectes, no one else.

Sorry about that...I just had to get it off me chest

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Are NYorks not one of the Safespeed darling forces without a safety camera partnership?

We use 2 systems to capture M/C offences one front and one rear facing and are time synchronised.

This produces the offence, lets say front on and a rear shot just as the M/C goes past the rear facing camera, neat, simple and efficient.

That works unless the biker spots you and pulls a mingling wheelie - pick the plate out of that!

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

As a motor cyclist myself I am slightly puzzled by your statement. If you use two separate systems (and bearing in mind that a motorcycle does not have a front numberplate) how do you prove that the two pictures taken are of the same motorcycle.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

The systems are time synchronised, the pictures will both be of the same motorcycle and rider so will of course look very similar and they will be supported by a statement that the systems have been set up to capture exactly what they have done as well as being time stamped by Home Office Approved image capture systems. The second system may also capture the speed or just be set up for image capture depending on the location.

To prove against the M/C not being the same would need the defendant to show that it was likely that the operator has somehow manufactured a photograph or pair of photographs to match those that were presented by the prosecution and had similar time stamps. Quite frankly, that is quite a ridiculous defence and does not overturn the reasonable capture of the 2 images of the presented evidence.

It comes down to what is reasonable and despite the claims to the contrary officers are not in the game of manufacturing evidence.

Officers on the whole - agreed. As to the parterships manufacturing evidence to justify their existence...thats another story altogether

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

But unless the system has Type Approval for use in this exact way, then the evidence remains inadmissible in court, yes?

"likely" doesn't come into it. The legal test is actually "beyond reasonable doubt". Please try and remember that in the UK we are still clinging to the principle of presumption of innocence, despite your best efforts to the contrary. It is not for the defence to disprove the allegation, but for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the rider is the defendant.

Clearly a photograph of a helmeted rider is never going to do that in a million years, so I would suggest that this system (assuming it really exists) is not really for the purposes of identifying motorcyclists in court, but instead is simply another tool to apply pressure to those you believe may have committed an offence, in order that they will incriminate themselves.


I didn't think you used "officers" these days...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Exactly. The system is running on bluff.

The biggest bluff of all is that the capacity simply does not exist to prosecute all the motorists ticketed.

If we all demand our day in court we'll have them on their knees in a few weeks. So call their bluff.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That can't be admissible in court. It's as good as having someone write the numberplate down after the motorbike has gone past.

The easy counter is to just stick your hand over the plate when going past a scam. They're usually on nice safe straights anyway so control shouldn't be a problem.

Oh it's better than that - Lancs call them "Road Safety Technicians"

Even better.....Call them targets and sit about a mile away with a sniper rifle. They won't be so happy to point a laser at you then

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

Quote by JJ-"To prove against the M/C not being the same would need the defendant to show that it was likely that the operator has somehow manufactured a photograph or pair of photographs to match those that were presented by the prosecution and had similar time stamps. Quite frankly, that is quite a ridiculous defence and does not overturn the reasonable capture of the 2 images of the presented evidence. "

You said operator, did you not.

As in some one who operates, not as in officer of the law - who we can trust.
Any way , which of your "operators" decides that a vehicle is "speeding" and how do you justify his decision -

They don't justify anything, they just hope you'll cave in and pay up.
Demand the full video evidence as part of your 'not-guilty' plea and see what happens. Ask for details of the Police Officer who formed the primary opinion as to speed, including his name, rank and number. Ask for the Home Office equipment approval details for this type of evidence and for the approval details & calibration of the two cameras.
In other words, don't give in.

You are all in fantasy land I'm afraid.
1. Noting the number down after a bike has passed has been accepted on many occasions in court, in fact I know of none that have failed for us.
2. Home office approval is only required for the device to measure speed. As this device is being used to replace the noting of the number after the bike has passed only, no Home Office Approval is required, an ordinary video camera would do fine.
3. It exists and is used for this purpose.

It provides evidence in which there is no reasonable doubt but it does attract unreasonable comment.

You didn't answer my statement about pulling a big fat 300 yard wheelie....? Won't see the plate then, will ya

Disclaimer
Not that I would condone that sort of behaviour on the public roads!

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

Well most reactions are to slow down once the motorcyclist has finished wiping his/her arse! If they can manage a wheelie that would prevent the capture of the number plate they would be one lucky SOB. I don't think it likely do you?
Oh and when the NIP for speeding comes through it will be accompanied with one for either wreckless or dangerous driving followed by the summons for a court appearance. Lets see if you think that's funny!

Surely "Wreckless" driving is very safe - it implies the absence of a wreck!