Safe Speed Forums

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 04,00.html

Speed-trap police are told to look before they pounce

By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

POLICE are to be given new guidelines on using mobile speed cameras because of concerns that they are breaking the law by trapping motorists at too great a distance.

Laser cameras, which can either be handheld or mounted in vans, are certified by the Home Office for use at a range of up to 1,000 metres (3,281ft).

But the law states that a camera operator must be able to form a “prior opinion” that a vehicle is breaking the limit before using the camera to record its speed. The law dates from the days before radar speed guns when all that was needed to convict a driver of speeding was the opinion of two officers.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is concerned that some officers and civilian operators may be ignoring the law and firing their lasers at random.

Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, are increasingly using mobile cameras instead of fixed cameras because the rules on deploying them are less stringent. A mobile camera can be used on any stretch of road where there have been two or more serious crashes in the previous three years. A fixed camera can be installed only after a fourth serious crash.

Partnerships are also finding that their income is dropping from fixed cameras because they have been painted yellow and are easy to spot. Motorists slow down for a hundred yards and then speed up again.

Mobile cameras usually catch drivers before they have even spotted the officer standing by the road or the camera van. There is no flash and the first time many motorists realise they have been caught is when they receive a penalty notice in the post.

The Department for Transport requires camera operators to be visible from 100 metres, but admits that motorists may be caught outside this range. Several motorists caught by mobile cameras are fighting their penalties on the ground that they were detected so far away that it would have been impossible for anyone to have formed an opinion they were speeding.

Richard Cleary, 45, was allegedly caught doing 70mph on a 60mph road in Wiltshire. He requested a video from the camera partnership which showed the speed recording was made when he was 728 metres from the camera van. He revisited the site and claims that even someone with perfect eyesight could not have told the difference between 60mph and 70mph. His case has been adjourned to allow some technical issues to be clarified.

Ian Bell, ACPO’s speed camera liaison officer, said that the guidelines were being reviewed because of concerns that they were unclear. “It was felt that during the revision of ACPO’s manual it might be necessary to emphasise the need to have a prior opinion that the driver was speeding,” he said.

Mr Bell said that there were no written rules on the distance at which it would be deemed reasonably possible to form an opinion. “The operator has to be able to say that he could visually tell that the vehicle was speeding, but the distance depends on the site. From a motorway bridge, the distance could be 400 to 600 metres. But in a congested area it could be only 100 metres.”

Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed, the anti-camera campaign, said: “The system operates on the principle that people will simply pay the fixed penalty without challenging them or studying the rules. The system would grind to a halt if everyone with a legitimate case took it to court.”

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

[sarcasm] No kidding? Really? [/sarcasm]


Not that I doubt Mr Bell's word that the review is aimed at clarifying the law for the scammers, but I'm wondering if there's another review going on in the background somewhere about how to get it changed so they can legally spend all day 'fishing' in the future.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Safe Speed issued the following PR (supporting and extending the Times article) at 02:53 today.

PR236: ACPO aims to plug one speed enforcement blunder

News: for immediate release

The Times newspaper today reveals that ACPO plans to introduce new rules
concerning the distance at which mobile speed camera van may operate. This
results from concerns that operators may not be following the law which states
that speed measurement apparatus may only be used to confirm a constable's
prior opinion that a vehicle is exceeding a speed limit.

Laser speed meters (As used in mobile speed trap vans can measure speeds at
distances of up to 1,000m (and more in some cases), but it is very unlikely
that the operator could make the legally required judgement when a target
vehicle is more than 1KM (5/8th mile) away.

Safe Speed has heard from very many motorists who have been prosecuted in
circumstances where there was little or no opportunity for the operator to
form a prior opinion of speed. In our opinion this abuse of the legal process
is likely to be widespread and is highly indicative of the slipshod way in
which greedy camera partnerships operate.

Our knowledge from talking to motorists together with the news from ACPO
suggests that many recent convictions have not been carried out in proper
accordance with the law. Motorists may be entitled to have their cases
reopened.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Partnership speed enforcement is running on
little more than bluff, threat and public gullibility. When motorists take the
time to investigate the case against them in detail, it's far from unusual to
find a fatal flaw."

"The biggest flaw of all is that the resources simply don't exist to prosecute
motorists in court - the system entirely depends on motorists paying a fixed
penalty notice without a fight. With large scale errors being reported in the
news every few weeks I would urge all motorists to test and examine the
evidence against them in very fine detail. Call their bluff. Ignore their
threats. And show that you're not gullible."

Basic Checklist:

* The speed limit must be correctly signed in accordance wit the regulations
(Folly Bottom, Wylye, North Wales)
* A speed limit order must apply correctly to the location in question.
(Lincolnshire, London)
* The paperwork must be correct and in accordance with all laws and
regulations. (Dorset)
* The paperwork must be delivered on time
* The Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) cannot be served by second class
post. (South Wales)
* The equipment must be calibrated correctly.
* The operator must use the equipment in accordance with rules and guidelines.
* The operator must form a prior opinion of speed in excess of a speed limit.
* Arguably only a Police constable is qualified to for a prior opinion of
speed
in excess of a posted speed limit.
* Communications equipment must be switched off while measurements of speed
are taken (including the operator's mobile phone).
* The site must be suitable (restrictions include near power lines)
* The equipment must be working properly.
* Evidence must be disclosed to the defence 7 days before the trial on request
or it becomes inadmissible.
* If you don't know who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence you
may well have a statutory defence in RTOA1988 S172(4) as amended
* The court must be impartial (And since the Magistrate's Court Service are
usually a camera partnership member it is far from clear that the court has
the required degree of impartiality.)
* The process must not breach your Human Rights (A 'right to silence' case is
ongoing to be heard in 2006 in Strasbourg.)
* In the case of Gatso fixed speed cameras the transit of the calibration
marks in the two photographs must match the speed recorded by the radar speed
meter.
* The prosecution must turn up in court with the correct paperwork.
* Witness statements cannot be signed by machine. (North Wales)

<ends>

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

Go on then! Argue it.


And this, the Magistrates and HMCS are completely independent of one another. I do not have any Magistrates with any interest whatsoever in the partnership or partnership affairs. Should one try to be involved, which they won't, I would object most strongly to their involvement as would the other members of the Steering Group, the governing body of the Partneship. In fact the only time I have ever seen a Magistrate is in court and evn then I had no contact with them whatsoever.
The impartiality of courts are very clear. You should back this claim up with very clear evidence of improper behaviour or take it back.

Actually there's not much argument about it, the point is enshrined in a statute dating back as far as 1931

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

I might choose to argue it in court, but of course you would have to catch me first.



Have your read the case law on court impartiality? It's extremely strongly worded. A district Judge I was talking to yesterday is confident that the courts' impartiallity is being compromised. Interesting times ahead...

Glug, glug, glug...

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

Doesn't the law say something along the lines that a police officer who thinks a vehicle is speeding must have their opinion confirmed by a second police officer, or alternatively that approved equipment may be used to confirm the police officer's opinion that a vehicle is speeding (so that the equipment is effectively performing the function of the second BiB)? And civvie talivan operators aren't actually police officers are they?


Missing the point again JJ. The concern is not so much individual magistrates but that the courts are part of the partnerships. The magistrates may be completely independent but they do rely on people who may not be. For example, magistrates get advice from a Clerk of the Court, right? Who is employed by HMCS who in turn are a partner in the local SCP. That means that while the magistrates may be (hopefully) impartial we can't be so sure about the court.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 032652.pdf

The original partnership handbook makes it clear it is the magistrates court as a whole that is the member of the partnership. This whole 'court service' of 'court committee' as a seperate branch seems to be a later alteration, perhaps to hide the conflict of interest.

http://www.ccmcc.co.uk/mcc/mcc2a.htm