Safe Speed Forums

Really? Is that all you've got? Of all things I never had you pinged as one of the OTT PC brigade!

I hate to have to tell you, but quoting a famous internet meme does not a bigot make!

This is plain wrong - unless you are suggesting that the solution is for drivers everywhere to remain religiously at the speed limit!


Thousands, everyday, in the UK?
And how many of those are due primarily to those who drive otherwise legally who simply misjudge an appropriate speed?
Pedestrians somehow overestimate their walking ability; do you want to introduce a global jaywalking law?


Do we?
Do the lunatic fringe bother to abide by the current speed limits?
I don’t support a global lift of speed limits (or enforcement thresholds), just keep the roads which should be NSLs as NSLs and review the motorway limit (take the German system for example).


Or, the limits are abused to the point where drivers no longer respect them to the point of them risking their license.
Legally doesn’t mean safely; safely doesn’t mean legally!


For some cameras this could prove to be a significant financial burden, the film has to be replaced and processed weekly, regardless of how few offences were captured. The usual way to make them financially viable is to drop the limit below a reasonable level.....

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

If Fisherman does, indeed, report accurately on how the courts work then this really answers his other question about why I don't apply to become a magistrate.

I could not become a part of a system where process takes precedence over justice. If you recall, it was stated that magistrates often say to one another in their retiring room things like "Why didn't the defendant raise point X as it would help his case?" If the purpose of the system were truth and justice then they could say this, ask questions and more in open court instead of having to keep quiet because the system insists on this. It is not just "tough luck" if your solicitor is useless - you may wrongly end up in jail. Conversely, the guilty may go unpunished. It is not good enough saying that the appeal process is available. We should strive to get justice right first time.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Fisherman wrote



How the hell do you think we managed before 1965? All the drivers I know of my age survived before speed limits!

(And there were tear-arses then, too! )

Best wishes all,
Dave.

If you look at what I posted I didn't say, or hint, that obeying posted limits would solve all the problems. This is the relevant bit of my previous post.
Most of it refers to collisions.
You only have to attend a few motoring courts to see what I mean. The phrases "I thought I could could stop in time" or "I thought there was room" or "I thought he had seen me" crop up all the time. Its human nature to assume we are good at whatever we do. Sadly we are often wrong.

Until we have a tougher test and a requirement to be re-tested at frequent intervals we are all likely to continue thinking we are better drivers than we really are.

The idea is that process gives rise to justice. The alternative would be a free for all in which it would be impossible for a defendant to adequately prepare a case as he would have no idea how the court would set about things, how the evidence against him would be presented, what order things would happen in.


We use an adversarial process in this country where the tribunal of fact ie jury, DJ or JPs remain impartial and don't take part in the process of presenting the prosecution or the defence.
I do a lot of tribunal work which is inquisitorial and we do take a practical part in getting the evidence through direct questioning of both sides. There are points for and against both methods, but I am sure defendants stand a better chance of a not guilty with the adversarial system.


I couldn't agree more and lots of people are putting in a lot of time and effort to do just that. Sadly rather more people prefer to sit on the side lines and moan.

I am sure I remember speed limits pre 1965. I thought the only roads that didn't have them were the motorways.

I know, I was one.

1275cc Mini Cooper S. Top speed 96, 0-60 11.2 seconds. My son still has it. He gets passed by just about everything else on the road except bicycles.

If this is the only point you pick up on then I shouldn't be displeased.


I tend to agree with those sentiments (motorway tuition would be a great start) but that in no way ties in with this:


You claim that over half the UK driving population can't be trusted based on your inherently biased and extremely insignificant sample size which will respond in any way possible to mitigate the situation; sorry - no!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Unfortunately, the posts and arguments I am reading do not make me feel or think that the Magistrates system in looking at speeding offences or alleged speeding offences is part of an independent judicial system. It appears that they accept the word of one group based on questionable evidence and process that may be ignored. I cannot say is ignored because I have not seen proof of them setting their cameras etc up correctly or not but there is enough evidence to raise doubts that they do not always tell the truth or act honourably.

Also, my opinion is that the magistrates should raise questions themselves if they want information or if they know that an injustice may be done. They should not convict and then ask why did'nt they whatever............ . Do the right thing and get the information out into the open don't sit on thoughts that may assist someone in getting a correct result.

If I wanted to know more about something I would ask regardless of whether a solicitor or legal reresentative was present. Also for many the costs of legal representation is beyond their means and again, I may be wrong, but I am sure you cannot get legal aid to assist in fighting these cases. For many it is easier just to give in and accept the fixed penalty.


However, what I find most abhorrent in this is the fact that people seem to think that a speed sign stating 30mph or whatever is a safe speed and that you should not exceed this. We have cars today with better handling and better brakes. If allowed to drive it sensibly without the distractions of constantly checking that you have not crept over the limit then the lesser distraction creates safer driving. I do not believe that speed limits should be removed it is the process of enforcing them that is wrong.

I drive along a road that has speed reminders that flash up your speed and find these work perfectly well in reminding me I have strayed over the limit and when I pass them I feel like thanking them for making me aware. If I go through a gatso or get targetted by a mobile then I feel resentment and that the penalty does not fit the crime. Perhaps I would rather pay the fine and get rid of the panalty points as it is this that really annoys me as the length of time it remains is too long for minor slip, if I was doing 30 or 40 mph over the limit then I would admit I deserved it and I believe so would many who post on this board.

I get the impression that many would agree to being guilty if they were or were adequately proven to be and were driving dangerously. As others have stated a higher speed is not necessarily dangerous nor is a slower speed so safe.

As magistrates you are a homogenous group who if you felt that the system was wrongly administered are a strong enough group to change it. We as mere subjects cannot change anything in this country as our electoral system keeps groups apart by the very nature of electoral boundaries.


I say well done to the Magistrate who reecently resigned because he was disgusted with the process, I think, anyone remember this? It was not the guy who walked out over the woman and the veil.

Surely if the magistrate has in mind a question that the prosecution hasn't answered, even though he is unable to openly ask it, then reasonable doubt exists on this basis!

One might say that since the defence has not asked the question, it is immaterial, but then one would have to remind oneself that it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, not for the defence to have to introduce reasonable doubt.

I won't, because I have morals. I couldn't find someone guilty of exceeding an arbitrary figure and where they were driving quite safely.

Equally, I couldn't find guilty a homeowner who caught a burglar and gave them a pasting, or someone who was being attacked by yobs and whilst defending himself, happened to hurt one of them.

I'm more interested in JUSTICE and FAIRNESS rather than just upholding the law...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Fisherman wrote



If my memory serves me right, the only limit was 30mph 'where lighting standards are 200yards apart, or less'., i.e. built-up areas.

Found this:-
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/Understa ... imits.html

Good debate folks, well done, keep it up.
Fisherman your contributions are appreciated (not that I feel comfortable about some of the information that you are sharing, but still...).

Cutting to the chase, so to speak, surely all evidence (on both sides) needs to be checkable and verified?

I mean, if the prosecution is using an automated device (that can fail) to secure a charge, surely all technical evidence must be taken seriously and followed up appropriately:
- investigations of inspection regime
- obtaining and checking relevant certificates / paperwork
- consideration given to possible faults that could have appeared since the last inspection
- usage information taken into consideration (training, usage on day, logging etc.)

...and all the above should be INDEPENDENTLY AUDITABLE / CHECKABLE so that the defence has an honest chance of not being incorrectly criminalised due to technical reasons.

I would appreciate hearing your opinion of this, Fisherman.

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

I think personal testimony carries a certain weight. The problem in Ernest's case is that his personal testimony of his speed was ignored or considered inadequate, whereas the camera staff's testimony of what he observed was accepted as fact. This is inconsistent: they should carry the same weight, which in this case would have meant the benefit of the doubt going to the defendant.

These types of case are obviously and openly decided on the balance of probability. Everyone agrees, as far as I can see, that a policeman's testimony that someone was speeding will in practice be accepted as fact, even in the face of the defendant's testimony saying the opposite. The court just decides on balance who to believe. The supposed burden of proof is a joke.

Fisherman, I know you will say that you don't do this, and I believe you. You clearly care deeply about justice. But I think you are in denial about how differently other magistrates and court clerks see things.

I failed to qualify the sense in which I used the word average. I didn't intend it to be taken in a strictly mathematical sense, rather I meant it to cover the sort of driver who hasn't looked at a highway code since he passed his test, has never had his driving independently assessed since his test, assumes he is perfect and will take no criticism.

I based my comments not only on the sorry procession of such people that I see in the courts but on the annual reports by the motor insurance industry which pays out huge sums of money every year for entirely foreseeable and preventable collisions.

I am not having a personal go at you but those two sentences illustrate the problem very well.
You say You also say
And therein lies the problem, you have no proof but you still think it happens. Courts can't guess, we must have proof from the CPS or reasonable doubt from the other. In general, a statement that "I wasn't speeding" is not enough. It needs some sort of support to give credence to it.


Two points there. We are not allowed to ask questions except to clarify what has already been said. We must not go looking for new evidence. To change that would probably need the whole justice system to go over to the french method of inquisitorial justice - which may well happen anyway as we gradually give up all our freedoms to Europe.

The second point raises the subject of "the interests of justice". I asked a question recently as I thought that there may have been something very unfair to the defendant going on. This produced new information about another offence to which he had already pleaded guilty ( but not been sentenced as it had happened on the same occasion as the offence for which he was on trial.) Result? trial abandoned to be reheard before a different bench with all the attendant hassle for the defendant. I think I did the right thing, the defendant doesn't. I suspect he will tell his friends about the JP who messed up, convienently omitting to mention I did it to help him.



For once we are in agreement. Legal aid has all but disappeared and many are seriuously disadvantaged by the fact. The legal profession and the judiciary (at all levels) are unhappy about this but the government won't listen. They know they can pitch it as saving tax payers money which will get them votes.



I take the view that a democratically elected government has the right to pass whatever laws it wants, knowing that if the law is wrong in the eyes of enough people they will lose the next election. As I am sure you are aware automated speed enforcement didn't figure nationally at all at the last election. There are signs that we may have an election fairly soon. I wish you luck in acheiveing a higher profile this time.



As individuals and as a group we lobby about many aspects of law. As there are only 30,000 of us, widely scattered through England and Wales we have very little power.



i know about the one over the veiled witness, who didn't actually resign. I don't know the other one you refer to.

It always strikes me as ironic that this argument (that the public aren't capable of driving safely without speed limits) frequently gets used. Then, when the accident happens BELOW the speed limit, it is often said that "...oh yes but you need to remember that this is a LIMIT, and that it is up to the driver to select a safe and appropriate speed WITHIN the limit..."

I can't quite get my head round why it is that "Joe Public's" judgement is trusted to know what is a "safe and appropriate speed" below the limit should be, but not above it!

As for the notion that nobody leaves home with the intention of coming back with no points and or damage/ destruction etc... I very much doubt that's true of a significant number of motorists (joyriders) who are actually responsible for a disproportionate amount of damage / injury etc!

Finally, it is (I feel) very dangerous to make the assumption that people with points on their licenses because they have failed to spot a speed camera are incapable of driving safely. It worries me a little that someone in your position might go into court with this sort of mental "baggage"! In just about every other walk of life in this target-obsessed country, we seem to have realised that having targets makes people good at meeting targets. Whether or not life gets better as a result is a completely different proposition! The same is true of driving. Not getting points on your licence means that you are good at not getting points on your licence. IT MEANS NOTHING ELSE.

What about shooting an unarmed burglar in the back as he runs away?
At what point does a "pasting" cease to be reasonable force in defence and become an assault?
What about the home owner who seriously assaulted a burglar he had caught trying to break into his house. The householders own CCTV showed it to be his drunk neighbour trying his key in the wrong door?

Should all these go untried?