Safe Speed Forums

got flashed twice on A127 by blue (citreon belingo ???) van , flashes came from within the cab thru the windscreen.
Acpo association of chief police officers guidelines state laser cannot be used thru glass!!!
which makes me think was it radar based as my girlfriend was on her bike in front of me doing same speed about 5 metres ahead ( i was on bike (fireblade) ) yet she didnt get flashed, apparently i was doing 91 mph!
download acpo guide lines on speeding and what they have to do and cant do from here
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/ ... %202-3.pdf.
have done a pace letter and printed 110 pages of acpo guidelines off,
and section 172 of road traffic act from government, doesnt say you have to sign form, just give driver details!
think its a case of one law against the other, or one law not kept up with the others.
is it a requirement that a document submitted to court have a signature to be admissable in a court of law.
one day we will beat them and there trawler stealth taxing obssesion.
wasnt there an european directive on speed traps and having to be visible marked from 1 km 0.6of a mile away??
any advice would be greatful as defending myself.
best of luck to all of you

Double flash coming from inside a vehicle is a new one on me.
I believe speed radar can’t be used from within a vehicle.

Did you see the usual gatso style graduated markings on the road?
Did you run over any pressure strips in the road near the van?
Do you think the alleged speed of 91mph was your actual speed?


Here are some rules that may interest you, rules the SCPs must adhere to if they are to be allowed to net off:

- Speed traps have to be visible only a few 10s of meters away (60 metres where the speed limit is 40 mph or less, 100 metres at all other speed limits).
- Mobile vehicles from which enforcement may take place must be liveried.
- For mobile sites, camera warning signs must be placed in advance of the point of entry to the site or route (including or excluding minor roads at the discretion of the partnership) in the direction being enforced.

acpo is not a gudeline it is a code of practice and MUST be followed to meet the type approval of each device. Type approval is required to meet the road traffic act. If this is a new device it must be type approved.

Sorry to be petty but these thing matter.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

They shouldn't use a laser through a window, becuase the beam will refract.
If the flash was inside the van, all they would get would be a refection of the flash off the window.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

It would be worth asking for photographs "to help identify the driver", these will show what device was used.

_________________
Andrew.

im sure it was a double flash from inside the cab about where passenger head would be. no markings on road, no pressure tubes/strips. no signage of speed trap at all, and it was 25 metres before a bridge.
van looked like british gas van , dark blue and orange stripes bout 4 inches high on bottom of back doors.
no dont think i was doing 91mph,cuz i shut throttle off before i passed van in curiousity and then looked at in my mirrors and saw a double flash, then got nip.
will req photo as very interested as to what / how they got this reading.
If the operative of device do not follow acpo guidelines, does it mean that the chief of essex police ( in my case ) can be arrested for dereliction of duty as he has no control over his officers in following his guidelines which he conttributed to and is a member of chief police officers assocciation.

also if a future case for example ruled that all speeding convictions were unsafe, would that make the police liable for a charge of perjury and submitting false evidence? could be another nasty letter to the chief of police threaten a perjury charge!!!!

was think of sending the chief of essex police a letter see below- let me know what you think ( based on best defence is attack)


Private and Confidential
Dear Chief Constable of Essex Police,

Subject to current/future court cases & precedents set
I must make you aware that should I incur any costs, administrative, court costs etc ( and these have started already), from your recent letter to myself See above ref no, then I will seek to recover these costs from you.
These costs may itself include court cost/fines, travel and administration fees.

This may include CCJ’s
This may include a Second Charge on your property.
This may include an attachment to your earnings.
This may also be passed to a debt collection/recovery agency.
Do not ignore this letter as this may lead to financial implications/ judgements against you.

This is not a sales/ circular.
Your Sincerely

As are we, so do that.


To you: errors on the part of the operator could mean very little (unless the SCP drops your case before it gets to court).
However, the SCP may not be able to recover their operating costs (from that site?) if you can show they were indeed being naughty.


If you decided to take something to court for which you would be able to show the obviously indefensible actions of the SCP operator, you may find your case get quietly dropped - hence you never get to see the incriminating evidence. That’s not as uncommon as you might think

been looking on essex camera partnership website and they dont list the place they claim the offence took place.
they say A127 Southend arterial road, west horndon, near the junction with the A128.
cant find this as a location on the essex camera site
http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk/cam ... ge_01.html
will this make my case easier or is it no significance?

Brentwood - back to camera map

To download or view a PDF file showing accident information for each of the locations below click here.



Fixed camera locations

Sites 029 and 037: A129 Rayleigh Road, Hutton, 30 MPH

Sites 038 and 79: A128 Brentwood Road, Herongate/Ingrave, 30 MPH

Site 075: A128 Ingrave Road (near Orchard Avenue, Brentwood) 30 MPH

Site 858: A1023 Shenfield Road (near Middleton Hall Road, Brentwood) 30 MPH

Site 871: A128 Ongar Road, Kelvedon Hatch, near Doddinghurst Common



Mobile camera locations

Sites 146, 148: A128 Brentwood Road, Ingrave/Herongate, 30 MPH

Sites 225 and 227: A1023 London Road, Brentwood, 30 MPH

Sites 235: A1023 Shenfield Road, Brentwood, 30 MPH

Site 683: Eagle Way (nr j/w Clive Rd tw Warley Rd), 30 MPH

Sites 817 and 818: B1002 High Street, Ingatestone 30 MPH

Sites 820: A1023 Chelmsford Road, Brentwood 30 MPH

Site A/R0038: A128 Ongar Road, Kelvedon Hatch, 40 MPH

Basildon - back to camera map

To download or view a PDF file showing accident information for each of the locations below click here.



Fixed camera locations

Site 028: A129 London Road, Wickford (near Victoria Avenue) 30 MPH

Site 033: A129 Southend Road, Billericay (near Hickstars Lane) 30 MPH

Site 039: Radford Way, Billericay (near Radford Crescent) 30 MPH

Site 040: Clayhill Road, Basildon (near Swan Mead) 30 MPH

Site 069: A129 Southend Road, Shotgate (near Alicia Avenue, towards Wickford) 30 MPH

Site 082: A132 Runwell Road, Wickford, 30 MPH

Sites 088 and 089: A132 Nevendon Road, Wickford, 40 MPH

Site 869: London Road (near Seaview Avenue) Vange, Basildon 30 MPH

Site 870: High Road (near Chaseway) Vange, Basildon 30 MPH



Red Light camera locations

Site 2: A1321 Broadmayne (j/w Greatoaks) Basildon, 40 MPH

Site 17: A1235 Cranes Farm Road (j/w Miles Gray Road, Basildon) 50 MPH

Site 23: A1321 Broadmayne (j/w Linkway, Basildon) 40 MPH

Site 78: A1321 Broadmayne/Ghyllgrove, Basildon, 40 MPH

Site 873: A1235 Cranes Farm Road, 50 MPH



Mobile camera locations

Sites 107 and 663: B1007 Stock Road, Billericay 30 MPH

Sites 117 and 118: Mountnessing Road, Billericay, 30 MPH

Sites 128, 228 and 132: Ashlyns, Basildon, 30 MPH

Sites 129 and 229: Felmores, Basildon, 30 MPH

Sites 131 and 231: Rectory Road, Pitsea, 30 MPH

Site 160: B1007 Laindon Road (Billericay, near School Road) 30 MPH

Site 670 and 671: Clayhill Road, Basildon 30 MPH

Sites 672 and 673: A129 London Road, Wickford 30 MPH

Sites 680 and 681: Radwinter Ave, Wickford, 30 MPH

Site 686: Whitmore Way, Basildon, 30 MPH

Site 687: Cranes Farm Road, Basildon, (j/w Honywood Road) 40 MPH

Sites 705, 706, 707 and 708: Vange Hill Drive, Basildon 30 MPH

Site 748: Wickford Avenue, Basildon 30 MPH

Site 749: Sandon Road, Barstable, Basildon 30 MPH

Site 751: London Road, Bowers Gifford 30 MPH

Site 754: Clay Hill Road, Basildon 30 MPH

Site 790, 791: B1464 London Road, Bowers Gifford 30 MPH

Site 828: High Road, Laindon 30 MPH

Sites A/R0002 and A/R0003: Durham Road, Laindon, 30 MPH

Sites A/R0004 and A/R0005: Nightingales, Laindon, 30 MPH

Site A/R0006: Wash Road, Laindon, 30 MPH

Sites A/R0012, A/R0013, A/R0014: A129 Crays Hill, Basildon, 30 MPH

Sites A/R0025 and A/R0026: High Road, Langdon Hills, Basildon, 30 MPH

Site A/R0039: A129 Southend Road, Billericay, 30 MPH

Site A/R0094: London Road, Wickford, 30 MPH

Site A/R0095: Clayhill Road, Basildon, 30 MPH

Site A/R0105: A129 Southend Road, Wickford, 30 MPH


Thurrock - back to camera map

To download or view a PDF file showing accident information for each of the locations below click here.



Fixed camera locations

Site 047: Lodge Lane, Grays (near j/w Chestnut Avenue) 30 MPH


Site 048: A1013 London Road, Grays, 30 MPH

Site 049: A126 London Road, Grays, 30 MPH

Site 065: B1335 Stifford Rd (near junction with Daiglen Drive, South Ockendon, 40 MPH

Site 066: A1012 Hogg Lane, Between Elizabeth Rd and Eastern Way, Grays, 40 MPH

Sites 080 and 081: B186 South Road South Ockendon, 30 MPH




Red Light camera locations

Site 0863: Brentwood Road (j/w Linford Road, Chadwell St Mary) 30 MPH



Mobile camera locations

Sites 487, 488, 489 and 490: Blackshots Lane, Grays, 30 MPH

Site 494, 495, 692 and 693: Lodge Lane, Grays, 30 MPH

Site 503: A126 London Road, Grays, 30 MPH

Site 505: A1090 London Road, Purfleet, 30 MPH

Site 509 and 510: A1090 Tank Hill Road, Purfleet, 30 MPH

Site 512: London Road, West Thurrock, 30 MPH

Sites 517 and 518: Purfleet Road, Aveley, 30 MPH

Sites 535, 536, 537 and 540: B186 South Road, South Ockendon, 30 MPH

Site 554: Springhouse Road, Corringham, 30 MPH

Sites 555 and 556: Southend Road, Corringham,30 MPH

Sites 561 and 562: London Road,Stanford Le Hope, 30 MPH

Site 565 and 566: A126 Montreal Road, Tilbury, 30 MPH

Site 575: Linford Road, Chadwell St Mary, 30 MPH

Sites 688 and 689: B1335 Stifford Rd, South Ockendon, 40 MPH

Site 721: Riverview, Chadwell St Mary Thurrock, 30 MPH

Sites 762,765: Brentwood Road, Chadwell St Mary, 30 MPH

Site A/R0098: London Road, Grays (Nr Bransons Way) 30 MPH

Site A/R0099: London Road, Grays (Nr Angel Road) 30 MPH



cant find what site they are on about- lying cheating scum

They have discretion to move vans about and therefore do not always tell you a site. Translates as !A quiet day lets hide up and make some money"

They have guidelines which they do not have to follow
We have rules which must be obeyed

Democracy in Action

_________________
I walk I cycle I drive and I vote

surely vans must be marked up, and they must be visible for a minimum of 60m in a 30mph zone

oh the vans are visible for a long way away - it's the markings that ain't.

And as for the bikes - i haven't yet seen one ,but my daughter tells me tha "hedgehog" is a better term.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

i phoned to request photos of evidence and they said they would only send 1 photo, which i argued is not evidence as it shows nothing more than a picture of my bike, told them that refusing to disclose both photos could be interpreted as refusal to comply with disclosure which would then make them guilty of pertaing to obtain funds through decepetion. they didnt like that. said i would seek to recover costs from them and chief of police and read out bit above about ccj's, attachment to earnings and pasin to debt recovery agency etc. they didnt like that as well. they have apparently sent a fixed penalty notice which to me says clutching at straws! they also said in background of call about pace letter and it came from the net so it looks like they have had 1 or 2 of these hahaha.

can i arrest the chief of police( or directors of essex safety camera partnership) for 'pertaining to obtain funds through deception' on the basis they wont release both photos ( as stated in nip for evidence call this number etc) and the fact that i wasnt cautioned??

need everyone else to send ccj letter above to chief of police as this will be a massive manpower job replyin to them all.


P.s if your going to start a fight with someone go full scale war with them.
we are going talivan hunting this weekend in essex ( for photographic proof of unmarked vans in breach of acpo guidelines (inc mobile phone tetra radio distance from machine, guess we will have to look inside) of course ( what were you thinking ? )

hi
yes i have done a pace statement saying i was riding, they sent me the first fpn and as i ignored it wishing to go to court they have sent me another fpn which im going to ignore.
Having a lot of hassle with essex police after i was arrested for assulting a policeman whilst i was held by 2 police officers at the time i supposedly assaulted the officer who fell or tripped over and then shouted assault leading to 6-8 police bundling assaulting me with kerb! all started because i took a photo of thier police car parked 4-5 feet from kerb, see my post in crawley cruise http://www.crawleycruise.com/index.php?showtopic=4722

looks like your reg has been circulated to all plod in essex, IMO change your reg

hi everyone
essec camera partnership took the plunge and sent me a summons with details of the device used to get me a gatsometer bv type 24 and 3 photos!
the first photo shows me on my bike in close up which i think is a zoom in of photo 2 to get my plate!

photo 2 shows me on bike in not zoomed in view and you can just see my girlfriends plate of her bike in this photo nr edge of picture which im going to argue means she was in the field of view.

photo 3 doesnt even show me, just a tiny reflective something which could be anything!!!!!

what this means is if you go really really fast you definately wont show in photo3 on a gatsometer type bv 24 at night !!!! hahah

oh and there are no markings on road for speed issues and none super imposed on pics either which leads me to the question of whats the point of 2 photos if you cant measure physically the distance between photos!!

im basing defence on
a) missus in pic and she will testify that she was doing 70 and i was following her and she didnt trip it showing therefore that the device wasnt working correctly as she didnt get flashed but going same speed.
b) they sent me 2 fixed penalty notices but no proof- this is a crime of demanding money with menaces!!! why do parking tickets sent thru post show proof now!!! whats good for one is good for the other type arguement- also the second fpn said 91 in a 50 and the first one says 91 in a 70. summons is 91 in a 70! incompetant twats
c) the device was in the front of the van as i looked at this van ( having already seen one on way there, i wondered what it was and it had no speed camera sign on it or near it all!) as i came up to it and alongside it till drivers door- no one around vehicle front or rear (although still moved to empty outside lane giving space should some fat builder open door and fall in road tripping over seat belt- thats called due care )- no camera in front on little tripod and as i go past i look in bike mirror and see flash come from where passenger head would be in the cab!-- quite how the operator (and i dont think it was a police officer as a police officer had to sign the paperwork off to be sent out) formed the opinion i was speeding then activated the device when he must of been in the front with it is beyond me. still a good cross examination will reveal all i hope!
d) acpo guidleines for handheld radar says only 1 vehicle in field of view at time. why doesnt this apply to radar in boxes - gatsos. they state this for handhelds, because radar spreads out like ripples on a pond and the radar could bounce of me first and then missus who is further ahead and think i jumped that far in such a short time- could this bugger all gatsos with no marking on road ie mini gatsos!!!
e) question thier expert witness on how devices times itself between photos- probably a cheap capacitator which is always made by the lowest bidder so is the cheapest rubbish some factory in china can produce. now when big computer manufacturer picked my desktop up to repair it they broke the side panels which i argued the force would have knocked the values of resistors transistors capcitators etc and could they give me the values when they were new or what the designer had spec and what the readings are on mine now they had battered it. they couldnt due to silly small size of components these days and they knew i was right and hey presto 1 £2k new computer. so if big computer manufactuer buys it maybe court will. look at how many new cars have blown bulbs - this shows you they are made by cheapest bidder.
F) point out that not in second photo so not conclusive evidence-0 also no lines so cant physically measure speed
g) i did a pace statement which if they tell me now means a confession i will retract and stick to my right to silence as per article 6 european human rights
h) home office type approval is not tested on bikes- why what have they got to hide or does it show more serious flaws up that would totally discredit devices altogether- i was on a bike
I)be surprissed if a court convicts with such dubious evidence whilst clear evidence of camera partnership commiting crime demanding money with menaces and i guess that applies to chief constable of essex as he authorised it.
this is called going from defendant to prosecution in one fell swoop.

have heard if you send letter saying about demanding money with menaces -fpn and threat of worst in court if no payment of money when no proof of money owed shown, that they wont take you to court- but im going to wait till im in court to drop that one and hopefully fuck the fpn system up.
also i was never cautioned as per 10.1 pace yet i could end up with a criminal conviction this sidesteps my legal rights by trying it as a traffic office not criminal.

also very tempted to write across court summons for not guilty or guilty bit about not entering a plea till in crown court and up the stakes- sure magistrates wont like it and send me a nasty letter or 2. law of averages 12 jury members of public or 1 anal judge who think speeders deserve nothing less of death penalty. it will cost them more money for them to take me to court- hahaha

obviously cost have been incurred as a result of this so even if they drop it i will take mr chief of essex police to court for a nice ccj with a bit of luck - credit rating hahahaha

my fingers hurt

looking forward to going to court on this

Mate, my best advice to you is to pick your battles.

You have some potentially good points in there, yet some that are even more reaching than an SCP in full spin. Don't drag down your valid defences with spurious ones.

You have every right to a Crown Court hearing. Do bear in mind that, should you lose there, your costs will be much, much higher. Of course you can appeal, but your financial risk increases with each step.

Bear in mind that the testimony of 'your missus' may not carry the same weight with the court as that of an impartial third party. I also wonder how you intend proving that the camera was inside the vehicle?

I would doubt that the device is timed by a capacitor, more likely an oscillator (Smeggy?). The fact your computer was dropped is unlikely to have any bearing on the proceedings. Regardless, you should find evidence on the net of the imprecise Gatso flash intervals if that helps your case.

You are correct that the Home Office Type Approval does not involve testing on bikes. If you were to take this to the House of Lords and win, then it would form binding precedent in this country, and all bikers would be much indebted to you. It will cost a lot of money to pursue this route.

I am not sure about 'demanding money with menaces', but S172 does, to my mind, constitute an attempt to compel a confession under threat of punishment. I believe that there is currently a case in the ECHR on this matter. You may be able to get your case adjourned until a verdict is returned in that case. Likewise with the PACE statement.

The pratnership commiting a crime does not excuse yours, if there is sufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Do not rely on their transgressions to excuse yours.

Please, please, please take professional legal advice: It will almost certainly pay for itself if you do end up with a case to take to appeal. I presume you have already been pointed to PePiPoo?

this is what i would like to say or if i lose my rag (this is where the criminal conviction could comes in despite having bypassed my legal rights to get me in court in the first place)
"tell the court i been riding since 7,riding on the road since 16 and still here nor no nasty accidents, i have owned this bike for 4/5 yrs now, i have done 200 mph on a bike and not a problem(not on the public highway your honour)! if i wanted to do excess speed - 175mph not a crappy 91mph.
oh and i have more no claims bonus than ive been allowed to drive. 2 policies hehehe 13 yrs no claims in 11yrs of legally being allowed a licence - bet the court dont see that everyday.
i have been in a situation thanks to woman driver deciding at last second to cut acroos me when i had a pillion- had i breaked it would have stood the bike up and run into the side of her or i would have lost the front wheel and gone down in front of her and under car!! so heres what i did without thinking- nailed full throttle 2 gear flicked hard left, flicked hard right, front wheel in gravelly bit and cut across the front of her car and flew like a god!!! very good pirelli dragons stuck and i was a bit surprissed that it didnt lift the front wheel on full throttle in 2 nd gear and being flicked one way then the other does that as well and pillion passenger adds weight to rear making wheelies easy but no me trusty blade stuck where pointed and got me an pillion out of very nasty situation. pillion has experience of being a regular pillion on bikes and viewed it as a cert we were coming off when woman car driver cut across front and was amazed at manouvre pulled off, she said she was viewing car grill about a foot away ( was phat- didnt think just natural reaction - was chuffed after at reactions). thankfully these situations are very rare but if i hadnt of had the power she would of creamed us and we were in shorts ( i know very bad - but very hot- now only ever wear leather race suit)!
makes you think of kids on restricted mopeds and the like .
also if a court really wishes to judge who much of a risk i am is to simply look at insurance costs- cause these guys have to pay out if i fuck up and they make profit...
i pay 180 quid tpft for a fireblade 900 and im 27 now- see the judge get a quote and itll be 300-600 min. hahaha whos safer? yet statistically im supposed to be the riskier one yet insurance companies are fighting for my business.??

so who is really qualified to tell me how to ride safely after all that was why the law was created, when its your skin for real at risk!! some old fart of a judge who cant even ride!!

who has the more experience."

that what id like to say in court but i suspect it wont go down to well!!!
maybe a contempt of court charge but fuck it be worth it

[/b]

can i challenge the scammershits to prove that this case is in the public interest by proving thier speed cameras save 33% lives which is basically a guestimation by the TRL transport research laboritries.
not long ago Motorcycle News offered a MILLION POUNDS if they could prove this claim- funnily enough they didnt take the offer.

if as home office figures shows 2002-2003 that spped accounted for less than 5% of all accidents could it be argued that this case is not in the public interest for the reason that the scammershit spend ridiculous amounts of money in relation to money spent on the campaigns that target the real cause of death on the roads.

surely if <5% of all accidents are speed related then they shold only spend 5% of thier making roads safer budget on speeding not 99% on speeding as they do to make money and be tax collectors trawlering the motorists pocket.

surely the court wont like being made to look like the puppet on strings for the scammershits

No mate, the only way you can get off the charge is to prove you were not exceeding the speed limit. Everything else, no matter how frustrating or compelling, is irrelevant to your case.

i know

might be able to use the part of experience as mitgating circumstances for a lenient punishment if found guilty-- could also be used against me as well--should have known better blah blah blah

will be based mostly on missus not tripping it despite same speed
not tested on bikes
cross examination of i believe a civilian operator who they dont normally like to put on the stand!!
oh and not in second pic and no lines to verify so point being ??
missus just in first pic
acpo guidlines say radar not to used when more than 1 vehichle in field especially if same size!!
and bits on right to silence and pace statement

should still be interesting

i also have a thought that they may have changed the 2nd fpn to 91 in a 50 from a 70 to make it seem even more appealing to me accept which would mean they probably looked at photos and realised not a good chance. wonder if i get another fpn between now and court or they try to settle on a deal? hmmmm hmmmm

could that prove a malicous prosection by the fact they changed the 2nd fpn to 91 in a 50 if im found not guilty due to say 2nd photo not showing me?? hmmmmm