Safe Speed Forums

That's not really accurate. The main point of the ACPO guidelines (and we can bet that some trigger thresholds are set at the ACPO guideline minimum) is to ensure that an offence has been committed once all possible errors in measurement and recording have been accounted for.

So it is entirely possible that a motorist at 31mph might, on occasion, be recorded as driving at 35mph and prosecuted.



The government has indicated that it intends to add the victim levy to fixed penatlies. The delay is administrative or organisational and does not represent any sort of 'right' or intention.

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

It is becoming a nasty world indeed where everything we do is becoming compelled by law. And the prescriptions remove ever more discretion from the police and ever more personal responsibility from the individual.

There are some who welcome this change in society; there are those of us who fast losing respect for the law and the increasingly pompous, arrogant and hypocritical structure that enforces it have started by refusing to do anything but comply with the letter of the law.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

A few FACTS might be appropriate here:

1. There is absolutely no LEGAL requirement for a company named as keeper to log all journeys and drivers.
2. The listing of the Magistrates Courts Service as 'Partners' in the speed camera schemes is seen by many as undemocratic, not consistent with the English (unwritten) constitution. In fact the Magistrates Courts are seen as co-conspirators in the 'cash-grab', and one can see why. Even if that is not the case, then the fact is that the public have that as a perception. Is that what the gov't want in order to dissuade motorists accused of speeding from defending themselves?
3. S172 is the first piece of legislation which requires a suspect to confess, or be found guilty of not confessing. This is a FACT.
4. Despite all the 'spin' and lies surrounding them, speed cameras are not, will not and, in FACT, cannot reduce road casualties by more than a very small percentage.
5. Magistrates, whom we should be able to trust absolutely to be impartial, are not demonstrating this to the public as they should. They may be impartial, but they are not demonstrating this. They should demand that the Magistrates Courts Service be immediately removed from the lists of Speed Camera Partners in order to restore their credibility.
6. The reason that there are not more appeals against decisions of magistrates is because many simply can't afford to try to obtain justice by going to appeal.
7. Whether they like it or not, the Magistrates are seen as being part of the 'Establishment' and seen as likely to go down the government's desired route.
8. The entire spiteful and useless speed-camera scheme is driving a wedge of bad-feeling between ordinary tax-paying middle England and the Police and Magistrates - those whom we traditionally look upon as our protectors.

I take your point but stand by my post. If you are over the posted limit but under the trigger speed, no penalty will be imposed.



I stand corrected.
At the moment fixed penalties don't have the surcharge, they probably will in the future.

Hmmm. Precise true speed can never be known because no measurement is perfectly accurate. Are you sure you have thought this through?

The practical use of real world measurement equipment, may on occasion result in measurement errors approaching the ACPO guideline tolerance.

True speed could well be under trigger speed and a penalty could still be imposed.

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

As things stand at the moment others inside the system disagree with that view. All it would take to force a change of attitude in every court in the country is for someone like you who knows there is no legal requirement to share their knowledge with someone who is appealing a conviction. It would cost you nothing, help the appellant and put an end to the myth once and for all.



The Magistrates Courts Service no longer exists. It is HMCS which is part of the partnerships. Which means everything from JPs to Law Lords.
The administrative connection that exists is seen by many as entirely sensible.



Unless of course he is unable to do so despite reasonable diligence. The Human Rights Act specifically allows some human rights of individuals or groups to be breached when it is in the greater interest to do so. At the moment that is the case. This may change.



Others will disagree in equally assertive terms.




I regularly demonstrate my impartiality by applying the law as it is written. This offends those who wish me to interpret the law in a way which would gain them a not guilty verdict. They then go on to accuse me of being biased.

Those who think JPs credibility is adversely affected by the fact that HMCS is part of camera partnerships are those who don't understand the facts of judicial independence.
There is an adminstrative need for court listing staff to talk to ticket office staff which is why HMCS is is involved. If the connection were to be severed the two organisations would still need to communicate at an admin level. You would then say that the connection was being hidden and shout conspiracy.




Evidence of this? If you know that you were convicted because the JPs ignored the facts and/or misapplied the law you will win at the crown court and it will cost you nothing.



Well yes. Government makes the laws. JPs are obliged to uphold the law, as passed, or resign. Would you have us ignore the law and make it up as we go along?



It has certainly upset a lot of people. All those years telling their partners, children, mates at the pub etc just how good a driver they are. Then they have to admit that they failed to see the 30MPH signs - or the camera - and got some points.



At least we agree on the words " a FEW facts" although I think my emphasis more appropriate than yours.

I didn't intend the point to be taken inthe way it was and don't have the ability to make a sensible contribution to that particualr arguement.

My intention was to show that many speeders are not penalised at all because of the way the sytem works. By comparison very few shoplifters escape some kind of penalty.
Which is contrary to the accepted wisdom.

That's not quite accurate though fisherman. You've omitted that the HMCS is also part of the netting off process, in other words, they receive a 'cut' from the revenue that cameras provide. You may be 'whiter than white' (I have no reason to doubt you), justice, for it to be seen as impartial, independant and fair, must be seen to be impartial, independant and fair. Advertisements with
in partnership with the Police and HMCS certainly does nothing for HMCS or I might add, hardworking and well meaning individuals like yourself.

PS, I do acknowledge and respect you for giving your free time on here, especially in the shadow of adversity. I'm sure most feel the same way.

I stand by the FACTS I quoted above.
The fact is that vehicles breaking the speed limit account for 5% of accident causation. Thus the cameras are addressing 5% of the causation factor. If they cut all, and I mean all speeding by 50%, which would be regarded as a real success, they would reduce accidents by 2.5%. That is sound logic which cannot be disproved in any sort of scientific way. If you address 5% of a problem, you can never achieve any better than a 5% improvement, even if the corrective measure is 100% effective.

Where then, Mr. Fisherman, is the specific legislation which requires me to keep a log of the drivers of my company-owned vehicles? Chapter & verse please.

The Magistrates courts service can have re-branded itself with a new name, but whichever name it uses it's still listed as a partner in the camera schemes. You and your colleagues are educated enough to be able to understand how the courts system keeps its independence whilst being listed as a 'Partner' but Mr. Average does not. He PERCEIVES the courts as accomplices in the cash-camera schemes and loses respect accordingly. It's not necessary to list the Courts Service as 'Partners', so why do it if it's not intended to frighten people into paying-up without a fight, even if they feel they are innocent.

This requirement to 'self-incriminate' is the first time it has happened in English law and saying that there is an absolute defence of not-knowing, after saying that even though it's not a legal requirement to keep a vehicle log and that Magistrates are not likely to be persuaded that the keeper did not know is somewhat conflicting. As an OAP, I find it a disgrace that our law has sunk to these depths of applying duress in order to grab some more cash, for that is what it's truly about - that and politics. It's certainly not about road safety, and that's another FACT.

Crikey a full two cups of coffee thread!
Only one or two observations. Firstly hats off to fisherman for taking the time to get involved in such a lengthy and quite rightly arguementative discussion. But...frankly I don't believe that any driver hasn't at one time or another ignored the speed limit and broken it. Never even accelerated towards a NSL sign as you left a village?

As for the expectation that companies keep driving records and that not doing so may end up counting against them. Well that stinks. It just nicely muddies the water enough. And I don't buy the 'do we have to legislate everything' arguement. In this case yes we do - if the judiciary want any sort of clarity and don't end up stiffing companies that genuinely didn't know who was driving.

My own single experience of the magistrates was good - not because I got off, not that sort of case - but because I was listened to and everything was considered carefully. Though even I had the cash in my pocket just in case But I don't doubt that inspite of training etc that some bring their prejudices to court and it would be as hard to prove they did as it is is to prove that some toe-rag intended to deprive someone of their stuff permanently.

It also wrong that there is any connection or partnership between those that uphold the law and those that dispense justice. They've always been separate and should remain so even if such partnerships are wholly innocent. Let the conspiracy theorists be just that theorists.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

Aren't you allowed to use common sense? i.e. someone pinged at 33mph at 3 in the morning, no other traffic etc... perfectly safe circumstances... totally let them off? Now to me, THAT would be justice (and fair). Equally, I'd expect you to be heavy-handed with someone driving past a school at 33mph at 3.30pm on a weekday...

If you can only be impartial, why sit as a JP? We could have JP Gatsos that just automatically dispenses the punishment... Oh we do...

And yes, I agree with Wayneo regarding your postings on here...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

You will have to forgive me Cooperman but I won't argue statistics. They can be made to support anything but are most successful when supporting staisticians and their families.


I have already given the piece of law which is used in these situations, s172.
You keep telling me that there is no requirement to keep records. Tell me where that is set in law and I guarantee I will have it posted on the magistrates association website within 5 minutes of my seeing it. Within a few days just about every JP will have seen it and you will have changed the way the law is interpreted.
If however you can't point to a piece of law, but are relying on your personal interpretation of s172 as meaning that there is no requirement then I have already explained that others, more learned in the law than you or I, have already taken a view contrary to yours.



The government changed the name, not us. JPs are now full members of the court system and not a separate service.

You seem unwilling to accept the existence of judicial independence so I see no point in arguing this any further.
BTW, have a look in the media. The new Ministry of Justice has provoked an unprecedented attack by judges at all levels in order to guarantee the continued existence of judicial independence.


Only because a few very vocal people keep telling him to believe things are that way.


That may well be correct. At the moment this is legal, even the human rights legislation permits it. This may change.

We like to think we use common sense whenever we can.

But when faced with a strict liability offence such as speeding, evidence beyond reasonable doubt of guilt and no viable defence (such as an emergency) we must follow the law.

Believe me when I say you don't want to get into a situation where JPs are allowed to decide which laws to abide by and which to ignore.

All said and done, the system of Magistrates is the closest we have, to having 'real' people in the Judicial process as opposed to legal 'professionals' who shall we say, may not have experienced life as many of us have. I certainly wish for us to preserve the system we have, it isn't perfect and it may be under increasing constraint, it most certainly is better than a system of Justice for votes like the American system.

My bench has a couple of people with titles, a nurse, electrician, bus driver, driving instructor, post man, railway train manager, retired navy officer, a housewife (her choice of word not mine), 3 or possibly 4 unemployed people, several single parents, christians, jews, muslims, a sikh, a number of atheists, an almost 50/50 split between men and women, age range from 26 to 69, black, white, asian, chinese, gay, straight, single, divorced, cohabiting etc etc.

All working together with a range of aims in mind. Among those aims - justice, to ensure that ordinary people can contribute to the system, to maintain local courts with local people to deal with local crime, to ensure that those higher up the system can keep in touch with ordinary folk etc etc.


Voting judges in as they do in some countries sounds good until you realise that if they have to stand for election they are politicians not judges.

Poor old Fisherman, he's certainly taken some flak on this forum, and always manages to come back with more snippets about the 'world of justice'. I hope he's not too upset with my posts, and I apologise if I have said anything I should not, or which is wildly incorrect; it's just that I'm a bit cross about law-enforcement in this country.

Fisherman's is a world with which most of us are not familiar, especially the details and intimate interstices of how this world actually works. I have to say I find it a bit complicated myself; only experts really know, hence the ordinary citizen is at a distinct disadvantage.

On thinking about it, perhaps it WOULD be better if we just had an inhuman machine in charge of justice; at least we would then know that 1984 really has arrived, and could act accordingly, (like Winston Smith) It is the appearance of normality that fools us all.

It seems to me that most people realise full well that this Government is hell bent on making summary, non-appealable, instant payment, penalties the norm. I hesitate to use the word 'justice' for this. Just look at the fine for litter handed out for throwing 2 crisps into the gutter in the papers this week. Council apologised only when the glare of publicity came upon them, they would have taken the money happily otherwise.

Here is a starter for 10 -

What redress does a citizen have if the police impound his car for no insurance, (even though he IS insured), because of an error in 'THE DATABASE' ? Remembering most of us haven't the resources to go through any kind of 'judicial review' or to employ costly lawyers to get any kind of compensation however small.

Here is yet another snippet on 'justice':-

Under the a new Bill (shortly to become an Act), Transport for London can seize a vehicle if their fines, (sorry, Penalty Charges !!), have not been paid, (offences relating to, inter alia, box-junctions and bus-lanes), even though the owner may not be the person who committed the offence. Apparently he will be able to pay a 'bond' of several hundred poundsto release the car until it's sorted out by TfL, and his bond is returned.
Assuming he gets the bond back, nothing is said about compensation for the cost of the bond. These things are NOT free, you have to get them from a finance house or a bank who charge for them, it is a normal thing in business contracts freely entered into by the parties, not imposed by law as with TfL. And, of course, no mention of compensation for the inconvenience or stress of having the car seized and being unable to use it until the 'bond' is paid.

Answers here, please. (Maybe I am wrong and it won't really work like this, but somehow I doubt it)

Once again I rest my case on the disappearance of justice from this once-great country of ours

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

You are quite right safedriver, but how long will it take for the British people to wake up and do something about it? I hope I'm well gone before.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Blimey, is there anyone in the town who's not a magistrate?

Seriously though, I agree that on the whole you do a good and difficult job, which makes it all the more important to stop this nasty trend towards instant guilt and instant punishment.

That list surprised me too, although to be fair I should point out that some people fall into more than 1 category.

A few years ago the list would have included a professional magician, a bouncer, a firefighter and a sailing instructor.



There is a limit to what JPs can do without being accused of being motivated by a desire to prevent loss of powers and consequent diminution of status.

The only people who can reverse this change are the politicans. Letters and petitions will do nothing. It needs people to actually go and see their MP. Take up their time and let them know exactly which aspect of the new laws you are unhappy with. Make it clear that you will be seeing the prospective candidates as well. And most important of all that your vote goes to the one who promises to try to get things changed.

And today, the British Retail Consortium announced a 100% rise in shoplifting since the fixed penalty system was introduced. Average shoplifting haul = £150. Fixed Penalty = £80. Surprized?

These people intend to permanently deprive the shopkeeper of the goods and are thus thieves. Mostly, they are serial offenders but the fixed penalty system (introduced to save the courts time and money) seems not to get them off the streets.

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