Safe Speed Forums

I got to wondering, with all this talk of the blanket NSL speed reduction to 50mph being policed by SPECS, are these things actually legal?
I mean these things monitor your average speed between fixed points but how can this be enforceable if no vehicles on the road have the technology to advise the driver what his/her average speed actually is?

Bearing in mind that gatsos haven't been properly approved by the home secretary, neither the laser guns it is highly likely that specs haven't so they are really, fully legally able to judge your speed. Also without proper picture proof I wouldn't accept specs calculations as they rely on all of the cameras being set to precisely the correct time and reading your plate infallibly.

Can anpr/specs read the old silver on black vintage plates? I'd be interested to know.

The argument about drink driving is invalid, because any sensible driver would not knowingly consume alcohol before driving

It still does not excuse the fact that no vehicles on the road have an "average" reading speed meter.

How can the Law be allowed to penalise people for doing something they have no reasonable means to check/measure, without the need to constanty watch the speedo or consistantly driving below the speed limit?

:welcome: John7

The law stipulates speed limits in an instantaneous context, not an average one; the law doesn't allow blips of speeds over the limit.
Yes these SPECs measure average speed, so in that respect SPECS are in your favour – you can exceed the limit by a substantial amount yet not be caught, but you can't fall foul of these without breaking the law and you have the means to check/measure (your speedo shows instantaneous speed). Yes you can't check your average speed, but you can check your instantaneous speed - that's all that is needed to remain legal.

I disagree that SPECS are in your favour - I consider them to be dangerous becuase they take the drivers attention from the business of driving and observation as well as inducing stress/boredom which can reduce concentration. They also lead to long periods of vehicles travelling alongside each other (dangerous) as overtake manouvers take much longer to accomplish to ensure you keep your aveage speed below penalty thresholds.

If the Law is based on instantaneous speed (which you can check with your speedometer) then average speed cameras must be illegal (or immoral?) as you cannot determine your average speed unless you are linked into the SPECS system?

It still does not excuse the fact that no vehicles on the road have an "average" reading speed meter.

Folks,

I have a simple question about specs. Will these be clearly marked at first camera and at the end? If so, wouldn't this be better for us in one sense? We could hit the first camera at well over the speed limit and then just slow down or even stop to ensure no conviction. This is much better than single point traps, where it's happened before we have the chance to slow down.

Am I right about this?

C.

Folks,

I have a simple question about specs. Will these be clearly marked at first camera and at the end? If so, wouldn't this be better for us in one sense? We could hit the first camera at well over the speed limit and then just slow down or even stop to ensure no conviction. This is much better than single point traps, where it's happened before we have the chance to slow down.

Am I right about this?

C.

Can a man be found guilty of murder on the sole basis that it can be shown that nobody else was present when it occurred?

Folks,

I have a simple question about specs. Will these be clearly marked at first camera and at the end?

Don Frame
March 10, 2009


A DRIVER who lost a speeding test case that could have opened the floodgates to thousands of appeals is going to a higher court.

Former computer engineer Aitken Brotherston challenged the legality of speed cameras during a five-day hearing at Manchester Crown Court.

Appeal

He also lost an appeal against a speeding conviction after he was clocked at 52mph in a 40 limit on Princess Parkway.

He was left facing legal costs of up to £10,000, but intends to keep fighting and has lodged notice of appeal with the Administrative Court in London.

Website

Mr Brotherston, 61, of Lymm, Cheshire, is setting up a website on the case, hoping people will also help with costs. He argued that all speed cameras since 1992 were unlawful, because successive Home Secretaries had approved them without proper Parliamentary scrutiny.

He had hoped his conviction would be quashed on the grounds the camera equipment was illegal.

Laser

Mr Brotherston told the Manchester hearing he `firmly believed' he had not been speeding when targeted by a laser gun. He claimed the LTI 20/20 Speedscope device must have given an inaccurate reading.

Convicted

He refused to pay a fixed penalty and when convicted in court, he was fined £250 and ordered to pay £2,800 costs. His barrister, Michael Shrimpton, said the 1991 Road Traffic Act meant Parliamentary backing was needed for all new speeding devices. He claimed a `horribly unconstitutional' system had developed, with ministers dodging the procedure.

'Satisfied'

Dismissing the appeal, Judge Jonathan Gibson said he was satisfied speed camera gear had been lawfully implemented and the device which clocked Mr Brotherston's speed had been operated correctly.

Mr Brotherston said: "As far as we are concerned the legal case is clear - there is no proper authority for these products to be in use. "We are optimistic we can still win this on appeal."

I don't think that's a fair analogy. In yours, the offence has likely been committed (could yet be suicide), or the crime was committed but possibly by someone else (cunningly framed); hence there is room for doubt. For the camera, there's no doubt the offence has been committed and there's no doubt as to which vehicle (as opposed to which person - but that applies to any camera) did it, we just can't say exactly where the offence was committed.

However, I take your point from a legal point of view (the legal system is prone to error), so for me the question should be:

Has there been a case where everyone accepted the occurrence of the crime and that the accused did it, but the case/charge was subsequently dropped for the sole reason that it couldn't be shown exactly where or when the crime happened?