Safe Speed Forums

no

So you sometimes form a prior opinion that a vehicle is speeding then the LTI "proves beyond reasonable doubt" that your opinion is wrong?

_________________
Andrew.

yes

And as you said "i am not a police officer" - but hey the LAW states that only a police officer is deemed fit to give a predetermined opinion that a vehicle is speeding - you are not a police officer by admission - so do you not think that you should admit to "impersonating a police officer", give yourself up and admit to perverting the course of justice by prosecuting, wrongly, a lot of innocent drivers?

That's far from accurate. Camera Operator isn't impersonating a police officer. 'The system' is assuming that he is empowered to make the judgement and gather evidence. It's an assumption that must be challenged, but Camera Operator isn't responsible.

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

Take the bit about "impersonating" but someone , somewhere is using one giant bluff.

maybe

Right, I'm new here so if what I say has gone before well so what.

Scenario.....I am driving my own vehicle in a 40 mph limit doing what I believe to be 40 mph my speedo also says 40 mph. A civilian camera operator thinks I'm going in excess of the speed limit and his Lti records my speed as 45 mph.................My opinion (as a police officer) is corroborated by my speedo. The civilian operator (who cannot legally give opinion) says it was speeding and his equipment says 45 mph.

Surely I am therefore deemed to be "not speeding"

Sir, I like the cut of your jib. I also think you're going to like it around here.

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

Ah, but you're not on duty at the time (does/did that matter??)........or driving at 159mph

Doesn't say anything about on/off duty so I'm safe what about the rest of you

Hey Paul? I've become a member so where's me little badge? (Ahhh Very Smart! Thank you, I'll going to show it to my mum )

Not really



If you happen to see a camera van being deployed contrary to ACPO guidelines then................

A generic witness statement format on the SS website to be completed by a witnessing member and forwarded through the SS website (via email) to the Chief Constable of the area concerned. The statement should point out which ACPO guidelines were being breached etc and the statement should include a direction that the statement is included as an enclosure with all NIPs generated out of that particular enforcement session.

The NIP's are sent out on the Chiefs behalf so maybe he should be more aware of what is going on.

AND

If it ever came to light that he had chosen not to inform people about information that might undermine the prosecution case then.......OUCH!

I think you're going to like it round here too!

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

A generic witness form is an excellent idea.

Certainly for SCP's and visibility possibly for SCP vehicles exceeding the posted limit?

Great idea - especially if the SCP can be "persuaded" to pay attention to it .
BTW a site audit form exists on ABD - might be a starting point?

_________________
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 have heard that the Partnerships don't get the £60 IF they do not comply with the ACPO guidelines, is this true?, who moniters this?, could they receive a copy of the generic statement? The threat of losing the £60 might make the SCP pay attention.

Yes, the guidelines are part of the hypothecation rules. In other words for the partnership to qualify for claiming their "expenses" back they have to comply with the rules on signage, visibility etc.

However, the first point is that I don't think this is done on a fine by fine basis. Rather I think that the partnership will claim for a specific sum of money from the DfT to cover their operating expenses, and as part of the claim will no doubt declare that the operating guidelines have been complied with. I don't believe it is as simple as being able to remove £60 from their pot every time they break the rules.

And as to the question of who enforces this, I suppose the answer is "nobody". Obviously the Partnership won't, as they are the ones that stand to gain most by breaking the rules. Similarly the DfT are hardly going to put a spanner in the works of a nice little earner by interrupting the cash flow - be a bit like killing the golden goose!

I think the best you might hope for without any outside intervention might be a mildly worded reminder from the DfT to the scammers to remember to obey the rules.

So the way forward is perhaps to bring this topic into the public domain. The reminder to the CC about any records of non-compliance qualifying for primary disclosure is an excellent one. Also, we might consider using the FoI act, to ask the DfT...

(a) how many instances of non-compliance have been reported to them?

and

(b) on how many occasions this has led to expenses being withheld, as per the rules?

The two things taken together could be a bit of an awkward wake-up call to them.

And yes, a pre-printed witness statement to record any instances of non-compliance is an excellent idea, with copies to be sent to the partnership, the CC and the DfT so that nobody can bury it.

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

It's the DfT guidelines that are supposed to result in claim back suspension on a by site basis.

And of course any case that goes to court is automatically moved outside the cash recovery scheme. So if you want to keep your cash away from the scammers, then choose not to accept the FPN.

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

Of course they'll take notice............especially when the quarterly dossier is released to the press.

Sorry, can I just make sure I'm clear on this. If I see a Talivan hiding in the bushes or something and write in to say that they weren't following the rules, the partnership loses the ability to claim back all the fines it made from that site? Is it just that period of operation/shift/whatever or every time they've used that site? Or is it retrospective (ie would they have to get money out of the tea kitty to give back to the govt)? Are they allowed to ignore any complaints unless there's some solid evidence? (Folks - disposal cameras are so cheap there's no excuse for not keeping one in the car for just this sort of thing )

Basically, could we please have a Duffer's Guide somewhere (as a sticky perhaps) for catching SCPs out on the guidelines and stuffing up some of their revenue.

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