Speed camera loophole

She'd probably like it too. Well, maybe not the murder but even then
she'd die with that godawful smile on her face.

 

True, but those taken together only make up a very small portion of
those prosecuted.

Why would you suppose that?

He didn't say anything to indicate whether he thinks the speed limits
are right, just a way to avoid getting done for breaking them.

I suspect you may be right, but he certainly didn't say anything that
would make that obvious.

That is a lie.

You do NOT have to prove your innocence. The system may be skewed, but
it is still up to them to prove your guilt.

No, the result is that *some* people will do that.

Not many, I am sure.

 

How do you know this? The *entire* point is that there is no way to know how
many prosecutions are bogus. Once a summons is dropped, it's as if it never
existed. It certainly won't be counted under "official" stats.

No it fucking isn't. Have you actually *any* clue how the system works?

Spot the difference:

1) NIP arrives, you suspect that you may be innocent, but cough to it
anyway. Net result £60 and 3 points down.

2) NIP arrives, you suspect that you may be innocent, so you ask to see the
evidence. "No, says SCP, not unless you go to court". So you go to court,
see the evidence and think, "yup, that's me bang to rights", so you tell the
magistrates that you are guilty.
Net result, £60 fine, 3 points and £40 "costs" for daring to turn up and
plead guilty.

3) NIP arrives, you suspect that you may be innocent, so you go to court,
and are found guilty.
Net result, £150 fine, 3-6 points and £150 "costs" for daring to turn up
rather that pay up and shut up.

These figures are from the case before and after mine at magistrates court 4
years ago.


So explain to me how it is correct that in option 2 you have to pay 66% more
simply to be certain that the evidence against you is valid? In *any* other
circumstances, those wanting to prosecute you are legally obligated to
provide you with ALL evidence they intend to use against you BEFORE you
commit to a plea.



We've been here many times before. Picture this scenario, where 100 Fixed
Penalty Notices have been issued:

Option 1: 20 people contest it and 10 of them are found innocent. Suddenly,
"50% of all challenged speeding tickets are found to be incorrect". That
won't do, that would look like our "Safety Cameras" aren't working.

So, Option 2: 20 people contest it, and every contested summons is
withdrawn. Now you have "a 100% conviction rate for FPNs". But dig a bit and
someone might find out that 20% of your tickets are cancelled, and start
asking why...

So to option 3 then: 100 FPNs issued. 20 people contest it, and they are
told that if they do contest it and are found guilty, the fine *will* be
bigger, and they will have to pay £100+ costs on top of the fine. In
addition, we won't even let you see any of the evidence against you to
decide which way to plead without having to pay court costs.


How many of those 20 people would be prepared to lose a days wages AND at
least another 40 quid just to find out whether it's worth pleading not
guilty, when the alternative is to simply pay 60 quid and forget about it?
Not fucking many.

 

You could, I suppose, be correct in that - but how do you know?

Why are you sure?

 

If so many safe respectable people are being fined for driving at a totally
safe speed for the road type and conditions, maybe the better way to reduce
speeding situations would be to raise some of the moronically low limits,
enforce them a bit more intelligently and put a small amount of effort into
detecting and correcting just some of the other appalling driving
incapabilities.

 

: If so many safe respectable people are being fined for driving at a totally
: safe speed for the road type and conditions

How would you define "perfectly safe", as a matter of interest?

Ian
--

 

Have a read of the latest copy of MCN.................best to ignore
all the crap posted by eggsuckers on here though!

k

 

Answer me this.

Do you think that a person who can't see a great big reflective yellow
box is a safe driver?

Do you think someone who doesn't know what speed they're travelling at
is a safe driver?

I don't think they are by a long shot.

 

Obviously people who are blind or unobservant class as safe in his
world.

 

Conor () gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Answer me this

Do you think that all speed enforcement - even all cameras - are "great big
reflective yellow boxes"? And that, of those that are, none are hidden by
street furniture or foliage?

 

There used to be a gem on the A45 near Meriden placed right behind the road
sign it came into view when you were about 30 metres away , not good on a 60
mph road ,

 

: Conor () gurgled happily, sounding much like they
: were saying :
:
: > Answer me this.
: >
: > Do you think that a person who can't see a great big reflective yellow
: > box is a safe driver?
:
: Answer me this
:
: Do you think that all speed enforcement - even all cameras - are "great big
: reflective yellow boxes"? And that, of those that are, none are hidden by
: street furniture or foliage?

Good point. You should make it to the bloke who wrote

In the "Nip in the post" thread ...

Ian


--

 

Ian Johnston () gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Would that be the same bloke who also posted

in that same thread?

 

Have you looked at the reasons used to justify cameras? I know of one by me
where the KSI toll on the road was entirely down to one suicidal pedestrian.

There have been several other cases posted on here which were similarly
non-speed related.

 

snip>

The only question I'll answer for you is whether or not I think you're
still a know nothing ****.

I think you probably know the answer.

 

OK, So I admit to not being a safe driver then.

If, when I'm driving along with the flow of traffic you stopped
me and asked how fast I was going I doubt that I could tell you.

Why is this skill a necessary part of being a safe driver?

tim

 

Is that the issue? Surely the issue is not one of "seeing" a speed camera but
one of picking it out from all the other visual clutter?

Let's take another look at that second question, and turn it round in the usual
way - which, as it happens, never gets an answer:

Is it impossible to drive safely in a motor vehicle whose speedometer has broken?

 

I can't find the reference right now, but I've read some research
which IIRC showed that, on a multi-lane road (dual carriageway /
motorway), the safest speed to travel at (in terms of accident
statistics) is a speed at which you're going faster than 80% of the
other traffic and slower than the remaining 20% - or some reasonably
similar numbers.

This somewhat bears out common sense - you're more likely to have an
accident if you're slow and confused (and causing other drivers to
have to overtake), or driving like a complete hooligan at a much
higher speed than the rest of the traffic. It's pretty much what I do
in practice. So it's quite possible I wouldn't know my precise
numerical speed on a motorway - but I'd be able to say I was faster
than x% and slower than y%, which is the only thing that seems
significant from a speed/safety standpoint.

How far I was looking ahead, and how much gap I left to the car in
front are far more significant safety questions, IMHO.

Mike

 

: Ian Johnston () gurgled happily, sounding much
: like they were saying :
:
: >: Do you think that all speed enforcement - even all cameras - are
: >: "great big reflective yellow boxes"? And that, of those that are,
: >: none are hidden by street furniture or foliage?
:
: > Good point. You should make it to the bloke who wrote
:
: >> "I think you mean "Even my own two eyes didn't save me from this
: >> one..." - less reliance on gadgets, more reliance on observation...
:
: > In the "Nip in the post" thread ...
:
: Would that be the same bloke who also posted
:
: >>> If you did it, cough. You've got away scot-free umpteen times, this
: >>> time you were unlucky."
:
: in that same thread?

It would indeed. I thought it was good advice.

Cheers,

Ian

 

I had rather thought that Conor (as a professional driver) was
assuming the line that my father used to quote "A good driver
knows how fast he is going without looking at the spedo".

I've no idea if he could actually do this, but if he could he didn't
pass the gene onto me (not so that I can tell the difference
between 29 and 34 anyway).

tim