mjm wrote, in part:
"If ... [the SCP is] asking ... [Mrs Cheddar] if she owns the vehicle with that numberplate, on their photograph, then the answer has to be a maybe.(It could be a clone)."
And it could be mjm who has got hold of a similar car to Mrs C's and was driving it along the same stretch of road that C and his missus had been driving along at the same time. Or it could be Martians. Let's keep to what is realistic, shall we?
and went on to say:
"the fact that you have to fill it in makes it inadmissible as evidence (a confession obtained under duress and threat of prosicution which is contrary to some part of human rights legislation.)."
No. There was a case on precisely this point - bizarrely (or appositely, depending on your politics and IIRC) - an Austrian one. It isn't inadmissible, however much some of us would like it to be.
And, further:
"If she therefore says, quite honestly, that she cannot remember who was driving, and the matter goes to court, then the only admissible evidence are the indeterminate photographs."
Again, no. I refer my friend to s. 172 if in any doubt re failure to provide driver details.
And, finally:
"If the camera had been two pairs of eyes in a patrol car then the problem would not have arisen."
We all agree - I suspect - on this point. But I would not be prepared to fund a thousand-fold (at least) increase in traffic police.
BTW, isn't Cheddar entitled to some sort of a prize for creating a 300+-post thread? Maybe a borrow of HJ's glasses, or the right to wear his titfer for a week?
|
|
|
cheddar
Just get her to NOMINATE a driver so that the powers that be can get it over and done with and get on with the next case. It's only a speeding offence not murder. -- L\'escargot.
That highlights the difference between you and me. I don't want to live in a country where I accept a £60 fine and 3 points just to keep the powers that be happy, and to expedite the bureaucratic processes. "It's a fair cop officer, please, allow me to take that truncheon so that I can beat myself up, ouch ouch, right, off to the cells we go. So kind of you, ouch ouch." (Yes I know out police do not beat people up. It's satire.)
Speed cameras are supposed to increase road safety, not raise revenue. Quite how this farce helps I know not. It is all about allowing the dishonest to escape prosecution, and the honest to be bullied into accepting a potentially unjust punishment. This is how people like Mr. Loophole (allegedly) get people off if they have the readies to feed his money habit.
The problem here is that it potentially makes a mockery of an automated 'safety device'. Of course the correct solution is to have cameras which record an image of the driver, with details down to the last nasal hair. The solution is not to bully people as is the case at present.
|
So persuade a party to restrict speed cameras to genuine road safety positions.
None of them will do it.
|
The real point here is that 'revenue gathering cameras' are a blunt tool designed for taxing motorists further rather than road safety..............
This is why we must fight them wherever practicable.
|
|
|
So persuade a party to restrict speed cameras to genuine road safety positions. None of them will do it.
Politicians are for the most part professional liars, who decide what they want, then make up a story to justify it. Regarding speed cameras, they could tighten the rules. Only allow them in places where a statistically significant number of deaths and/or serious injuries have occurred due to speeding would be a good start. Encourage the use of mobile cameras in residential areas, to catch loonies who race round estates. In the Thames Valley (Slough) speed camera use seemed okay. Here in Luton and surroundings they are not used well, with cameras seemingly placed to catch speeders rather than prevent accidents. In my opinion anyway.
|
this really has gone on a bit hasn't it........bottom line
if the owner of the car complies as well as they can with the requirement to 'nominate', fills in the correct form etc and is honest..........in this case, where the owner does not know who was driving...the chances are the fuss will die down and that will be that. The worst case scenario is a court appearance because someone over zealous has pushed the prosecution....(with no doubt the mindset, if they don't loads of other people will try the same course of action)...
this will mean Mrs Cheese turning up before the magistrates and telling the truth.
Case Dismissed. I really cannot see any other result. How can there be........an honest person turns up and tells the truth and cannot comply with the 'naming the driver', because she doesn't know. As mentioned before the Hamiltons and Ferguson did exactly that.
now, if Mrs Cheese were to be dishonest (heaven forbid) and be caught out telling porkies, then that's a different story........ and it would be very silly to go before the court and give evidence on oath with that mindset.........because a simple motoring matter then becomes a serious crime... note Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken and maybe Lord Browne.
the bigger picture is.......should you be in the position, that you have to worry about a court appearance........for something that the State is not prepared to 'prove'........and i think not, even if others then jump on the band wagon, dishonestly and use the same process to get themselves off..... I think the State should ensure that the system is set up, so that this sort of thing is not a problem and that there are no doubts...
But of course that would mean cops doing the work, not machines and it would cost money, both in the employment of more cops and loss of camera revenue.......so we'll keep the flawed system as it's more cost effective.........great........what a wonderful country we've turned into....we use to have a criminal justice system that was the envy of the world.........not any more
|
OK:
As I said before, and as the wife will acknowledge, we beleive that she is less inclined to watch her speed than I but for on open roads and motorways when I am the faster driver, furthermore I sent an e-mail on the day in question about 35 mins after the offence was committed which helps us pin it down a little, therefore she has now completed and posted part 3 of the NIP together with her license and a cheque.
She is not 100% she was driving, though she is now perhaps now 85% sure and is clearly sure enough for the SCP people according to the conversation I had last week.
I was concerned that a keeper claiming that they were driving without being 100% sure could be an offence in its own right though some contributors here do not concur with that and neither do, as indicated above, the SCP people.
Thanks for all contributions, an interesting debate.
|
....and i think not, even if others then jump on the band wagon, dishonestly and use the same process to get themselves off..... ..... ..... But of course that would mean cops doing the work, not machines and it would cost money, ...
in reply to westpig: have you seen this news story
tinyurl.com/38873v
May 11, 2007 Court gives up on ?speeding? driver who made a fuss
...and is clearly sure enough for the SCP people according to the conversation I had last week.
in reply to cheddar:
i just cannot see how an anonymous employee at the scp can tell you anything of that nature without the authority to do so, and i am puzzled how you are prepared to accept the word of some anonymous scp employee so casually or readily. i shall withdraw this statement of doubt if that employee can be named or is/was prepared to give that response to you in writing.
|
i just cannot see how an anonymous employee at the scp can tell you anything of that nature without the authority to do so and i am puzzled how you are prepared to accept the word of some anonymous scp employee so casually or readily.>>
We do not accept it casually however it was amongst a number of factors outlined previously.
On one hand we dont agree with applying a penalty without conclusive evidence as to who commited the offence and we would have relished a fight, on the otherhand an offence was commited* so such a fight might have lead to a hollow victory at best and been very time consuming.
*There is one more thing I am going to do, I should have done it before, that is measure the distance between the white lines on the road, I guess they are 1.5 meters apart, if so then a calculation concurs with the camera, if they are less then a letter will follow the NIP in the post.
Last question:
Does wife need to advise her insurer now or upon renewal, likewise me because she is named on my insurance too?
Regards.
Edited by Webmaster on 02/05/2008 at 21:02
|
Last question: Does wife need to advise her insurer now or upon renewal likewise me because she is named on my insurance too?
Now. Even if neither insurer adjusts the premium, they will still expect to be told. If you don't, you end up in "material non-disclosure" territory.
When I was studying insurance law years ago, our tutor drummed into us "Disclose everything as soon as you become aware of it - don't give the ins co grounds to avoid liability". IST(vaguely)R that there was some fairly spectacular caselaw on this point.
|
|
Thanks Paul, makes sense.
|
It has taken me just 10 mins to update both (wife's and mine) policies on-line via the excellent eCar portal, no additional charge on either policy.
Regards.
|
|
*There is one more thing I am going to do I should have done it before that is measure the distance between the white lines on the road I guess they are 1.5 meters apart if so then a calculation concurs with the camera if they are less then a letter will follow the NIP in the post.
The lines are 1.5 meters apart, I have measured them this evening.
|
|
|
|
in reply to westpig: have you seen this news story tinyurl.com/38873v May 11 2007 Court gives up on ?speeding? driver who made a fuss
The headline is a little misleading. The camera is certified for use up to 100m away. The driver was 239m away. Now I've designed a lot of test equipment in my time. I know that if the spec sheet says there's a limit to it, its for a very very good reason. Otherwise the marketing department would insist that we could get extra sales if the performance on the extended parameters was known.
We'll probably not know the real reasons for the case being dropped by the CPS, not "given up by the court" but I'd suggest that its far more likely that any independent expert witness would state that if a measuring equipment is used more than twice outside its specified range then the accuracy couldn't be guaranteed.
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
I was confused by this case.
What sort of speed camera is effective only up to 100m?
|
Not "effective" - certified for use. That's the difference.
|
Well, okay, what camera is certified for use at such a short distance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
