Speeding On The M4 In Wiltshire !!!!

quote:

going to court isnt the same as innocent until proven guilty

The offer of a fixed penalty notice is a conditional offer. You don't have to take it. If you dispute the evidence (in this case the camera), you can be dealt with by magistrates court.

If your argument is to the validity of the operation of the camera, fine. Go and say the camera wasn't working properly etc.

If you are arguing as to its discretionary abilities, thats been done to death here on this thread already, as has camera locations and the sometimes debateable arguments regarding crash reduction etc etc

The onus is on the prosecution to prove all of its case, beyond a reasonable doubt. This is standard criminal law. Some people choose to accept the ticket, others not.

As I have said before, speed limits are about prevention - thats why they are limits. You may not agree with this, but its the law.

Also, the vast majority of camera's are not serviced by police officers. They are serviced by support staff - the police officers being used elsewhere.

andy c!

Are you feeling lucky punk?

Take the fixed penalty - £60 plus three points or plead not guilty in court and probably get 6 points and a £120 fine plus costs.

A colleague of mine took the fixed penalty option a few years ago for an offence committed while his car was in a garage for repair. He wasn't able to guess correctly the identity of the machanic who took his car out for a spin, so he cut his losses.

Steve

There are always those worse-off than yourself:

You'd love the main road into the city now. They have just fitted it with 70kph (44mph) lollipops for miles and miles.

Drivers always ignored the old 80kph (50mph) lollipops anyway. They are now completely failing to notice the police speed camera hidden behind a parked car. This 4 lane road is wider than most motorways and as straight as a die for miles and miles.

They have just reduced the speed limit to 40kph (25mph) in some villages and extended the 50kph (30mph) out into the countryside on both sides! It makes for very leisurely trips across country I can assure you. There are almost no town or village bypasses here.

So get down on your knees at bedtime and thank your gods that you don't live in Denmark and can drive at 60mph most of the time. Or could if there wasn't traffic congestion.

Perhaps oddly, we don't have much congestion here except in the city and then only on the mainroads at odd times. Perhaps we never get to go fast enough to catch the vehicle in front to form a decent queue?

They also use thousands of unsequenced traffic lights instead of the plethora of roundabouts they have had for decades in the UK. In fact they do almost everything wrong according to standard British road traffic flow thinking and still don't have the congestion the UK had back in the early 60s! Could it be all those cyclists in the ubiquitous cycle lanes keeping things flowing nicely? Surely not?

Regards
Nime

If you are guilty, stop whingeing; if you are not, contest it in court.

quote:

The onus is on the prosecution to prove all of its case, beyond a reasonable doubt. This is standard criminal law. Some people choose to accept the ticket, others not.

The justice system shouldn't be like poker. I shouldn't have to up the stakes to see your case.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
The offer of a fixed penalty notice is a conditional offer. You don't have to take it. If you dispute the evidence (in this case the camera), you can be dealt with by magistrates court.

The last time I was booked for speeding (about 3 years ago) it was by two traffic officers using a Vascar device from a static vehicle. There was absolutely no question that I was speeding and they also got the speed (81mph in a 60mph) approximately correct. I was given the fixed penalty offer however on doing a bit of checking there were a few problems, including the officer charging me stating that I'd been timed between white painted marks in the roadway when such marks don't actually exist on that section of road.

On contacting the police for clarification I found out several interesting points:

1) When a fixed penalty notice is offered the officers don't provide any statement about the offence at that time, instead they write up a report at a later date if the person charged chooses to take it to court (I'd wanted to check if their statement matched what they'd said at the time before deciding whether to dispute it in court).

2) The police officer phoned me back about my request for clarification and that was a real eye opener. It turned out that his notes didn't state what was used as timing marks and also that he didn't recall my booking at all (hardly surprising as he'd probably booked loads of people since). I then asked him what he'd say in court given that he couldn't recall the incident and didn't have any notes to rely on - he said he'd re-visit the location and they'd note down whatever marks they normally use and state that as evidence in court. I told him I thought that was a bit dubious (to say the least) and his response (he seemed quite angry that I was considering disputing the booking) he said something along the lines of "we're the police and the court will believe us" (I wish I'd been recording the conversation).

In the end I paid the fixed penalty because his last point is 100% correct and I know from previous experience where the police had made a similar mistake (in that case their notes were obviously made up later as they said I was driving a car not a motorbike!) there is still very little chance that the magistrate won't convict.

I was speeding and therefore "deserved" my booking and the subsequent points and fine, however just as it's the case that I'm supposed to follow the speed limit rules there are also rules regarding what the police must do. The sad thing is that they can be sloppy about it but the system is so biased in their favour that ulimately it doesn't seem to matter.

quote:

The sad thing is that they can be sloppy about it but the system is so biased in their favour that ulimately it doesn't seem to matter.

The officer should have made a contemporaneous note of what happened evidentially. If you had gone no-out, and had a legal advisor, this point would have gone in your favour, and the magistrates would have been able to cast doubt on the integrity of the prosecution evidence - thats English Law anyway - not sure what the option would be under scottish law...

andy c!

My mate Dave contested a ticket once, and won in Court, strangely enough only a week later he was done again, in nearly the same place, he could have sworn the bloke said to him, "Well Sir ! ready to go through all that old Court bollocks again are we ?"

Fritz Von Well I never

Fritz,
u have idirectly backed me up!!!

I'm not worthy....

andy c!

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
The officer should have made a contemporaneous note of what happened evidentially. If you had gone no-out, and had a legal advisor, this point would have gone in your favour

I took legal advice and was advised not to bother. As the police officers had not recorded a statement at the time of the offence they had plently of time to make up whatever they wanted before court - with no evidence other than my testimony to contradict it. Given the way your average doddering magistrate views motorcyclists I'd probably have ended up doing jailtime!

Unless of course you happen to be a copper.

quote:

Unless of course you happen to be a copper.

Of course, we only see the cases where the 'copper' gets off, don't we? We never see any of the cases when Joe P get off, or when the cop gets convicted...

Reality check needed....

OK to have a dig, but it needs to be balanced...

andy c!

Didn't get where I am today by being unbalanced ! Did we Darling ?

quote:

If you are guilty, stop whingeing; if you are not, contest it in court.

Glib, simplistic and naive as ever I see, Mr Cavendish.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Of course, we only see the cases where the 'copper' gets off, don't we? We never see any of the cases when Joe P get off, or when the cop gets convicted...

If there had been a case where a member of the public got off with doing 84mph in a 30mph * 159mph on a motorway despite doing what that arsehole plod and despite the quality of evidence against it - then I'm sure we'd have heard of it. The case with the 159/131/84mph plod was in the public eye before he got off, not because of it.

Our Mick can't say too much at this stage

quote:

The justice system shouldn't be like poker. I shouldn't have to up the stakes to see your case.

Quite.

The fixed penalty system was devised to collect more revenue and faster. It wasn't to make life easier for the driver. Many drivers take fixed penalties even though they believe that they are innocent.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:

quote:

The justice system shouldn't be like poker. I shouldn't have to up the stakes to see your case.

Quite.

The fixed penalty system was devised to collect more revenue and faster. It wasn't to make life easier for the driver. Many drivers take fixed penalties even though they believe that they are innocent.

Although the poker comment is quite true, these driving & other morris minor offences are as irritating as they may be; simply peanuts in the really serious world of British Justice. If somebody has been charged with a serious offence like GBH or far worse with no redress or witnesses/alibi, they (depending obviously on area & possibly their previous form - which shouldn't affect things but in the real world does (Journo pals come to mind ) require legal help/aid as the very core of the system, and this is just not happening in many cases. Unfortunately the history of minor stuff, is take it, and forget it, and carry on living so to speak, innit.

Fritz Von Thoings are not so very different here, barring the legal rep/aspect which is on the ball big-style whoever you may be

quote:

If there had been a case where a member of the public got off with doing 84mph in a 30mph * 159mph on a motorway despite doing what that arsehole plod and despite the quality of evidence against it - then I'm sure we'd have heard of it.

Matey, this is my point. Its high profile because it was a cop involved. There are cases that I am aware of that don't involve police officers/politicians/other stereotypical folk that have also failed due to lack of/poor prosecution evidence - this is something else I am aware of that is trying to be resolved.

Your view is to spin that the cop got off due to some conspiacy, rather than poorly presented evidence. Do you realise what implications there are for the parties involved if they ever got found out? before you answer you might wish to consider the fact that the Police Standards Unit might have something to say about the 159mph issue, but won't say it in public in order to protect the human rights of the cop, human rights that some other miscreants hide behind every time so as to avoid you commenting on their plight!

andy c!

The arsehole cop got off because the judge felt it was ok for him to do what he did - not because of any failing of the prosecutions case. The evidence presented would have secured a conviction had it not been a police officer.

Could have sworn somebody'd started a new thread after this one had run out of road ?


Fritz Von Best bit was the copper in question wasn't even speeding on the M4 innit

btw personally speaking I don't think he should have got off. And I speak from experience by saying that - Ask Steve T!

andy c!

I think you'll possibly find that his colleagues maybe wont like working with him together in the future, if you consider what kind of person he supposedly is anyway ?


I'm off for a beer and some politics

A danish police officer has been fined £350 and banned from driving for 3 years for doing 107mph (171 kph) while on duty.

quote:

A danish police officer has been fined £350 and banned from driving for 3 years for doing 107mph (171 kph) while on duty.

Steve will next say its country specific

andy c!