Board logo

It's not just the police who get away with it!
David Jenkins - 8/6/05 at 01:26 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4072446.stm

156mph with a mobile phone on his ear - and he gets off on a technicality...
...sometime the law really is an ass, as Charles Dickens once wrote.

David

[Edited on 8/6/05 by David Jenkins]

DarrenW - 8/6/05 at 01:58 PM

The technicality was that he wasnt driving it!!!!!!!!! I smell a rat. Interestingly the camera operator admitted they couldnt identify the driver.
furthermore the news statement says the car is limited to 155mph, so he couldnt have been doing 156. I wonder if they could claim innacuracies / calibration problem???

[Edited on 8/6/05 by DarrenW]

David Jenkins - 8/6/05 at 02:03 PM

quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW

furthermore the news statement says the car is limited to 155mph, so he couldnt have been doing 156. I wonder if they could claim innacuracies / calibration problem???


No speedo is that accurate (0.6% roughly). Even the SVA allow a significant latitude when testing - in one direction...

David

NS Dev - 8/6/05 at 02:44 PM

quite right too, the technicality was indeed that he wasn't driving!!

There are a LOT of cloned cars out there, and I for one don't want to be done for speeding when I'm not driving!!!!

The main reason that no more gatso's are being installed is that technically they are pointless!!!

They take a picture of the back of the car, but there is no proof of who is driving if the driver exercises his/her right to silence.

A friend of mine at work here was caught by a gatso, and both he and his wife are insured to drive the car. He asked to see the photographic evidence, which showed no distinguishing marks on his car and didn't show anything of the driver. He refused to say who was driving so the police visited him to ask some questions, he just said he could not be sure whether it was he or his wife that was driving. The police asked whether they could interview him and his wife together, he said could they make them do this, they said no.......end of the case, no ticket given!

ned - 8/6/05 at 02:47 PM

presumably hence all new camera's are forward facing?

Ned.

NS Dev - 8/6/05 at 02:49 PM

Yup, unfortunately so! looks like the forward facing ones are not infallible though judging by the above!

flak monkey - 8/6/05 at 02:49 PM

Yep, most of the new ones are. And they take a pic of the driver and of the number plate. You cant dispute who was driving when someone confronts you with a mugshot.... 'have you been on photoshop officer??'

I love speed :-P - 8/6/05 at 03:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
Yep, most of the new ones are. And they take a pic of the driver and of the number plate. You cant dispute who was driving when someone confronts you with a mugshot.... 'have you been on photoshop officer??'


until you get some one in a locost, with no windscreen, and wearing a helmit??

Avoneer - 8/6/05 at 03:38 PM

And now the Police are heavily enforcing the offence of "registered keeper failing to give information as to the identity of the driver" - this alone is a 3 point and fine offence.

Pat...

flak monkey - 8/6/05 at 03:40 PM

quote:
Originally posted by I love speed :-P

until you get some one in a locost, with no windscreen, and wearing a helmit??


True. Motorcyclists love the front facing cameras too...

JoelP - 8/6/05 at 06:18 PM

quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
The technicality was that he wasnt driving it!


not as i read it - that was an aside. The technicality was that they never sent a notice of prosecution on the alleged driver.

IMHO he almost certainly was driving the vehicle, and should be in jail.

Snuggs - 8/6/05 at 07:24 PM

It's not just the police who get away with it.

Maybe he hasn't yet !!!!!!



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4074284.stm

NS Dev - 8/6/05 at 08:02 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
And now the Police are heavily enforcing the offence of "registered keeper failing to give information as to the identity of the driver" - this alone is a 3 point and fine offence.

Pat...


...................which they cannot do if the car is insured for several drivers who all had free access to it in the absence of the registered keeper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If they try that one on then they are up against the human rights stuff!!

bigbriglasgow - 8/6/05 at 09:16 PM

Thats what i like to hear!

Glas i insured my van for any driver now, seemed expencive at the time but in light of the latest post well worth it!!

I just think that when the average cuntstuble gets his uniform on he becomes an ass. i would recken in about 70% of all the police i know and have met.

Once spoke to 1 that told me his mum had got busted for parking on the z lines at a padestrian crossing, told me he was so pissed he went out and did everyone he could for anything for a couple of days.

Fair i think not!!!

Cheers

Brian

Avoneer - 8/6/05 at 09:40 PM

NS Dev - doesn't matter who's insured or if the registered keeper is away - they will still prosecute the registered keeper and will do it in his absence if he fails to respond to the summons. The police and DVLA are really pushing this at the moment and I have recently just finished inputting a load of new summons onto our computer for this exact offence. Don't know if it's a nationwide crack down or anything though. And yes, I have seen and read every excuse in the book and the, well I'm not sure if it was me or the wife one, and it doesn't make any difference. The original offence disappears and then the registered owner is plainly and simply prosecuted for failing to provide info.
Just passing on what I know.
Pat...

Rorty - 9/6/05 at 06:13 AM

quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4072446.stm

156mph with a mobile phone on his ear - and he gets off on a technicality...
...sometime the law really is an ass, as Charles Dickens once wrote.

David

[Edited on 8/6/05 by David Jenkins]

Oooooh! Sorry to be pedantic David, but if a quote is to be quoted, then it needs to be quoted accurately.
What Mr. Bumble actually said was “...the law is a ass—a idiot."
Ahhh! I feel better now.

David Jenkins - 9/6/05 at 07:29 AM

I thought about quoting it correctly... but then wondered how many would know who Mr Bumble is, and why the grammar was so odd!

Poetic licence...


David

NS Dev - 9/6/05 at 07:51 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
NS Dev - doesn't matter who's insured or if the registered keeper is away - they will still prosecute the registered keeper and will do it in his absence if he fails to respond to the summons. The police and DVLA are really pushing this at the moment and I have recently just finished inputting a load of new summons onto our computer for this exact offence. Don't know if it's a nationwide crack down or anything though. And yes, I have seen and read every excuse in the book and the, well I'm not sure if it was me or the wife one, and it doesn't make any difference. The original offence disappears and then the registered owner is plainly and simply prosecuted for failing to provide info.
Just passing on what I know.
Pat...


Interesting........ I have just checked with the chap here at work and he corrected me on my facts...................he has now done the same thing again!!!

The second time he DID have to go to court, he stated that he had no idea who, if anybody, was driving the car at the time, it may have been him, his wife or his eldest son, they are all insured to drive it, but equally it may not have been his car at all. In court the prosecution stated that the car was his, and it was up to him to prove otherwise, he questioned that and pointed out that under english law he was innocent until proven guilty and that the prosecution needed to prove beyond resonable doubt that it WAS his car. The prosection had no evidence to that effect and the case was dropped.

NS Dev - 9/6/05 at 07:58 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
NS Dev - doesn't matter who's insured or if the registered keeper is away - they will still prosecute the registered keeper and will do it in his absence if he fails to respond to the summons. The police and DVLA are really pushing this at the moment and I have recently just finished inputting a load of new summons onto our computer for this exact offence. Don't know if it's a nationwide crack down or anything though. And yes, I have seen and read every excuse in the book and the, well I'm not sure if it was me or the wife one, and it doesn't make any difference. The original offence disappears and then the registered owner is plainly and simply prosecuted for failing to provide info.
Just passing on what I know.
Pat...


To go further on this one.......I would seriously question the legality of what you describe above, that would be prosecution on insubstantial evidence, if a GATSO photograph only was used. If further evidence could be brought before the court (witnesses, mobile phone locations etc etc ) then the case would be sound, but a photo of the back of a car showing the numberplate is known to be totally flawed evidence, due to the ever increasing number of cloned cars around.

I know somebody who was wrongfully summonsed due to a cloned car, and he had the same court issue, i.e. "guilty until proven inncocent" where the court state it is up to you to prove that you were elsewhere at the time. Luckily he could, but he would have been perfectly within his rights to remain silent, and then the only evidence against him is flawed.

The execution of the law on this one is a total and utter ass, and mockery of english justice. This is confirmed by the replacement of GATSO cameras with forward facing ones...........................at which point I need to get a motorbike!!!

Rorty - 9/6/05 at 08:38 AM

They're just reintroducing front plates on bikes here after years of none on the front.
The anti-front plates lobby was long and strong, but the law won out.
In the UK, motorcycles and trikes registered before 1.9.2001 can display a number plate at the front but are not required to. I'm sure they'll be reintroduced in the UK in due time.
If you drive a Subaru Forester you're one step ahead of the cameras to begin with (in Australia at least) see here.
ANPR in the UK makes it pretty futile trying to escape the cameras, see here.

NS Dev - 9/6/05 at 09:27 AM

Yep, unfortunately big brother will soon be watching a lot more of us....................................arseholes is all I can say. If they decide to make motoring much more difficult and awkward we might as well all join the crims and just not bother with tax, insurance or MOT etc, and just nick a car to drive about in. The courts seem to look more favourably on that than something really horrific like doing 90mph on an empty motorway

spunky - 9/6/05 at 11:47 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Rorty
They're just reintroducing front plates on bikes here after years of none on the front.
The anti-front plates lobby was long and strong, but the law won out.
In the UK, motorcycles and trikes registered before 1.9.2001 can display a number plate at the front but are not required to. I'm sure they'll be reintroduced in the UK in due time.
If you drive a Subaru Forester you're one step ahead of the cameras to begin with (in Australia at least) see here.
ANPR in the UK makes it pretty futile trying to escape the cameras, see here.



Where are they fitting the plates?

On the screen would obscure forward vision. Below steering head would hamper suspension operation. Sticking out to the side would reduce cornering ability and affect stability of the machine.
I reckon there heading for a whole heap of trouble....

John

Rorty - 9/6/05 at 01:09 PM

quote:
Originally posted by spunky


Where are they fitting the plates?

On the screen would obscure forward vision. Below steering head would hamper suspension operation. Sticking out to the side would reduce cornering ability and affect stability of the machine.

I believe they're being fitted across the bottom yoke, though someone else may contradict or clarify this.

andyps - 9/6/05 at 09:24 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Rorty
If you drive a Subaru Forester you're one step ahead of the cameras to begin with (in Australia at least) see here.
ANPR in the UK makes it pretty futile trying to escape the cameras, see here.


Probably lots of other cars which this affects too. My neighbour had a frontera with a tow bar and one of those metal plates which stops damage whilst hooking up a caravan - it almost toally obscured the plate. She got stopped once by the police who told her to take it off but she never did, and didn't get stopped again.

Does anyone know if the ANPR system can recognise the old black background with silver/white letters? I have a car which is quite legally allowed to use these and I can see it getting more use in the future

stephen_gusterson - 9/6/05 at 10:23 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
And now the Police are heavily enforcing the offence of "registered keeper failing to give information as to the identity of the driver" - this alone is a 3 point and fine offence.

Pat...


northants police have done this for over 4 years. I have 150 quid and 3 points still on my licence when i refused to admit the drivers name (me). they even sent a car with two cops 30 miles to my place of work to interview me for 90 mins!!!!!!!

atb

steve

stephen_gusterson - 9/6/05 at 10:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
And now the Police are heavily enforcing the offence of "registered keeper failing to give information as to the identity of the driver" - this alone is a 3 point and fine offence.

Pat...


...................which they cannot do if the car is insured for several drivers who all had free access to it in the absence of the registered keeper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If they try that one on then they are up against the human rights stuff!!



nope. thats totally wrong.

the human rights act DOES NOT apply in this case.

they are merely asking who the driver was at the time and NOT asking for you to admit guilt. I know its the same thing, but the law doesn not see it that way!

You have a responsibility under UK law to KNOW who is driving YOUR CAR at any time. You cant just say oh yeah, half my family drives the car so i dunno who was driving on that day. You cop it as the registered owner.

The form doesnt ask you to admit guilt, just to identify the driver. If you cant, then you break the legal requirement of knowing who was driving the car as registered owner.

One way might be if a husband and wife were driving, and lets say hubby was reg owner. Hubby says wife was driving (so you have met the obligation) then wife says nope, it was hubby. I dont know how the law deal with the circular argument.

YOU ABSOLUTLEY HAVE TO GIVE A NAME AS THE REG OWNER IF YOU GET A SPEEDING NOTIFICATION.

The earlier post about someone getting off because they didnt know who was driving is a bit daft, as merely not filling in the form (which is what i did) will get you an ms90. To be precise, i sent the form back FOUR TIMES (they tried hard) saying i didnt know who the driver was. I got a straight prosecution for failing to provide info on the form. So, the case mentioned shoudnt have gone to court to be able to argue if it was husband or wife. an offence was committed when the form wasnt completed. All the argument in court should have been was who would cop the speeding fine IN ADDITION to not filling the form in.


atb

steve

[Edited on 9/6/05 by stephen_gusterson]

mangogrooveworkshop - 16/6/05 at 11:14 PM

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2005/06/16/newsstory7238484t0.asp