David Jenkins
|
| posted on 8/6/05 at 01:26 PM |
|
|
It's not just the police who get away with it!
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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 8/6/05 at 02:47 PM |
|
|
presumably hence all new camera's are forward facing?
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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??' 
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
I love speed :-P
|
| posted on 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??
Don't Steal
The Government doesn’t like the competition
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 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...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 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...
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.topcashback.co.uk/ref/snuggstcb
Spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does.
I doubt therefore I may be.
Luposlipophobia : Fear of being chased by wolves around a freshly waxed kitchen floor, while wearing only socks on your feet.
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!
http://www.venganza.org
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
http://www.snuggs.co.uk
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
coz its a bit of an animal
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 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...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 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. 
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 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
|
 posted on 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
The reckless man may not live as long......
But the cautious man does not live at all.....
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 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.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 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
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 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
|
|
|
%20(WinCE).JPG)
