Woe,Woe. and thrice times woe.

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 28 Jul 2005, 19:34

I got a speeding summons today. [V] Seems I was caught doing 41mph by the Chalton Marshall (Dorset) camera stationed near the village school at 04-12 am Sunday the 17th July 2005 (on route traveling north).. the limit is 30mph at that point. I am surprised they enforced it so rigidly at four o'clock on a Sunday morning though, There was certainly no risk to the local school children involved.. [:I] [:)]
Sooo, I now know the camera's are on 24/7/52.. 'ipso facto' they are definately there to make money rather than protect the children or local population.. [}:)] [V] I did know the camera was there, just didn't think it would be active at night over the weekends.. dohh..[:I]
Another 3 points? Ooeerr that makes 6!. [:0] [:)] I better wear a black leather flat cap and drive like a granpa for the next 3 years so don't moan if you see me creeping along the M,ways in future. [;)]
By the way, Jean got a speeding fine on her way home from work recently (last week) in the Mazda, and a girl racer she aint!! But I noticed the camera she got caught on has been burnt? Bushes surrounding it are all shriveled up and the post and camera case are black now, but the camera itself looks ok to me. [V] Tsk tsk shame.. heh heh..
.
edit was a smiley misplaced.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 29 Jul 2005, 13:35

http://www.pepipoo.com/
Don't just roll over and take it. There are legal ways to fight. And if you take it to court then at least the "safety" camera partnership don't get your money.

Ross_K · Unread post by **Ross_K** » 29 Jul 2005, 14:45

Bad luck, but never mind - this site should cheer you up (or give you some ideas... ): [}:)]
http://www.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index2.htm

TomH · Unread post by **TomH** » 29 Jul 2005, 16:04

No offence, but if you knew the camera was there...! I would never speed through knowing there is one there. [:I]

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 29 Jul 2005, 18:20

Hi Homer. If I thought I had a case I could win, or even successfully defend, then I would take legal action, but I don't.. [:(!]
The fact that I thought the camera was there to protect the school children and local population was obviously a misconception of their intent on my part.. It clearly has a duel purpose.. But that's no defence in court.. The fact is, if the traffic people decide to impose a speed limit and stick signs up to that effect then exceeding that speed will result in a fine, it may not be logical, just, fair, or even reasonable, but it is the law, and in court that's all that matters.. [:(]
As Charlton Marshall is 225 miles and five hours travel each way from here, it would cost far more to defend the case than its worth, and with no possibility of winning it would be pointless. If my licence depended on it, then I might have tried to get the 3 points varied, but other than that, taking it to court would be an exercise in futility I'm afraid. [|)]
I now know beyond any reasonable doubt, that some camera's are there for financial gain.. In the past I wasn't certain, I had believed that most fixed camera's and prosecutions were justified, but this case clearly illustrates that was a naive belief on my part, wistfull thinking perhaps? [:I] [V] so I guess paying for that information was a good investment for future reference, though I would be happier if my original belief had in fact been correct. I do like to believe the best of people.. [:)]
Tom, I guess you are more cynical than I was, sadly you were right though.. Historically people have driven past the Charlton Marshall school camera at 40 plus out of school hours with impunity, seems they have had a policy change recently, or a new departmental head perhaps.. [}:)]
Thanks for the URL and the kind thoughts Ross, you too Homer.. Shame you don't work in the Dorset traffic offices huh? [:D] lol..
.

Kowalski · Unread post by **Kowalski** » 29 Jul 2005, 19:26

Depending where you are in the country, speed cameras are either to make things safer or to punish for every slight infraction and generate revenue.
Speed cameras are criminalising normally law abiding people, i.e. the sort of people who might assist the police when they need help, they're plainly bad public relations.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 29 Jul 2005, 22:28

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by James.UK

As Charlton Marshall is 225 miles and five hours travel each way from here, it would cost far more to defend the case than its worth,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm sure you don't feel like fighting this one but you have 6 points now. What happens if two more NIPs land on your mat next week? They may not be so easy to defend.
Check out Pepipoo, you will be suprised how often the CPS make a mess of a case or just drop it for no apparent reason
Speed camera policy assumes we are all going to crash and looks to minimise the outcome. Driving safely has nothing to do with the numbers on your speedo. It is about looking out of the window, anticipating hazards and taking appropriate action before a collision is inevitable. A proper road safety policy would look at avoiding the collision in the first place.
May as well plug my other favourite site www.safespeed.org while I'm here.

j_roc · Unread post by **j_roc** » 29 Jul 2005, 22:37

I have the answer to the problem - Dont speed, simple.

bxbodger · Unread post by **bxbodger** » 30 Jul 2005, 01:25

A speed limit is a speed limit no matter what time of the day or night..............
You could fight it and but only if you have vast amounts of money and time, and its only people like chief constables, Alex Ferguson, and Gordon Ramsey who can afford to fight and win-how Ramsey got away with what he did is a good example of what a lot of money can achieve.
I suspect it would probably be easier to get off a murder charge than a speeding one!!!

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 30 Jul 2005, 13:20

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger

You could fight it and but only if you have vast amounts of money and time,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is not true.
Take a look at the cases on Pepipoo. 90% are fought with no lawyers involved, indeed their usual advice is to save your money for an appeal since magistrates don't know traffic law all that well.
If you have been caught by a mobile trap then it is very likely they will not take the case to court at all. They seem very reluctant to show the video evidence they claim to have. Why? Well probably because they are using the equipment incorrectly, or it simply isn't as accurate as they like to make out.
Other cases are dropped because the CPS loses a vital bit of paper, or they forget to tell the courts in time.
Remember you are innocent until proven guilty.
If you are not found guilty you can claim costs back. Including travelling and loss of earnings.
If I were to ever recieve a NIP from a speed camera (and I currently have a completely clean licence) I would fight it. You can plead guilty without apearing at court right up to the last minute and the extra fine rarely ammounts to much.
Do you know where your fixed penalty money goes?
You might think most of it is spent on running the cameras and sending out more tickets. You'd be wrong. On the last breakdown of a Scammers expendature I saw, over half went on "entertainment" who the **** are they entertaining?!!!!. And most of the rest went on telling us what a good job they (think they are) are doing.
Which is why I would rather pay two or three times the fine to the courts. At least the money wasting scammers don't get their hands on it.

oilyspanner · Unread post by **oilyspanner** » 30 Jul 2005, 17:09

Bad luck there James, I have been using an inforad device for a few weeks now in my travels up and down the country hopefully it gives warning of Gatsos
heres a link
http://www.gpsinforad.co.uk/login/regis ... 1-5-4-1-64
Stewart

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 30 Jul 2005, 19:41

Thanks Stewart. [:)] I will def be looking into that.
Homer, I do understand why you feel so strongly about this issue, and you raise some interesting points..
Sooo.. I have had a good look at the paperwork today prior to filling out the forms.. and there seems to be at least one sheet missing?? I thought in all traffic cases they sent a "Statement of evidence" or similar document, that in this case, should give details of the time, place, camera type, model, when it was tested, by whom, type of test used, etc etc, and be signed by the police officer who checked said camera. Anyone know if this is still the case?
Edit:- I tried to register/join Pepipoo but it claims my email address is already registered? So tried to log in and it sez details expired? dohhh? [8)] [:o)] [:I] so no help available from that source.. [V]
.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 30 Jul 2005, 20:24

If all you have so far is a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) then you won't have any supporting documents.
In fact with many forces you will have to plead not guilty before they will let you see any evidence. You only have their word that a crime even took place.
If it is the NIP you have then you have 28 days (which can often be extended) to reply. Use those 28 days wisely. Do your research.
Some forces will send a fixed penalty notice with the NIP, they shouldn't really do this since without the NIP they have no evidence of who was driving. If you have been sent both then I would definately ask on the Pepipoo forums for advice.
What should happen is.
day 1 you trigger speed camera.
by day 14 they post NIP to registered keeper.
Registered keeper has 28 days to reply nominating driver.
If keeper nominates themselves then an offer of fixed penalty will be sent, unless the case is to go to court (Speed well over the limit or driver close to ban under totting up), in which case they have six months (from the date of the offence) to lay papers with the court.
If keeper nominates another driver then that person should be sent a NIP to which they have 28 days to reply.
If this person nominates themselves then an offer of fixed penalty will be sent, etc.
After recieving the offer of fixed penalty you then decide if you are going to go to court or just pay up.
If you want to see any evidence you may have to refuse the fixed penalty.
The NIP(s) do not have to be sent through registered post and the police/CPS/scammers only have to prove they sent it. If your postman loses it and you don't reply within the 28 days you will likely be charged with both the speeding and failure to notify (S172). Of course without a completed NIP they have no evidence as to who was driving but they will try to weedle that out of you in court.
If you chose not to fight it's your decision, and I can understand that. But make it a decision based on the facts, not the half truths (and often bare faced lies) you will have been sent by the scammers.
There have been a number of cases where proecutions have been pursued where it has been found that the cameras were enforcing a limit which did not exist (see Folly Bottom). It was only because someone fought the cases that, in some cases THOUSANDS of fines have had to be repaid. Unfortunately no compensation as yet for anyone who may have lost their job due to being banned for an offence which never happened.
And another case in N. Wales.
And another.
So much for "you have nothing to worry about if you stick to the speed limit".

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 30 Jul 2005, 20:33

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by j_roc

I have the answer to the problem - Dont speed, simple.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Tell that to the family of Kevin Lee.

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 30 Jul 2005, 21:24

Thanks Homer.. So far it's just the NIP I have received.. I will keep you informed as to progress, or lack of? lol... [;)] [:D]
.