K9VYN

Ok, so any front facing camera is biased against motorists with front number plates - this amounts to prejudice IMO. Well, maybe now we have a case.

I need to obtain further clarification, but... my girlfriend's boss mentioned to her that a friend of his avoided a fine and points by utilising the prejudice argument when caught by a S.P.E.C.S camera.

I for one agree that this new era of front facing cameras allows motorcyclists to escape speeding convictions, which is wholly unfair on other motorists. I suppose the big question is what do the law do about it?

I will try to source further details of the aforementioned chaps case for confirmation.

K

[Edited by K9VYN - 11/19/2003 5:52:51 AM]

Dazza01

hopefully before the 24th pls Kev

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

This can't come soon enough.

Bl**dy bikes without front number plates, and tiny rear ones.Grrrr

Can you imagine car drivers being able to have no front plates, and tiny rear ones, just because we whine that "there's nowhere to fit one" ??

Alcazar

K9VYN

Daz,

I'm trying to find out today if it went to court and was upheld by a/the magistrate(s) - in which case i imagine it would be recorded and becomes case law????

K

NotoriousREV

You could always try not speeding.

*Pulls a 100mph wheelie whilst giving the SPECS cameras the finger*

K9VYN

quick update:

apparently it's not Sam's boss but a college coursemate who's friend it was. to the best of her knowledge the case was thrown out in court. i have asked her to mail the guy to get details of the case (i.e. case no, date, court) or a contact number for his friend.

the down side is that he doesn't pick his mail up that often and she won't see him at college until next week so i can't guarantee when we'll have proof of this claim. i will try to check with Nottm Magistrates court for recent cases.

K

[Edited by K9VYN - 11/19/2003 9:10:19 AM]

K9VYN

Notorious,

i was waiting for someone to say that. it's a good plan - i don't speed past cameras although i am fighting a case against a mobile unit hidden round a blind corner (damn! sneaky git!). somtimes you exceed the speed limit unintentionally whilst still driving safely and with due care.

in my case the police and the court have made errors which amount to an 'abuse of process' but this front facing discrimination/prejudice case would only strengthen my defense.

K

[Edited by K9VYN - 11/19/2003 9:11:05 AM]

Scooby96

So why do front facing cameras prejudice you?

K9VYN

96,

its in my original post (re motorcyclists) - apparently the word is 'discrimination'.

K

NotoriousREV

I'm not sure it's discrimination when the majority of road users have a front number plate.

If you want to talk about discrimination and motorbikes, try hanging around in North Wales watching the DETR setting up road blocks to stop bikers en masse while their bikes are checked and not a single car gets stopped.

If you want to talk discrimination and bikes, talk to coppers whose bosses tell them to take the speed guns out and "catch a few bikers" on a nice Sunday afternoon.

K9VYN

Notorious,

my only argument re discrimination will be with the court/magistrates if it is in fact true that a recorded defense was upheld on those grounds (i.e. it is case law).

what DETR or coppers bosses tell their subordinates to do with regard to bikers is irrelivant in this case IMO. i too have been stopped for a vehicle inspection in the past and watched as motor cyclists drift by - i don't think this amounts to discrimination. i have no issue with vehicle inspections as i keep my car in as good condition as possible.

re catching bikers on a Sunday avo - i suspect those bikers won't be caught if they take a leaf out of your book and don't speed as you orginally suggested. while as you correctly pointed out, most vehicles have forward facing plates, is it still fair that a motorcyclist can escape penalty where other motorists cannot?

K

NotoriousREV

Kevin, you're missing my point. The DETR are setting up blocks just to stop bikes, they're not interested in cars. Same goes for many a Sunday afternoon speed trap.

I can't beleive in a million years that if you have been caught, with photographic evidence that you can use the excuse "but you didn't catch him doing it". It's irrelevant.

If you have CCTV in your house and a burglar breaks in, can he use the excuse "but my mate broke into a house without CCTV and he didn't get done, so you can't do me, it's prejudiced".

I'm happy to be proved wrong and I'm happy to see anything which makes all this expensive trickery go away (to be replaced by real policing and road safety schemes) but I just can't see this defence working.

K9VYN

Notorious,

re your point on the DETR - indeed i did miss it. that's not on IMO, a motorist is a motorist is a motorist and bikes should not be specifically singled out.

i'm not sure the burglar analogy fits with the alleged discrimination case, as its not now a matter of having committed an offence, but fairness??? plus to fit this scenario he'd have had to burgle the same house with CCTV i too struggle to believe that the law could be that easily contradicted, but for now can only go on what i have been told.

i have contacted the court and they have advised me to request info in writing with details of the case (so i will once i have it). i have questioned a policeman friend regarding cases and case law and he advises of cases that have been thrown out on such grounds as 'abuse of process' despite there being proof that an offence was committed.

so it's not just about being there and committing offences. things like human rights and maybe now even discrimination seem to be valid defenses. i think if the current speeding campaign appeared to be less about revenue and more about road safety (and proven so), less people would be as upset about getting points. maybe the penaly points structure needs to be reviewed?

K

[Edited by K9VYN - 11/19/2003 10:12:25 AM]

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Stop winging!! front facing cameras are the fairest of them all, then there is no question as to who was driving the vehicle. If you don't spead you won't get caught then what does it matter which way the cameras face. ALL our cameras here in Germany are front facing and painted dark olive green and hidden behind trees and signs at least you lot can see your due to your criminal nanny state government.

Don't speed and you won't get caught
Speed and expect to face the music but FFS stop compalining when you do it is getting monotonous.

and Yes I do speed and yes I have been caught many times.

cheeseboy

And I never speed






well maybe a little bit

Diablo

Never mind the front number plate issue, how the hell is a forward facing camera meant to identify a biker in a full face helmet with a dark visor

D

K9VYN

Wurzel,

The question is not so much about getting caught as, and you will notice the thread title, is there a loophole in the law which can/will be exploited. You don't need to lecture me on speeding - I had 14 pts on my licence when I bought my Scooby. Now 4 1/2 years later I have none (well bar the outcome of a pending case).

Just because an offence was committed, it doesn't mean the authorities can cut corners, treat you like ****e and just convict you without fair trial - that's particulalry relevant to my case.

But in terms of forward facing cameras, the question is as stated in the title - 'is there a loophole?' The fact that I agree with them or not is actually irrelevant, as I'm sure any magistrate would tell you!

[Edited by K9VYN - 11/19/2003 11:40:01 AM]

evo kid

notorius rev .
north wales police (as much as i hate them) have been stopping bikeres on mass , due to the high number of motorcyle deaths on our roads this year (much more than last year)
(a friend of mine died the begging of the year , wasnt even his fault was speeding car on wrong side of road)

wat was beeing discussed was the fact that technologhy is advancing in to front facing degital camaras , capable of taking an image of both front number plate and drivers face ?
so why should bikes with no front plate get away with it ?

i see a lot of well driven bikes on the road , have many friend that ride , but also see my fair share of bad riders (lot more than bad drivers) overtaking against oncumming traffic , making cars go tight to the curbs just so they can sail through . this is the sort of driving i think should be addresed before we start to look at speeding as the main cause of accidents , poor driving education is to blame

NotoriousREV

Evo kid, I agree, driving standards need adressing.

My point was, these road blocks are deliberately targeted at bikes. So, if I get a fine for small number plate/race can/stupid stick on furry ears, can I argue I was being discriminated against because they weren't looking for cars commiting similar offences? I would argue not and it wouldn't cross my mind to challenge it in court.

Targeting (or failing to target) and group of road users is not abuse of process, nor, IMHO is it discrimination in the legal sense.

Abuse of process is failing to advise you of your rights when being forced to make a signed confession or sending you letters threatening higher penalties should you ask for evidence of the alleged crime.

K9VYN

Notorious,

I wasn't suggesting 'abuse of process' is aplicable to the front facing camera issue, but merely making the point that its isn't always the fact that an offence has been committed that determines whether on not the alleged offender is convicted.

so to the either valid or invalid 'discrimination defense', again it appears that the fact that an offence has been committed seems to take a back seat while the magistrates/courts determine whether or not these cameras are fair. either way, some clarification on the legislation is required.

personally even if this defense was valid, i can't see the authorities allowing it to slip for long - imagine the financial repercussions of this, especially considering the investment into this technology. and in the long run, i suppose the question is, should any changes need to be made who will foot the bill for it all? - i suspect, the motorist!

4lex L

I know a loop hole - the can't see round corners

Chrisgr31

As a matter of interest does the photo from a forward facing camera clearly and identifiably show the driver? My understand ing was that the photo wasn't clear enough to identify the driver anyway, therefore the fact motorcyclists wear helmets etc is irrelevant.

That of course doesn't solve the front numberplate query.

Buckrogers

NotoriousREV

Can you get a fine for "stupid stick on furry ears"?

Just wondering on what basis?

Buck

evo kid

notorius rev
i see your point now , both isues need clearing up , both the speed camaras not ''catching'' bikers and bikers beeing picked on in north wales (was more a publicity stunt i think , if you cant acctally fix the problem ,small minority of bad bikers , then pretent all bikers are bad and prosicute the lot of them )

NotoriousREV

Buck, on the grounds of taste

Evokid, I think it was to stop us killing ourselves by making sure we had billboard sized numberplates. And hat we wouldn't disturb the wildlife while we were at it.

Mind you we blew past them at stupid miles per hour without realising what it was until we stopped in Betws-Y-Coed and other people were discussing them