warrenm2

The Government seems to be backing down a bit on the issue of speed cameras, and maybe even stupid speed limits. Or it maybe just another "initiative" type smokescreen that produces sod all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4530464.stm

LUCKO

iTrader: (3)

i wish they would get rid of speed camera's as i have more points than sunderland at the moment

Moley

iTrader: (9)

Thats not difficult!!!

Flatcapdriver

It's not the cameras that are the problem, it's the scamera vans parked up in a copse 200m from the motorways.

Leslie

What do you think will happen to the speed limits when they review them?

Les

stevem2k

Or they have been so successful at generating cash that Gordon wants a bigger slice....

GC8

Isnt this likely to be more spin? We all seem to have forgotten the 'revue of all camera sites' nonsense that culminated in no changes being made at all.... Speed cameras are a political hot potato and the government are doing little more than throwing us a bone. I suspect that thyere interested only in preserving the status quo whilst attempting to give the general (non-enthusiast) electotorate the impression that they are acting.....


Simon

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Posted: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 03:05:52 +0000 Post subject: Idris Francis - ECHR "Right to Silence" Applicati Please circulate widely:

03 Nov 05

Subject - Another Step forwards in my ECHR "Right to Silence" application, regarding forced self-incrimination in speed camera cases.

I have just received from Liberty, who are handling my application to the European Court of Human Rights, a copy of letter from the Court. After setting out the details of my case and another similar one, the letter ends by stating that:

"The court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the application raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 para 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible have been established.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the applications admissible, without pre-judging the merits of the case."

end quote.

We are advised also that while "the court itself does not require any further information or submissions" we may make such submissions if we wish. We are also advised that "The Court is inclined to consider that it is not necessary to hold a hearing in the case" but Liberty tell me that they intend to ask for an oral hearing.

The Court has also asked for documentation of the costs involved in this case, on which an award would be based if and when we win, The deadline for submitting that claim is January 6th 2006, implying after that date, perhaps months later.

If we win our argument that the right of silence may not be infringed, the authorities will in principle be unable to continue demanding identification of drivers under S172, 1988 Road Traffic Act, and will instead have to rely on any other available evidence such as that of witnesses, cameras that photograph drivers.
This has of course always been the position in relation to offences potentially leading to larger fines (usually defined as greater than £1,000) and/or imprisonment.

The speed camera decade, involving greatly increased reliance on dumb roadside camera and less and less on live police patrols, has shown the worst-ever in peace time fall in deaths per vehicle mile, and it is entirely logical to believe that banning of most speed cameras can only help bring about a resumption of the pre-camera benign trend that saw deaths halve from 1968 to 1993 and deaths per vehicle mile fall by a factor of eleven from 1950 to 1993.


Idris Francis


Application details 15809/02 and 25624/02 O'Halloran and Francis v United Kingdom

I am aware of at least six similar cases that proceeding at the much the same time on the same issue.
_________________

corradoboy

Speed cameras are soon to become obsolete, read THIS and then write to your MP and Charles Clarke asking why, in a free and democratic society, that the police are soon to be allowed to track the movements of innocent citizens without warrant

drumsterphil

iTrader: (1)

The reply I got back from my MP (Michael Gove, Conservative) made no mention at all on the human rights aspect of the article, only that it was important that those motorists who drive taxed and uninsured should be caught.

I am currently formulating my reply to him as he completely missed (ignored??) the point of my original letter.

Crazy Chick

We quite like the new 'slow' signs where they post the speed limit and if you aren't doing that limit when you get into range they flash you telling you to slow down. Solar powered too - good 4 the environment.

hedgehog

For about 2 years now the administration which runs the cameras has been aware that we are living in a "post-camera era" and so the speed cameras don't really matter. In fact it might now be useful to offer the cameras up to give the public an idea that perhaps their caring sharing government are listening to them.

As Andy mentioned the EHCR appeal by Idris has been accepted and, in fact, some legal experts assert that because of judgements in other cases Idris has already "won" in the eyes of the ECHR. The judgement on this will hopefully come early next year.

Clearly the administration know all about the appeal by Idris, and others, and while we might think they will be running scared in fact I don't think they care as they view speed cameras as old news. You'll all be bored with my posting about what is to come next but I am pleased to see that while, at first, most thought I was a paranoid loony it seems to be that everyone accepts what is going to happen. This is no credit to my skills for seeing the future, there was no skill at all involved as I just stated what the government said they were going to do. It just so happened that what they said they were going to do was so awful and restrictive that no one wanted to believe it. Now that you do believe it what are you doing about it? That is a more important question and believe me, the governement have committed to removing your access to private transport, so if you are not fighting it then after the ISA and the tracking will come the restrictions "you can't use this road at this time" and then "you can't use this road at all" and then "you can't use your car at this time" and then "you can't use your car at all."

So, while the cameras are an important tool in the administration battle agains your access to private transport they are only a small element of that war. If you want to keep driving then be sure to make yourself aware of the whole war and to do your bit, every little helps. In the first instance membership of an organisation such as the ABD helps us all and lets the administration know that not everyone is happy with their plans.

Martin_Aimless

Wise words above. The government is depending upon our apathy to complete its plans.

It seems to me that Darling is actually giving us an insight into the timetable for the introduction of GPS based surveilence systems with this statement:

"Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said that from 2007/08 money from speeding fines will no longer go simply on more speed cameras."

We have around 18 months left.