22BUK

From www.safespeed.org.uk:

PR351: Speed cameras 'legal crash' coming

ECHR expected to rule UK camera legislation illegal

news: for immediate release

MCN (Motor Cycle News) reports today of the 'Right to Silence' case that will
be heard at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg on 27th
September. The case challenges 'Section 172' in the Road Traffic Offenders Act
1988 which requires registered keepers of vehicles and others to 'provide
information' regarding the driver of the vehicle at the time of an alleged
offence.

Section 172 underpins ALL speed camera prosecutions, and millions of motorists
each year receive 'section 172' notices requiring them to identify the driver
after their vehicle has been caught on camera.

The problem arises when the notice arrives with the person who was driving at
the time of the alleged offence. If he fills in the form he is effectively
signing a confession which violates his ancient 'right to silence'. If he fails
to fill in the form (or otherwise provide the required information) he is
guilty of a different offence.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Section 172 has been a useful legislative 'big
stick' capable of being used with wisdom and restraint to defend society
against dangerous criminals. It should never have been used against millions of
motorists who may or may not have committed minor traffic offences. It has been
like using the 'big stick' on your little sister. We have now arrived at the
point where the 'big stick' will be taken away because it has been abused."

"The tragedy is that S172 has been a useful Police power in serious cases where
responses could contribute to an ongoing investigation. Now that power will be
lost for one reason and one reason only; because it has been misused."

"Once S172 goes, that will be the end of speed camera prosecutions as we know
them. And that can only be good news for road safety."

"As far as I can tell, no one seriously expects the government to win."

ricardo_wrx

I cant see this going far? Sounds too good to be true.
Even if it did turn out to be a loop-hole. The press would let the whole country know and everyone would be using the same tactic.

Im sure Mr Blair has a plan 'B' up his sleave!

MattW

I'll believe it when I see it.

OllyK

Probably pull us out of europe rather than risk losing that cash cow!

lozgti

Presume they could just prosecute you for speeding.See if you want to defend it.Take it to a trial and if you lose you pay the costs as well as getting stuffed for the offence?

Appreciate it would be huge costs and expense.

I despise them with a passion,and sadly the police too.Catch real criminals

warrenm2

We should be so lucky. However in reality, Hell will freeze over first before TB does that

OllyK

Better buy me some new thermals then

unclebuck

Plan B is already being put in place. Micro chips in number plates to track and time your movements between fixed points. The data can then automatically calculate speed and issue penalties as required.

Jerome

The whole reason that the current system works so well is that it doesn't involve the courts. If every speed camera "conviction" had to go through the courts system, the whole process would collapse overnight because, apart from being massively expensive, the courts system cannot cope with demand. Just the simple act of asking for the photograph would bring the system down if everybody did it.

I also think this is too good to be true. The govt will simply rush through new legislation to enable the system to continue, probably making it retroactive as well.

Fart

Which is why they favouring forward facing cameras to provide evidence.

Still, doesn't do much to stop bikers popping a wheelie at 50 in a 30 infront of a Truvelo

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

stilover

Plus they are trying to bring in the road pricing scheme that will involve all new cars being fitted with a Black boxes, that supposedly will charge you for every mile driven. As this will run on GPS it will also record your speed, meaning where ever you go, on what ever road, you speed, a NIP will be sent straight out to you

Jerome

Which is also why the police are clamping down on illegal front tints.

Time to start driving around with sunglasses and a false beard. Even then I can still claim it was the gf driving.

StickyMicky

then they will get you for being a terrorist

Rioja

This doesn't apply to all forces; Thames Valley will 'only' present the evidence at court, other forces will send you the picture following a written request.

It pi55es me off there is no standardisation, constant changes and lack of 'real' policing (by this I mean patrol cars doing a real job). Sadly, I've lost all respect for the police; and that's a very very hard thing to regain.

speedking

Incorrect. The NIP will be sent to the registered keeper, unless there is a system where you have to log in so they know who was actually driving . If the RK doesn't have to disclose the driver's identity then nothing has really changed from the current situation

^Qwerty^

Doesn't matter if it's a speed camera or some kind of GPS tracking system that gets you, unless you get stopped there and then by a serving officer, the same problem exists for the 172.

They could of course just make it a civil offence.........

Leslie

Its all to do with money of course, they will get around it somehow. They will just change the law out of hand and with no reference to Parliament of course!

Les

GaryCat

If the GPS systems are as unreliable as my RAC Tracker I've got nothing to worry about.

Playsatan

iTrader: (2)

If you really wanted to put a cat amongst the pigeons all you would have to do is ask for all information relating to you held on specs database's to be sent to you. The goverment are leaglly bound to do this under the Freedom of information act.

If everyone did this once in a while the system would grind to a halt as every time you're location is logged they would have to pass the details on to you.

Leslie

Now there's a thought!

Les

Abdabz

Sweet god... Whilst we all know the cameras wont be removed and safespeed (an ironic name for such a bunch of muppets if ever there was one ) are living in cloud cuckoo land, can you imagine the consequences if their pipedream came true?
What would happen to the thousands of incompetent drivers and/or law breakers who are currently rightly punished for speeding???
Innocent motorists and non motorists having to pay the increases in taxes to compensate the government for the loss of revenue. These morons who can't drive within the remit of the law, and the boundaries they accepted as a standard when they were handed their driving licenses need to be punished.
I would imagine to do this there would be a need to reinvest millions into recruiting more traffic police to try and quell the massive upsurge in brain donors ragging round everywhere at speeds which they think are safe... I suppose we would all have to pay for that too?

Thank god it wont happen and my soothsaying wont occur...

I sincerely back the safety camera scheme for improving road safety, slowing down idiots who cant drive, and generating revenue from those who can't be ar$ed obeying the law / or are to incompetent to observe it.

Thus my taxes remain lower than they otherwise would...
Hurrah

Scooby-Doo

If they had kept cameras to accident blackspots and schools then these issues would never have arisen. Where you have national speed limit dual carriageways being converted to 40 mph and the placement of multiple cameras hidden behind trees, signs then there will be a public outcry.

Jerome

Worth bearing in mind that not all accidents (6 to 7% according to the TRL) are caused by excessive speed/speeding. Almost all accidents are caused by bad driving.

Apparently, speed cameras collectively only make a £21m profit each year for the government. A drop in the ocean tax-wise.

Also, you fail to appreciate that many bad drivers - who cause accidents - do not speed and are unaffected by speed cameras.

Furthermore, there are so few traffic police now, that many people take risks because the chances of being caught (as long as you don't speed) are minimal.

Lastly, explain why KSI numbers have either risen or stayed the same every year since speed cameras were brought in rather than reduce. Surely these "safety cameras" should be improving safety...

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Front facing cameras are good as it takes away any doubt as to who was driving, however once you have been flashed in the face in the dark by the bright red flash going off you tend to slow down as you do not want the same thing happening twice. Personally I think it is feckin dangerous to have a flash go off in your face but obviously the government think it is ok. It is seriously dissorientating to say the least.

22BUK

What's the word I'm looking for? Hmmm. That's it! ****!

DJ140

You idiot, what do you think happened before speed camera's? Do you really think that everyone would drive around at top speed if there weren't any camera's?

For your information the death rate on the raods was on a downwards trend before speed camera's and even with safer cars these days the rate has increased.

More Police patrols would be a step in the right direction, compulsory re-tests every 5 years and that should do the job. And as for camera's slowing people down, get real, people slow down for them, cause a multiple pile up, then speed up again. They are nothing more than a distraction to motorists and a revenue generator for the cops.

You said it yourself, they "slow down idiots that CAN'T DRIVE". The issue is f*ck all to do with speed, it's the level of skill the majority of drivers possess, improve driver training and the accident rate will decrease, simple.

DJ140

Yes, he is one of these. Probably drives in the outside lane doing 70MPH, slowing me down......BMW driver perhaps???

DJ140

Sat nav device, or "Black spot" advisor sorts this one out. No flashes if you use one of these.

Excelllent for road safety too as anyone that uses one is aware of the dangerous road they must be travelling on, after all speed camera's are only ever installed in area's of high fatalities

tony95

the technology is already available to govern a cars speed via a gps system to the speed limit it is traveling in.
probably these will come in over the next few years ,problem for the gov is they won't make any money on fines.
We're probably safe for now ,i will however drive "enthusiastically" while we still have the choice.