madou

"If you have incurred within the last 6 months penalties under S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, either by incriminating yourself or by refusing to do so, whether for speed camera or other offences, you may be eligible as a 'victim' of this unfair law, to make an application to the ECHR for removal of the penalties and/or compensation"

http://www.abd.org.uk/righttosilence.htm

andrewdelvard

No points so far (touch wood) but very interesting.

rr_ww

Am I the only person in the country who thinks this is a bad idea. Jesus, we'll have all manner of idiots blasting up and down at ridiculous speeds (and yes i believe that road related deaths will increase) if they can just use the right to silence to avoid incriminating themselves or getting prosecuted. I like a blast every now and then ( more now than then though )but wouldn't it be more sensible if the ABD just focused on the positioning of cameras where there are problems rather than just where htey are going to increase revenue. And tryu to increase road awaareness to improve driving standards.

I for one hope that the ECHR throws this out and rules in favour of the government.

I AM independent of everybody, including the ABD or the government or agencies working for them. I am just a concerned member of the public.

boomer

rr_ww,

it is much more than "speeding", it is the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

mb

rr_ww

Boomer

You're absolutely right, I'm not saying we should have mis carriages of justice. But how exactly do you propose that Gatso cameras or any unmanned speed trap be policed? I have no points on my licence yet (still young :P) but when I get some I will just take it like a man. I know that I speed, I do so knowing that I could loose my license (and my job) and I know that it is maybe stupid. My point is that Gatsos are unfortuantly a necessary evil as without them we'll be in **** street. Road accidents WOULD increase.

To take it to an extreme example. How would you feel if someone came through a speed trap (40mph area) at 90 and then hit a pedestrian crossing the road (could be someone you know) and ****ed off. The registration would have been seen and when the police interviewed the driver he claimed his right to silence. So the police couldn't prove it was him/her and as a result the case had to be dropped. If the ABD wins this MAY become reality.

The problem (as I see it) is that too many Gatsos are being placed where they shouldn't. Which then demeans the whole system.

However to cite human rights in cases like this is ridiculous. Stupidly the ABD have even quoted Churchill for ****s sake. Is 3 points and £60 really a harsh price to pay when you were breaking the law?

Cheers
Richard

rjs1000

rr_ww - think it though and stop talking cr@p...

WRXBOB

If the camera's were put in places that would prevent injury and / or death, then I wouldn't have a problem with them.

But while ever they are hidden behind other road signs on unpopulated roads etc then I think its wrong.

Surely the whole idea of speed camera's is road safety....RIGHT?

Well the camera's do NOT contribute to road safety IMHO

I have been caught twice by the portable type gatso, each time, the camera was position with a van blocking the motorists from seeing it untill the last minute. And both locations were on good clear dual carriagways with NO residential properties near, so NO pedestrians to save from the nasty man in his speeding car!

Speeding in built up areas ie: doing 60mph in a 30mph zone near a school should carry a ban. And if I ever did such a thing I would deserve a ban.

I'm going now 'cos this subject really gets to me...
BOB

Tiggs

rr_ww,

no you are not alone- its daft.

if people want to protest about speed camera placement then they should do- not moan about this human rights tosh.

they'll bloody moan when the person who knocks down their mum/dad/kid/etc gets of cause of this rubish

TIggs

devils_ad69

Tiggs,

There is a world of difference between someone who knocks down someone (usually one or both parties are at fault, either the pedestrian for not checking the road is clear or the driver for not anticipating the pedestrian) which is usually caused by a lack of attention, and some one who exceed an arbitary limit posted on a bit of tin at the side of the road.

Speed cameras do NOTHING to promote road safety.

Diablo

Devils ad,

LOL....FFS don't go down that road with Tiggs

sillysi

Many people think that they are a victim of an unfair law. At the end of the day a law is a law and if you brake it you should pay.

Katana

But some laws are rather dumb and archaic. Hell, do you still know that it is still legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow right up till now as it still hasn't been repelled the last time I checked? I agree with putting up cameras in 30 mph zones buit not on motorways. When they made that law, they were thinking in terms of yesteryears technology, not our modern stuff.

But if it brings them revanue, why woul they want to chang it eh? I swear if ever they lift the ban on speeding on motorways or get the petrol prices down, the UK economy would crumble.

edit ~ its welshman, not scotsman.

http://www.dumblaws.com

[Edited by Katana - 2/26/2002 7:17:47 PM]

rr_ww

Well at least some people can see where I'm coming from or going to. Thank You Tiggs and WRX Bob for understanding MY point.

As for RJS1000 if you haven't got something intelligent to add, say nothing please. And by that I don't mean you have to agree with me, but foward a resonable counter argument. Toss*r

Richard

Mick

iTrader: (1)

Richard

Nicely put points. I'm sure it is true that we all think of our own 'minor misdemeanors' in relation to this matter, but yes there are complete and utter idiots on the roads out there (certainly was at least one when I was young & rode a motorbike ), and giving anybody more incentive to mindless driving is scarey

Previously I had only rejoiced at news about speed cameras being made ineffective, - food for thought - thankyou!

Mick

boomer

rr_ww,

Sadly, the authorities use "the letter of the law" to enforce limits that common-sense would not support. They drop a 40mph limit down to 30mph after placing small "notices" on lamp-posts that car drivers cannot see (let alone read). This complies with regulations, along with printing a miniscule Public Notice in the back pages of the Tinytown Gazette.

After the reduced limit is "agreed", they remove the 40mph signs, but do they put up 30mph ones instead - do they ****!! Of course, legislation does not require 30mph repeaters on a "restricted road" - as the street lamps are less that 100 fathoms apart (or whatever the equivalent in euro-units). Road safety does not enter into it as they then install GATSOS to enforce the new (and often inappropriate) limit - at a cost far exceeding that of mere limit repeater signs.

When the authorities use "law" as a way of enforcing stupid new regulations, they must expect that the public may well use the same "law" to try to resist such stupid moves.

mb

rr_ww

Boomer

I agree that there are stupid positioning of Gatsos. That sometimes the Law is underhand in the way it goes about things.

Yes lets be honest most people drive at 40 in a 30 (including me) and to catch this sort of thing is a little ****. But if you repeal the law the idiots will take over. I'm not concerned about 75% of the population because we have enough sense not to drive around like loonies. But its the other 25% who don't give a **** for anyone but themselves and will create, and avoid punishment, for serious road offences if this case wins. It will create (IMO) a presedent (sp?) that if you can get away with it, you'll be more likely to try it on. At least currently people try to slow down for a camera if they see it (which was you're point, i think)

I'm not sure we're going to agree on this so I think i'll prefer to agree to disagree and we'll see what the (official) outcome is later.

Tiggs

Diabalo,

i counted to 5 and left it at that

STi go fast

this is good news!

most 30 limits are stupid and if there is a chance to use this law to get away with it where sensible then im all for it!

its about time the speed camera people got a taste of their own underhand, devious medicine.

J

Stephen Read

Nice post Boomer!

johnfelstead

toerags like that rr_ww,(i.e. the people rr_ww describe) are suposed to be dealt with via the dangerous driving laws and are supposed to be controlled by taffic police.

The more cameras go up the less you see the police actually policing.

This is giving the toerags more chance to kill us, not less.

speed camera's are there to make money, nothing more. Contest the buggers, i have twice in 5 years and they didnt take it further, they just want the money and cant be arsed with the time required to fight a court case against the 1% who actually tell them to **** off!!

I am seriously tired of this country and it's constant screwing over of the working man (or woman).

[Edited by johnfelstead - 2/28/2002 10:24:39 AM]

scoob_dood

Talk about can of worms!

Speeding is breaking the law agreed, but I think the key message in all of this circles around safety.

If you get caught by a speed camera what happens ? It photographs your car, and you receive a letter through the post several days later, with virtually no (logical) options but to stump up the money.

This process would not identify a stolen car, a car with defective brakes, a car with an uninsured driver, a car with an unlicensed driver ... the list is a long one - and what has been achieved on a safety level ? Not a lot.

Replace said speed camera with a Mobile Police Unit, they have the power and ability to stop the car, talk to the driver, examine the vehicle, check to see if it's stolen etc.

Agreed on the face of it Cameras are a good revenue earner for our (under funded) Police forces, but do they really serve the public's best interests?

Trying to weedle your way out of a crime you committed by using a legal loop hole seems almost as perverse as the cameras themselves, but that's my opinion.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

- Jon

Mick

iTrader: (1)

Obvious option as cameras proliferate and number of bobbys-on-the-beat decline is that false No. plates will increase!

AND wot happens about trucks??? - They can do the same speed as cars where in some places they should go slower! - What do you see in EVERY major accident? - A TRUCK

SD

Mick - As I understand it some cameras are clever enough to distinguish the size of the vehicle passing and impose a lower threshold 'over the limit' for trucks.

HTH,

Simon.

Sbradley

My best friend was killed by a hit and run driver. He was on his motorbike going past a petrol station when this toerag did a runner without paying, rammed him into the path of an oncoming car and then f*cked off. My mate was killed instantly.

Forecourt attendant get the number of toerag's car. Police track him down and nick him. Have the devil's own job with all sorts of technicalities, not least being that car and bike were both silver Hondas with the same paint code and of a similar age.

Toerag goes to ID parade having shaved off his beard and dyed his hair. Forecourt attendant can't be sure it was him.

Police finally manage to get a match on the paint.

Toerag claims his right to silence and refuses to name the driver.

This piece of sh*t then walked out of court laughing about it, having only been convicted of a couple of minor motoring offences because he claimed his right to silence.

I'm a believer in justice and in innocent until proven guilty, but where do you draw the line?

Oh, BTW, toerag later got nicked (successfully) for a few counts of fraud, and was also prosecuted (successfully) by my mate's parents. But that isn't really the point, is it?

boomer

SD

I seriously doubt this is possible!!

So there is a special sensor that can detect the weight of a lorry and determine whether it is an HGV (or rather LGV) whether of not the vehicle is fully laden? Or maybe if checks the height or something - NOT!!

The fact that an HGV lorry can get away with doing 60mph on a single carriageway when their limit is only 40mph shows what a mockery Gatsos really are [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

mb

Sbradley

About my previous rant.

My point, which I somehow failed to make, is that the right to silence is a fundamental one in criminal justice. On both sides.

On one hand, you have a piece of sh*t like the one in my earlier post who is deemed innocent until proven guilty, exercises his right to silence and then walks.

On the other you have you or me who gets snapped by a Gatso doing, say, 75 on an NSL road. We're deemed guilty unless we can prove ourselves innocent, and if we decline to incriminate ourselves then we get done for that instead.

There has to be justice but it has to be even handed. That means either *everyone* has a right to silence and then lots of nasty pieces of filth get away with all sorts of stuff or *no-one* has a right to silence and we all get done for speeding but lots of scumbags get theirs as well.

I'll take me chances with Gatso provided I know that next time this ****** (can I name him on here? Please?) knocks someone off at least he'll be almost guaranteed to get a damn good rogering on a regular basis in the shower block from Big Al for a while.

SD

Boomer,

TBH I'm not sure how the technology works but I know it doesn't go on weight, purely size. Dunno where I read it (back of a matchbox probably ) So I can't say how reliable the source was. I'll have a scout around later today and see if I can see where I saw it.

jasey

Just come back up the road from Dundee to Aberdeen - got suprised by a Gatso as it was the only one for miles NOT hidden behind a road sign - they are always at the end of long straight bits of road and usually hidden behind signs - as John says it's the Police trying to get more money - There are a number of roads in The Aberdeen area that have several deaths a year due to reckless drivers and what do they do - put up signs saying how many people have been killed or maimed - they really care about us !!!

Jase

[Edited by jasey - 3/4/2002 6:24:47 PM]