Jump to content

Have you been fined for speeding here..........


donna miller

Recommended Posts

This article was in the paper today, worth checking if you fall foul of the speed trap cash machine.

 

Gatso gaffe rebate row

20/11/2007

RELATED ARTICLES

Up to 25,000 drivers may be able claim back millions of pounds in fines because a speed camera has operated illegally for 10 years.

The original paperwork for the Gatso bore the name Seatown Road to mark out a 30mph zone.

But though locals in Chideock, Dorset, use the title, the highway is officially called Duck Street.

And lorry driver Alan Dawe, 52, who won a court appeal because of the error, said yesterday: "Any drivers caught should challenge."

The speed trap is now legal but there have been about 25,000 prosecutions since 1997, admit police.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the law is the law. It is an exact instrument.

 

If you are charged with "exceeding the speed limit at X time on Y date, in Duckworth road", then if the camera was not in Duckworth road, then in law you are not guilty of the offence for which you were charged.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BGD - 2007-11-20 11:39 AM

 

But the law is the law. It is an exact instrument.

 

If you are charged with "exceeding the speed limit at X time on Y date, in Duckworth road", then if the camera was not in Duckworth road, then in law you are not guilty of the offence for which you were charged.

 

Agreed that may be the letter of the law. However, people who know very well that they are guilty should have the moral fibre to admit it and not weasel their way out of the situation.

 

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, let me get a set of steps here so everyone can get down from their high horse.

 

I merely cut and pasted an article, I didn't say I agreed with it. However, anybody, (and I suggest you read lots of old posts before you claim innocence)who might "occasionally" stray a couple of mph over the limit now and then, for whatever reason, would be well p*ss*d if that camera lost them their licence, job etc.

The tolerance margin (ie the actual speed the camera flashes you at) is set by the operating authority, and can be set as little as 1mph over the prescribed limit for that stretch of road. So trundle along at 31 and you lose your licence.

 

Perhaps we should all stop posting things, lest someone might not agree with the contents.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donna

 

I live nearby this place - I am just over the border in Hampshire and whilst I too do not advocate speeding (so far clean licence for over 20 years) I am concerned that the an individual not familiar with the location - i.e. anyone touring! - could in the course of a short period tot up enough points to lose their license. So my thanks for the info even though it does not apply to me.

 

With the statistics showing that on rural roads speed is rarely the cause of accidents, I suggest that built up areas should have them - round schools/hospitals etc in particular.

 

But if the numptys that set them up get it wrong, then two wrongs never make a right in my book.

 

I challenged a parking fine I got in Salisbury because whilst I parked legally, the overly officious little Hitler that was on that day wrote me a ticket because my tyre was touching the yellow line. He even had a photo to prove it!

 

So did I thanks to modern mobile phones and both photos showed that the line my tyre was touching was in fact a 3 inch "overrun" of paint that should not be there.

 

Challenge everything I say!

 

It is good for the Numpty's emotional development.

*-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an 'ex-old bill' I do not hold with speed cameras. In my day there were brightly coloured traffic cars, 'jam sandwiches' who would patrol the roads following speeders and dealing with them by 'words of advice' or summons if thought neccesary , i.e. those drivers who 'failed the idiot test' or who were blatantly over the speed limit. Cameras are purely a 'cash cow' in my opinion and if one can 'get off' by way of a technicality then good luck to them. That said, I do not, of course, condone speeding especially in built up areas through housing estates and past schools but do you really need a speed camera on, for example, the A11 Wymondham by pass which is fairly straight, has mimimal junctions and is dual carriageway?

 

Regards Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, lets look at it another way then.

 

Say you get a speeding ticket, you sign a legal declaration saying you were driving at 33 mph in George St at 2.45pm on 1/1/2007 or worse still, go and appear in court and swear under oath. Later on it appears that the police got the name of the road wrong. You are then offered the opportunity of having the points removed and fine retuned, what would you do then ? How "moral" a stance would you all take. I know what I would do.

 

On the other hand, technically you have also given false information under oath, would you be prepared to accept a charge of perjory (spelling) to be bought against you, simply because somebody made a mistake and the details were not correct to the "letter of the law".

 

The law works both ways, rules are in place to convict and also to protect, if those rules are broken to secure a conviction, then the conviction is wrong, no matter what the severity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

michele - 2007-11-20 12:47 PM

 

malc ,

She never said anything other than you all might like to check.

like she states she never said I agree with this .

 

Again I think because we cannot see faces it gets lost in translation.

 

Michele:

I am absolutely with you and Donna on this, but I took it that she was offering to get me a pair of steps so I could get off my high horse when in fact I wasn't on one.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

Never has more common sense been shown, good old fashion traffic cops caught the speeders, but they also caught the drunk drivers,the "not fit for the road" cars.

No amount of speed camera's will catch dangerous drivers, or stolen cars or to most extents drivers with no insurance,tax etc. As long as that car is registered to the driver, the "safty camera partnerships" don't need to run checks, they merely collect the £60.

 

Also, British police have a secret weapon, it's called discretion. Show a bit of respect when you were pulled, and for minor offences, a bit of humble pie got you a lecture and you were sent on your way. How many hi-tech cameras can do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2007-11-20 1:01 PM

 

 

Michele:

I am absolutely with you and Donna on this, but I took it that she was offering to get me a pair of steps so I could get off my high horse when in fact I wasn't on one.

 

 

 

Malc, If a burger stall sets up at a rally, not everyone has to eat one, merely those that are hungry. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My earlier post on this thread was certainly not meant as criticism of any other poster and if it appeared so then I apologise unreservedly.

 

Like Mike, I should love to see more police officers employed rather than machines. However, given cost cutting by successive governments over the years, I think it will be a long time, if ever, that that happens.

 

I agree with CliveH that you should mount a challenge in cases where you have evidence that you are innocent. However, that is far removed from people who know they are guilty using a technicality to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

 

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GJH - 2007-11-20 1:46 PM

 

My earlier post on this thread was certainly not meant as criticism of any other poster and if it appeared so then I apologise unreservedly.

 

Like Mike, I should love to see more police officers employed rather than machines. However, given cost cutting by successive governments over the years, I think it will be a long time, if ever, that that happens.

 

I agree with CliveH that you should mount a challenge in cases where you have evidence that you are innocent. However, that is far removed from people who know they are guilty using a technicality to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

 

Graham

 

 

 

Graham - just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

 

By your argument then, you would also advocate removing the right of any defendent in any court to have a defence counsel and to challenge the charge(s) being brought against that person?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion, speed cameras should have a 10% margin of discretion, and any one convicted should have 3 points on their licence, BUT no fine. This then would end for good the complaint that they are being used just to raise revenue, which again IMO they most definatly are. This of course does not apply to dangerous or reckless driving, which should carry a very large fine, loss of license and possible jail sentence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice theory chas, but it would only add to the fine line arguement, are you saying it would be okay to do 33mph in a 30mph zone, but if you do 34mph then you are a criminal.

 

Not trying to cause dissent, but I think you will know where I am coming from.

 

Whoops, my brain can type faster than my fingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago I was caught speeding, 36 in a 30 zone, I was driving home after night duty when Billy Sollocks pulled me over, gave me a lecture together with a fixed penalty fine.

No problem I thought when my licence comes back from Swansea, HGV renewal, I will send of fine and licence together with fixed penalty notice. My licence did not return from Swansea in time to pay the fixed penalty and as such went to court and the fine doubled despite explaining to the court as to why this fine was not paid on time. The law is an ass and if I had the opportunity to get away with a speeding conviction then beleive I would.

As a postscipt Billy Sollocks requested the attendance of the Fire Service to a car one night and I was on that attendance, although I was the driver the lads made sure that I had the hose, accidents happen and I tripped over with the hose open and young Billy got the soaking of his life.

I did go and apologise to him afterwards and he got the message loud, wet and clear.

John D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker

Whilst I do not condone speeding - unless it is me wot is doing it - I do believe that any means that we, the motoring money magic fountain of the UK, can find to beat the system has got to be worth a go.

 

If it is good enough for real and often violent criminals to get off on a technicality then surely it is good enough for normal decent beings who just happen to be driving a car wearing a locator badge (number plate) which makes them them such an easy target when they wander over the speed limit?

 

God knows we pay enough to use our cars and vans in this free country of ours and a little victory against the system now and again is a great morale booster!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BGD - 2007-11-20 2:48 PM

Graham - just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

 

By your argument then, you would also advocate removing the right of any defendent in any court to have a defence counsel and to challenge the charge(s) being brought against that person?

Not at all. The role of defence counsel (with a duty to present the defence that the client has put forward) arose to prevent unfair false prosecutions.

 

However, professional ethics state that defence counsel must do their best for the defendant but in doing so they must not mislead the court.

 

So, if counsel knows that a defendant was (for instance) breaking a speed limit he/she must not present the case in a manner which denies that fact.

 

Graham

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...