New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Correct on both counts:

1) A Ford Focus (standard trim not an ST or RS) can stop from 70 in half the distance than the highway code says it should take.

2) The only people that can be targeted by Scameras etc.. are those who follow the rules, i.e. register, insure tax etc.... This is one reason why we need more patrol cars and less scameras

NS04

Big Den

Anyone actually followed the advice given on pepipoo?

Den

22BUK

Yes, several times, both for me & missus & friends - no-one convicted yet...

hedgehog

As others have pointed out this route is unlikely to work. Of late police have been investigating such claims and have been asking for evidence that the named party was in the UK and was in a position to drive the car. They could ask, for example, if he was insured to drive the vehicle and if no proof of insurance was forthcoming then there is the possibility that the keeper will be questioned as to why he allowed the vehicle to be driven by someone with no insurance. There is an offence of allowing someone who is uninsured to drive a vehicle as i recall. Should the keeper of the vehicle then retract his assertion that some else was driving, in the face of charges of allowing someone to drive without insurance, then he may find himself facing other charges relating to obstructing the police in the course of their investigation.

With this in mind this is a very unwise route to take unless it actually was someone from Iraq who was driving at the time and you have documentation to show that they were in the country and were insured to drive etc.

The partnerships are lowering themselves to lying and even infringing your right to silence and to not incriminating yourself in order to protect their revenue stream but this is no excuse for the motorist to lower themselves to the same level as we can still present a range of useful defences which fall within the law. In many cases what the police and partnerships are doing is, at best, extremely dodgy so often the law is actually on the side of the motorist hence why so many people successfully defend themselves against automated claims that they committed a crime.

Leslie

Little point in jumping up and down about it these days. You just have to accept the fact that the speedcams exist and if you are exceeding the limit as you pass one it will snap you and you will be prosecuted. It is in accordance with the law and they want your money. The authorities are more powerful than you in that respect.

Your only defence is to drive within the speed limits as the law requires or to vote in a government which will take down the speedcams!

Total waste of time to keep whining about it.

I hate speedcams and their principles as much as anyone on this net.

Les

TelBoy

Absolutely!!! But are WE the only people who realise this? Don't the police CARE? Are there policemen willing to stand up and admit that it's all about money, nothing to do with preserving driving standards? It's totally absurd.

Scooby-Doo

I do know a number of people who visit the UK from Iran / Iraq but why is it the drivers responsibilty to prove they were insured and in the country. The document asks for the name and address of the drivers and do not state any caviats if the drivers does not have a residence in the UK.

^Qwerty^

Might not exist for much longer. I'm a paid up member of pepipoo and I have questioned what they are doing, as I can't believe that the government will give up on automated speed enforcement so easily, but it really does look like things might begin to change somewhat before the end of the month.

I'm probably the most cynical person you could ever meet in some respects, but I really am starting to feel good about the end of the scamarati.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Hi hedgehog

Its reasonable diligence not due diligence, there is a big difference in the two.

If the registered keeper (RK)doesnt know who was driving then using the para 4 of section 172 of the road traffic act is a good bet, but be warned you need to try and find out who was driving by first asking for photos( reasonable diligence) and making other inquires to help identify. If after that you are still no nearer being to identify beyond reasonable doubt then use para 4 defence.

If you were caught in scotland then returning the nip unsigned but filled in with the driver details is still a good bet see pepipoo.com ( nip the scottish view thread). There has been quite a few recently who have used this tactic and have been sucessful NB this only applies to SCOTLAND

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Big den I take it you are the RK. If so it is your responsibility to name the driver at the time, You have nominated flat eric. Wait until the twenty eight days are nearly up then return the nip fully completed naming flat eric as the likely driver, then flat Eric can use the tactics or others on pepipoo I have mentioned in my previous post.

has anybody used the legal defences on pepipoo, then yes

Iwan

Just seen this thread. I was also done for 84mph on the motorway, on boxing day 2003 at 7am, bright and sunny, dry road surface, virtually no other traffic about, observing correct lane discipline. For the record it was on the M4 just inside Wales in the 'revenue zone'.

Pi$$ed off? Yeah, but I was breaking the law. Though I'd have been amazed if I'd been pulled over by Trafpol for such a heinous crime.

A few years earlier I'd been doing the same trip at but at 3am on a similarly empty motorway, cruising at just over the ton, a car slowly caught me up over a few miles and cruised past in lane 2 going only slightly quicker than me. As it passed , I looked across at it and realised it was Trafpol and I'd been caught. The passenger slowly shook his head and wagged a finger at me, they then pulled across into lane 1 in front of me. I backed off and started gently coasting down in anticipation of blue lights and the inevitable pull. It never came, after making me sweat for a minute or two they gently accelerated away and disappeared into the distance. Lesson learned, I didn't risk catching them up again!

The 'Revenue Partnerships' really don't do themselves any favours with their indiscriminate reaming. Fair enough doing it in towns/villages, outside schools and housing estates etc. But when you see a 'revenue van', it always seems to be hiding somewhere in the middle of nowhere - but where there's a rich vein of easy revenue just waiting to be tapped.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

The police will try and prosecute you for permitting without insurance, there is case law on pepipoo regarding permitting/ foreign driver and insurance

MattW

Reckon I got myself 3 points on Monday. A417 dual carriageway (Iwan you'll now it) cruise set to 84 mph .

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Unlucky M8, I got a letter through from the Bavarian police the other week telling me I was driving to close to the car in front for the speed I was doing, I was doing 119kmh on a 3 lane nearly empty autobahn on a hot sunny day. I was 22metres behind the car in front when at that speed I should have been 59.9 metres behind the car in front. To me this is fecking stupid but the law is the law. Have you any idea just how far 60 metres is?? As you all know that leaving a gap is a good idea but if you leave a gap that is to big some idiot will pull into it so there for you need to slow down and increse the gap so some other idiot pulls into it and you back off again before much longer you will be back where you started from.

To top it all the amount of times I have had cars up my **** that are so close I can not read the bonnet badge let alone the number plate.

I had a BMW X5 up my **** the other day in roadworks, he was so close that I could not see the bmw badge on the bonnet lip, then he started to flash me to move over, the limit was 80kmh through the road works so I we were already doing 100, then as soon as we exited them bye bye Mr. X5. so in the road works he broke 3 traffic laws but I bet he won't get done for anything.

Speeding in roadworks
Driving to close
Flashing headlights.

All 3 a re traffic offences in Germany.

Sorry to divert off topic but I got carried away

MattW

What's the fine Wurzel? any points? (if you have a Deutsch licence)

badgerstuffer #2

Can you speak up as you are clearly talking out of your **** so you are coming across a bit muffled ...........NUMPTIE.

mad_dr

Just outside Cirencester was it? Or Cricklade bridge or bottom of Blunsdon hill? They're spending a LOT of time in those three places at the moment.

hedgehog

Perhaps this report in the times is somewhat less muffled for you:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...689428,00.html

Big Den

At the risk of muppetising this thread:

If I do name Flat Eric as the driver at the time of the alledged incident, do you think this may negatively impact his career particularly in advertisements where he is required to drive?

Postie hasn't been today yet - I'm bricking it in case any more NIPS are delivered!!!!!

Den

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

The fine is €50 and no points.

They tend not to give you points for stupid minor motoring offences you need to do summat serious to get points. But I have a UK licence anyway so they can not give me points as such, however if I get points for anything it is recorded on the police computer that if I was to get a German Licence then I have been awarded x points.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

You have legal duty to name the driver, unless you are preapred to take the points and fine yourself. However if you do that and get found out later on perverting the course of justice wont be much fun.

I doubt that it will hurt his career for a minor speeding offence

MattW

Just b4 you reach the Burford\Ciren exit, layby about quater of a mile prior, just after you cross the bridge, Swindon bound.

Big Den

FFS - my car was in that area last Fri evening and on Sunday morning!!!!!!

Flat Eric could be due a kick in the nads!!

Den

mart360

A work colleague had his uk licence removed in germany he had to give it to the magistrate for 2 weeks..

we think the late night donuts didnt go down to well!!

M

Diesel

Make them work for their money - demand conclusive proof that all was set up and accurate on the video. If the term justice is still relevant this should pose them no problem - I have seen video of these devices getting 120mph out of a brick wall . Go not guilty until they have proved beyond reasonable doubt that you ARE guilty. Too many roll over, take it and simply encourage this persecution – they often don’t even have the video, or are too scared to provide it and show its unreliability…

What really gets me is that they do not request to see your insurance or MOT in these mass prosecuted automated cases. If you have no insurance you are 11 times more likely to be involved in an accident [a 'rogue' no doubt] but do they give a flying? No! They focus on a paltry few mph over a 1960' set limit. Beyond blinkered, simplistic and pathetic.

And Leslie I'm disappointed in you rolling over. If you believe the practices are wrong Blighty spirit says stand up and fight!!! And that comes from a man who applauds most speed cameras in town/village..

Leslie

Do you really think this sorry lot who run the country will ever take any notice of the electorate Diesel? Whatever they do has extra cash for the exchequer behind it.

The point I made was that if you do get snapped then it is virtually impossible to get away with it and the only real defence is to make sure that the cams don't get you either by not speeding or by using a GPS device.

As I said, the only way is to vote them out, that is the only real power left to us-so far! I do believe that spy cams are not in the spirit of this country but then neither are Billy and his slimy cronies.

Les

TelBoy

Only flaw in that logic is that no party is going to remove scameras as a political policy. The Tories talked a good game, but they know a cash cow when they see one just like the rest of them.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

This is simply not true. There are many members of pepipoo and other forums who have used legal defences with a great deal of success. The police/cps make errors all the way down the line in preparing a case for the magistrates, this doesn't even include the dubious evidence they allegedly have. The system is geared so that most people capitulate, with a little effort and research you can defeat the allegation, but you must be prepared to take it all the way.

Suresh

You sound more and more like UB each day. Perhaps there's something in the water where you both live? Aluminium sulphate is my guess. Change the record old boy, nobody's listening.

The scamera problem is common in Europe. I've seen it in Switzerland and also in Holland too. In the Netherlands the speed camera targets are financial and expressed in terms of lives saved. Perhaps we should all blame NL and Blair for that too??

My take on the problem is that a few anti-social speeding chavs in super loud cars with comedy glued-on spoilers, makes the case for making progress and being safe whilst doing so rather unbelieveable.

Have a good day and enjoy the weather!

Suresh

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

There was a mobile scamera on the road to our office the other day, it is about 4 feet high painted in olive drab green, no warning signs and it was hidden in a bush and covered in a cam net.

They also put them in the back or the front of an unmarked estate car and park then on the side of the road amongst the normal parked cars, so you need to overtake the parked car which usually means speeding up to get round it safely.

They also have them in unmarked vans parked on the side of the road.

They also hide them in laybys in front of cars and vans so you can not see them until it is to late.

In switzerland they hide them in wheelie bins by the road and also disguise them to look like normal road furniture such as bollards etc.

At least you lot have a fighting chance as they are all flourescent yellow and signposted.