Devildog

Exactly

But this is scoobynet. People fail to see the blindingly fecking obvious on a regular basis

vindaloo

Pity TPTB didn't think of that when they effectively started using it to bludgeon people then. Some (?) chief constables have bemoaned the use of S172 in NIPs as it makes it too much of a target.

J.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

PMSL

Spoon

You were doing alright until this post, Dibbers. Cameras are a bloody nuisance to progressive driving which doesn't have to mean speeding. Driving is now a chore in a lot of cases, and outside of your own local environment it's an absolute ballache, not knowing where cameras are!

Too much time is spent looking for cameras and not enough on watching the surroundings, I think. You only have to look about at people who clearly aren't watching where they are going, particularly in unfamiliar areas.

Like everything today, cameras are there to make the playing field level and raise easy money, despite the wide range of driving abilities. Everybody is treated like they are a special needs case who can't think for themselves or take responsibility for their own actions.

As for the other points.

Leslie

This is the real nub of the affair. This is demonstrating that our earlier laws which were designed for our personal freedoms are being stealthily dumped for the convenience of the authorities.

It should be down to the police to prove who was driving the car at the time. Thius is an original principle in our law rather like that of Habeas Corpus.

The other point is that radar operated and also laser driven cameras for that matter have been demonstrated to be unreliable when it comes to recording an accurate speed.

It is quite wrong that this kind of evidence can be acceptable when it means that it can be used to put points on a man's licence, possibly losing him his licence, as well as charging him a hefty sum for the authorities' coffers.

In the early days of radar speed measuring the police had to stop you down the road to ascertain the driver's name. That was an improvement even though the measurements were not reliable.

The only real and fair method of regulating road traffic is by the original traffic police who were also likely to catch the drunk, drugged, uninsured drivers as well as those in dangerously unserviceable cars.

This present system of using the cameras as a stealth tax is not in the British style of doing things and has been shown also not to improve the accident records. I see also that there is a move afoot to deliberately hide the camers from view in order to make more cash.

This is a cynical way to make even more money out of the motorist since this party has always disliked the personal freedom that the car gives to the people.

Les

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Over here in sausageland all the cameras are front facing and take pics of the driver so there is no argument as to who was driving.

If as in the given scenario I lend my car to someone or someone takes it without my knowledge and a speed camera is tripped, if I can not say who the driver was or it can be seen that it wasn't me, I will be presented with a notebook and pen and will be forced to write down in this book who was driving, where and when every single time the car goes out.

the problem with forward facing cameras is when it is dark and the blinding red flash goes off in your face temporarily blinding you.

Also I have seen the pic from one of these cameras and to say it is shocking is an understatement, plus the reg plate is zoomed in on and looks like a photoshop, I was under the impression that photos from these cameras could not be manipulated or modified in anyway. The pic they sent me as evidence of my misdemeanour was shocking, I could have done better on paintshop pro.

The other thing is our cameras are pure revenue generating and it is widely known and admitted, the Germans do not pass them off as safety cameras, they are there to catch speading motorists. Also our cameras are painted olive green and are hard to see. Also they tend to use a lot of small mobile units that are painted olive green and are hidden in laybys between parked cars or in bushes and covered in cam nets. The other favourite is to set them up in the back or front of a parked car in amongst other parked cars and zap you as you speed up to safely overtake the parked car with the camera in it.

we do have a great system on the radio where people phone in and report the locations of the cameras.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Les,

whilst I can agree with some elements of what you say in principle you latter arguments are odd.

The regime of speed cameras is supported and has been advanced by both major parties - it is not a Labour issue.

Secondly - surely it can only be a tax on those who choose to break the law!

Rannoch

Spoon

Oh dear.

Devildog

I'd argue that attentive, progressive driving could still be easily maintained without spending too much time looking for cameras. Surely watching the surroundings should include being aware of cameras, fixed and mobile, and not mutually exclusive as you suggest?

I doubt that I am the only one that doesn't need to keep looking at the speedo to know whether I am speeding or not. What happened to awareness of road, wind and engine noise? Not to mention how the vehicle is moving along the road.

Maybe we need to agree to disagree on that point, although I'm keen to understand how progressive driving that doesn't mean speeding can possibly be hampered by a speed camera

At the end of the day, to get caught you need to be exceeding the posted limit. Like or loath the limits, thats the harsh fact.

Stealing the odd chocolate bar from Sainsburies because you are hungry and forgot your wallet isn't going to have the slightest effect on, well, anything, and is perfectly "safe" but the overall outcome doesn't stop it being illegal.

But I'm playing devil's advocate, here. I would happily see all forms of speed detection abolished outside of built up areas and I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph

Spoon

You'd be arguing with yourself then. In areas that I know there is just no-way you can be progressive in it's true driving sense. Maybe you are simply referring to progressive as going forwards. Of course in it's true sense it will always be hampered with the reinforcement of the speeding limit via cameras.

I doubt you are too. However, road, wind and engine noise could be argued at any speed below 40mph in a half decent motor. BMW 1 series diesels not included.

See above on the reason. As an example, dual carriageways were never designed for cars in both lanes to be travelling at the same speed. Overtaking without risking triggering a camera is near impossible. Explaining the situation is even more impossible via letter or phone if you receive a summons. A traffic Officer might see you accelarate up to 65, maybe 70 to overtake safely and not bat an eyelid knowing full well you aren't 'speeding', but executing a manoeuvre in the safest possible way.

Your powers of deduction just know no bounds.

Then you lose it and sound like someones Nan.

Then it comes back.

Leslie

I did not say that the act of using speed cameras was purely a Labour institution and I would not accept them any more readily from any other political party.

My point was that I deplore the methods used in relation to convicting a driver both from the point of view of our traditional methods of applying the law which seem to be being ignored or pushed to one side and also that drivers licences are at risk unfairly with the use of unsafe evidence.

I also criticised the present habit of decreasing the use of traffic police and relying on speed cams to generate cash at the cost to the motorist who is ripped off enough already by the authorities.

I would feel the same whichever party was in power.

Those who deliberately break the speed limits can expect to be prosecuted for it eventually. Those who accidentally stray unwittingly a little over the limit or who are convicted unfairly are entitled to feel upset about it all especially when it is obviously a deliberate act to raise more cash with no real result in the cause of road safety.

Les

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Sadly, breaking the law by 'accident' is not a valid plea in court.

Indeed if someone is not aware of their speed and uses that as a defence then surely they will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.

Devildog

ps - the 1 Series is gone. Keep up

sociophobe

How very stupid of you Scottie boy. I'd rather be looking out for children, rogue footballs (????) and 'iccle fluffy aminals' than speed cameras. I guess your Type R never used it's VTEC then? Just as well that you've went all 'barbour jacket' and ' green wellies' now

andy97

iTrader: (1)

12.—(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—

the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.

You haven't answered the question.

How can information be used as primary evidence in a court of law without being gathered under caution/pace?

Terrorists are afforded their rights under pace. I think the attempt to mass murder is a little more serious than speeding, dont you?

sociophobe

Good ol' Scots law

We don't need to sign 172 so it's to the scameras

Fishface

From PACE C.10.1:

“A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence must be cautioned before any questions about it (or further questions if it is his answers to previous questions which provide the ground for suspicion) are put to him regarding his involvement or suspected involvement in that offence if his answers or his silence(i.e. failure or refusal to answer a question or answer satisfactorily) may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution. He therefore need not be cautioned if questions are put for other purposes, for example, solely to establish his identity or his ownership of any vehicle or to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirements (see paragraph 10.5C) or in furtherance of the proper and effective conduct of research, (for example to determine the need to search in the exercise of powers of stop and search or to seek co-operation when carrying out a search) or to seek verification of a written record in accordance with paragraph 11.13.”

mart360

9:36

nothing on the ECHR site......any news?

Mart

mart360

What p**ses people off is if you satisfy the above, and furnish details. and the feds cant find said furnished details are ok to them, you cop the £60+3 by default... yet you have satisfied the above...

Mart

mart360

Somethings going on.... the later case has been posted with its findings, but the IF case still hasnt been posted....


Mart

mart360

Its IN

The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom (application nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02).
The Court held, by 15 votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(The judgment is available in English and French.)
1. Principal facts
Gerard O’Halloran and Idris Francis are United Kingdom nationals who were born in 1933 and 1939 respectively. Mr O’Halloran lives in London and Mr Francis lives in Petersfield (United Kingdom).
On 7 April 2000 Mr O’Halloran’s vehicle was caught on a speed camera driving at 69 miles per hour (mph) (equivalent to 111 km/h) on the M11 motorway, where the temporary speed limit was 40 mph (equivalent to 64 km/h). On 12 June 2001 Mr Francis’ car was caught on speed camera driving at 47 mph (equivalent to 75 km/h), where the speed limit was 30 mph (equivalent to 48 km/h).
In each case the applicant was subsequently informed that the police intended to prosecute the driver of the vehicle. He was asked for the full name and address of the driver of the vehicle on the relevant occasion or to supply other information that was in his power to give and which would lead to the driver’s identification. Each applicant was further informed that failing to provide information was a criminal offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Mr O’Halloran answered his letter confirming that he was the driver at the relevant time. Mr Francis, however, wrote to the police invoking his right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination.
On 27 March 2001 Mr O’Halloran was tried before North Essex Magistrate’s Court. Prior to the trial, he sought unsuccessfully to have his confession excluded as evidence, relying on sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 read in conjunction with Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. He was convicted of driving in excess of the speed limit and fined 100 pounds sterling (GBP) (equivalent to 147.66 euros (EUR)), ordered to pay GBP 150 (EUR 221.49) costs and had his licence endorsed with six penalty points. On 19 October 2001 his application for judicial review of the magistrates’ decision was refused.
On 28 August 2001 Mr Francis was summoned to the Magistrates’ Court for failing to comply with section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On 15 April 2002 he was convicted and fined GBP 750 (EUR 1,107.49) with GBP 250 (EUR 369.16) costs and three penalty points. He maintains that the fine was substantially heavier than that which would have been imposed had he pleaded guilty to the speeding offence.
2. Procedure and composition of the Court
The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 April 2002 and 5 November 2001 and declared admissible on 25 October 2005. On 11 April 2006 the Chamber of the Court dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 302 of the Convention. A public hearing was held in the Human Rights building, Strasbourg, on 27 September 2006.
Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:
3. Summary of the judgment3
Complaints
Mr O’Halloran complained that he was convicted solely or mainly on account of the statement he was compelled to provide under threat of a penalty similar to the offence itself. Mr Francis complained that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of committing infringed his right not to incriminate himself. Both applicants rely on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Decision of the Court
Article 6 § 1
The Court did not accept the applicants’ argument that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself were absolute rights and that to apply any form of direct compulsion to require an accused person to make incriminatory statements against her or his will of itself destroyed the very essence of that right. It was not the case that any direct compulsion would automatically result in a violation of the Convention. Concerning Article 6 § 1, what constituted a fair trial could not be the subject of a single unvarying rule but had to depend on the circumstances of the particular case.
In order to determine whether the essence of the applicants’ right to remain silent and privilege against self-incrimination was infringed, the Court focused on the nature and degree of compulsion used to obtain the evidence, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedure, and the use to which any material so obtained was put.
The nature and degree of the compulsion used to obtain the evidence in the case of Mr O’Halloran, or to attempt to obtain the evidence in the case of Mr Francis, were set out in the Notice of Intended Prosecution each applicant received. They were informed that, as registered keepers of their vehicles, they were required to provide the full name and address of the driver at the time and on the occasion specified. They were each informed that failure to provide the information was a criminal offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The penalty for failure by the applicants to give information was a fine of up to GBP 1,000, and disqualification from driving or an endorsement of three penalty points on their driving licence.
The Court accepted that the compulsion was of a direct nature. It also noted that anyone who chose to own or drive a car knew that they subjected themselves to a regulatory regime, imposed because the possession and use of cars was recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury. Those who choose to keep and drive cars could be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations as part of the regulatory regime relating to motor vehicles, and in the legal framework of the United Kingdom, those responsibilities included the obligation, in the event of suspected commission of road traffic offences, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion.
A further aspect of the compulsion applied in the applicants’ cases was the limited nature of the inquiry which the police were authorised to undertake. Section 172 (2)(a) applied only where the driver of the vehicle was alleged to have committed a relevant offence, and authorised the police to require information only “as to the identity of the driver”.
In cases where the coercive measures of section 172 of the 1988 Act were applied, the Court noted that by section 172(4), no offence was committed under section 172(2)(a) if the keeper of the vehicle showed that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have known who the driver of the vehicle was. The offence was therefore not one of strict liability, and the risk of unreliable admissions was negligible.
As to the use to which the statements were put, Mr O’Halloran’s statement that he was the driver of his car was admissible as evidence of that fact by virtue of section 12(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and he was duly convicted of speeding. At his trial, he attempted to challenge the admission of the statement under sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although the challenge was unsuccessful. It remained for the prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt in ordinary proceedings, including protection against the use of unreliable evidence and evidence obtained by oppression or other improper means (but not including a challenge to the admissibility of the statement under section 172), and the defendant could give evidence and call witnesses if he wished. The identity of the driver was only one element in the offence of speeding, and there was no question of a conviction arising in the underlying proceedings in respect solely of the information obtained as a result of section 172(2)(a).
As Mr Francis refused to make a statement, it could not be used in the underlying proceedings, and indeed the underlying proceedings were never pursued. The question of the use of the statements in criminal proceedings did not arise, as his refusal to make a statement was not used as evidence: it constituted the offence itself.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the special nature of the regulatory regime at issue and the limited nature of the information sought by a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Court considered that the essence of the applicants’ right to remain silent and their privilege against self-incrimination had not been destroyed. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.
Article 6 § 2
The Court held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 6 § 2.
Judge Borrego Borrego expressed a concurring opinion and Judges Pavlovschi and Myjer expressed dissenting opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.
The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (European Court of Human Rights - Home page / Accueil - Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme).
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
1 Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention).

2 Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects.

3 This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Mart

OllyK

So the deals were done it would seem to ensure the practice of guilty until proven innocent continues!

mart360

So we get screwed again...


teflon sells us down the river in return for dicking us on speed cams


Mart

swampster

iTrader: (1)

LOL... no suprises there then!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I rest my case, m'lud

I think the time is fast approaching when many in the UK will either remove entirely their plates, or display fakes. Allegedly.

Not that I would, of course

Alcazar

Leslie

Absolutely true of course that breaking the law "by accident" is not a defence, but we are dealing with people not machines and it is only reasonable to expect a bit of "laisser faire" when it comes to genuine human error. Not fair to charge a person with that when they make a genuine error due to the fact that humans are not capable of multitasking 100% of the time.

A traffic policeman would recognise the difference and would be quite likely just to issue a warning for an accidental small offence and that would serve both to sharpen the driver's attention up and also to improve relations with the police, which is important also.

Maybe you will realise that I am promoting a reasonable attitude by those who uphold the law rather than use any excuse to screw more money out of us.

Les

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

That attitude will NEVER happen

Labour have vilified and criminalised the motorist, while still treating us as the country's cash cow.

Time for rebellion, say I Public disorder. Poll tax riots!

Alcazar

pwhittle

so a 74 year old does 69 in a 40, presumably because he failed to see the large speed limit signs, and we're supposed to be happy if he gets off on a technicality?!!

What if he'd killed a road worker who wasn't expecting someone to come along at 69, would it still be ok for him to get off?

mart360

He,d be bloody lucky to find anyone working in a coned off area....

Ive seen miles of the A27 cordoned off for one lone bod with a strimmer in the first 10 yards of the cones..... and when i went passed later he'd gone for a tea break....never to return!!!


no one disputes the speeding charge, its the furnishing of details before proving innocent that is the issue.


surley the premise of the road traffic act could be applied to plod...ie its up to them to gain proof that xx or xx was driving at a said time.... not ask the registered keeper to incriminate someone...


Mart

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

Isn't the point nothing to do with speeding and everything to do with a law going agaisnt the law of the land in every other criminal offence? Ie The right not to incriminate yourself.