asking or arksing?
Speed Cameras
Moderators: Loopz, usernick, legspin, jof, the PLA
-
basshowesy
- Newbie
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:57 pm
- Question: Orbital
- Location: Alcester, Warwickshire
got done by the same camera in July, sent the same stuff so I paid up took the ponts. lots of people advised about bending the system but I was driving so took it on the hip.Pooka wrote: Am shitting now though because after Cardiff there was a van on a gantry above the motorway but as soon as I saw it I slowed down. I was taking the piss a bit though so I'm crossing my fingers now.
sought of wondered why at 7am the other drivers were taking it easy. (I was doing 85)
Well, I think you should both ask for photographic evidence, if only to post the pics on here to give the rest of us a laugh.Pooka wrote:davemacfrombath wrote:Some people may or may not be amused to hear that I got a letter form the cymraig heddlu yesterday notifying me of my speed of 63 in a 50 zone.
Which takes me up to 12 points...
Oh those fuckers!
They were the ones that got me. Mine was 64 in a 50.
Whereabouts was it? Did you get a picture sent or did you request it? I'm thinking of asking them for the evidence now but there's no point if we got snapped at the same place.
-
davemacfrombath
- The Moebius
- Posts: 1376
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:03 pm
- Question: Orbital
- Location: In Clarkson's cellar with a blowtorch and pliers
It was on the road bridge going over the M4 by the Severn Bridge Toll Gate, West bound.Pooka wrote:davemacfrombath wrote:Some people may or may not be amused to hear that I got a letter form the cymraig heddlu yesterday notifying me of my speed of 63 in a 50 zone.
Which takes me up to 12 points...
Oh those fuckers!
They were the ones that got me. Mine was 64 in a 50.
Whereabouts was it? Did you get a picture sent or did you request it? I'm thinking of asking them for the evidence now but there's no point if we got snapped at the same place.
My oldest 3 points expire in Jan, so I'm going to try and string it out a bit.
Slugs! HE created slugs! They can't hear. They can't speak. They can't operate machinery. Are we not in the hands of a lunatic?
-
Dog
- Detached
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:21 pm
- antispam: No
- Question: Orbital
- Anti Spam: Orbital
- Location: In front of a computer at the moment...
Spooky how this has also come up on another forum... Someone posted this:
"The rights of millions of motorists are at stake in a legal battle over the speeding laws.
Human Rights judges in Strasbourg are hearing a complaint that forcing car owners to state who was behind the wheel of a vehicle caught speeding on camera breaches their right to silence.
The Government said it would "vigorously" defend current motoring rules - but if drivers Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran win their claim it could curb the Department of Transport's money-raising ability through speeding fines.
The campaign group Liberty is backing the two motorists, who turned to the Human Rights court when their objections were dismissed in domestic courts.
Mr Francis, from West Meon, Hampshire, refused to say who was at the wheel of his vintage Alvis when it was photographed in Surrey breaking the 30mph speed limit.
He said forcing him to provide evidence of the alleged offence breached his right not to incriminate himself.
Similarly, Mr O'Halloran, from London, objected because he said he faced a fine for not revealing who was at the wheel of his car when he was photographed speeding in Essex.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "Despite rapidly mounting evidence that speed cameras have proved to be a deadly mistake, government appears to be incapable of seeing the damage that's being done."
He went on: "The so-called 'right to silence' is ancient and worthy. I am certain that speed cameras have made our roads considerably more dangerous by diverting attention from more important safety factors."
A Department of Transport spokesman said: "The UK Government does not accept this claim and is vigorously defending this case. We are confident of its defence, which has been upheld in the UK courts."
"The rights of millions of motorists are at stake in a legal battle over the speeding laws.
Human Rights judges in Strasbourg are hearing a complaint that forcing car owners to state who was behind the wheel of a vehicle caught speeding on camera breaches their right to silence.
The Government said it would "vigorously" defend current motoring rules - but if drivers Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran win their claim it could curb the Department of Transport's money-raising ability through speeding fines.
The campaign group Liberty is backing the two motorists, who turned to the Human Rights court when their objections were dismissed in domestic courts.
Mr Francis, from West Meon, Hampshire, refused to say who was at the wheel of his vintage Alvis when it was photographed in Surrey breaking the 30mph speed limit.
He said forcing him to provide evidence of the alleged offence breached his right not to incriminate himself.
Similarly, Mr O'Halloran, from London, objected because he said he faced a fine for not revealing who was at the wheel of his car when he was photographed speeding in Essex.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "Despite rapidly mounting evidence that speed cameras have proved to be a deadly mistake, government appears to be incapable of seeing the damage that's being done."
He went on: "The so-called 'right to silence' is ancient and worthy. I am certain that speed cameras have made our roads considerably more dangerous by diverting attention from more important safety factors."
A Department of Transport spokesman said: "The UK Government does not accept this claim and is vigorously defending this case. We are confident of its defence, which has been upheld in the UK courts."
"Gimme the sight to see
another world outside that's full of
all the broken things that I made"
another world outside that's full of
all the broken things that I made"
-
davemacfrombath
- The Moebius
- Posts: 1376
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:03 pm
- Question: Orbital
- Location: In Clarkson's cellar with a blowtorch and pliers
I haven't asked for the evidence yet. Am waiting till the last minute to ask, to try to stretch it out beyond next Jan.Pooka wrote:Yeah that sounds like the one Dave.
On my NOIP it says M4 near plaza rogiet monmouthshire westbound.
Did they send you photo evidence tho?
Slugs! HE created slugs! They can't hear. They can't speak. They can't operate machinery. Are we not in the hands of a lunatic?
Last time SOMEONE I KNOW had this problem, he (OR SHE) wrote them (OR THE OLD BILL) a letter (within the 28 days) asking for photographic evidence, explaining that he (OR SHE!!) could not remember who was driving the car (OR VEHICLE) at the time, so therefore could not complete the NOIP (which asks you to name the driver).Pooka wrote:But dont you have to send it off within 28 days otherwise you get a bigger fine??
Shall I request photographic evidence before sending it off?
Gaz??
You seem to be a dab hand on this type of motoring matter.
Depending on what is in the photograph (OR IMAGE... OK, this isn't funny anymore) you can then decide what to do next.
You should probably ask for the photographic evidence soon if you want to go this route.
Remember, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for the evidence, if you can't remember the offence.
I will be talking to MY FRIEND tonight, so he (OR SHE) might have more info later...
-
Mucus
- Saint
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 10:01 pm
- Question: Orbital
- Location: At least £10,000 ahead of you.
Ahh the joys of the "pre - camera" age. And who knew that Noel Edmonds had a cool side.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5391912.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5391912.stm
Let's face it, if I didn't exist - you'd pay someone to have me invented.
-
JIMBO
- Saint
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:50 am
- Question: Orbital
- Location: A house in Manchester
Much as it dismays me that so many people consider speeding some kind of god given right (and people that burn cameras are total fricking morons), I'm with Gaz on this one. Recently did some stuff with Nick Freeman, the famous 'Loophole Lawyer' that gets all the celebs (mainly footballers!) off drunk driving charges. Umpleasant though it is, he just exploits the exsisting holes in the law one of which Gaz has referred to. So many of his cases have been won based on lack of concrete proof and coppers not doing their jobs properly. For example he mentioned a prominent police inspector who turned up at work hammered (he drove) and when questioned admitted being to being drunk. Thing is - despite his car having appeared in the car park that morning - they failed to prove that HE drove it to work himself!
Some other wanker got off even though he was standing amongst the wreckage of his crashed vehicle, shitfaced, having been tailed by cops, because he said his 'mate' was driving and had run off! They couldn't prove he'd been driving!
Not good news for the drink driving victims. The law sucks ass.
Some other wanker got off even though he was standing amongst the wreckage of his crashed vehicle, shitfaced, having been tailed by cops, because he said his 'mate' was driving and had run off! They couldn't prove he'd been driving!
Not good news for the drink driving victims. The law sucks ass.
Yeah, I saw a documentary aboot him. He's the one who got Beckham off for driving at some supersonic speed, claiming that he was trying to get away from paparazzi and feared for his life.
Criminals get off through technicalities a lot of the time (sometimes things like the arresting officer not signing a form for example) - this is the price we pay for 'innocent until proven guilty', sometimes the 'proof' can be difficult to establish and sometimes is not considered anyway because the forms haven't been completed correctly!
I think I read somewhere recently that the Government is going to change the law aboot cases being thrown out due to 'technicalities'...
Criminals get off through technicalities a lot of the time (sometimes things like the arresting officer not signing a form for example) - this is the price we pay for 'innocent until proven guilty', sometimes the 'proof' can be difficult to establish and sometimes is not considered anyway because the forms haven't been completed correctly!
I think I read somewhere recently that the Government is going to change the law aboot cases being thrown out due to 'technicalities'...
