Taxi Driver Online

I have wondered why the police wish to ambush drivers with their fixed speed cameras, when experience has taught me that a visible police car makes us all aware of their presence, and we slow down. In these days of safer, more powerfull and quietier cars. Roads that are larger and designed for a smoother run. So many signs on the road, a driver becomes afraid to look at his own instruments for fear of the car in front braking or missing some warning sign. So why not make them more visible with a flashing amber light on the top of each; so that we all know they are there and not try to hide them behind trees or road signs

[/code]

Alas bib, it's all down to the money they get from us mugs.

If it was all about road safety, then why fine us?:(

Alex

Because if they didn't punish us then we'd all be tearing around like boy racers.

Probably.

Dusty

Because if they did that then we'd all be racing round like idiots 99% of the time and just slowing down for the odd speed camera.

But wait a minute, I think they are already doing what you want by painting cameras bright yellow, so now we're all driving round like idiots 99% of the time!

I agree that there is a need for speed limit reform and suchlike, but your chosen method (ie effectively allow everyone to ignore the law, which is given away by your use of language such as 'ambush' for police enforcement activities) just encourages people to pick and choose which laws to obey, which IMHO is just leading to a less law abiding country.

I agree that road policing is a mess, but which other laws of the road do you think that police should not be allowd to 'ambush' motorists for??

Since we are a lot less likely to be murdered than die on the roads, do you disagree with the police 'ambushing' Ian Huntley, for example?

Dusty

I think what Alex is saying is that if it was just about road safety, then just give points or bans to those that transgress.

However it is not just about that, it's about money. Which is why they have financial penalties as well.

Perhaps, but a financial penalty is one of the main forms of punishment in Western legal systems, and rightly or wrongly it's always been used for minor traffic law infringements, along with the penalty points system.

I know it's a tricky area, but if a fine of any kind was regarded in the same way as it is with speeding and other car-related offences then there would never be any fines adminstered for anything.

The problem as I see it is that for years speed limits were routinely broken, police turned a blind eye, and effectively upped the de facto speed limit where appropriate.

Then came an automated method of detection and enforcement, and understandably the public cried foul.

But I think we should be trying to proffer other solutions rather than undermining the law in the way that many of the anti-speed camera lobby do.

By making cameras more prominent the Govt has to some extent returned to what happened before cameras - ie you could effectively break the limit, as long as you go slower at blackspots etc.

This basically seems designed to appease the pro-speed lobby and at the same time keep the road safety lobby quiet, which they wouldn't be if the actual speed limit was increased.

This all seems a bit cynical - the accident rate may drop at blackspots, but common sense dictates that it won't elsewhere, or even increase.

Indeed, despite the claims for casualty reductions at speed camera sites, the overall totals haven't really changed.

And of course by effectively going out of their way to avoid people getting 'caught out', the Govt are just adding to the lawbreaking culture in the country.

And of course they don't even bother with other examples of bad driving like tailgating - it wouldn't do to catch people out, would it.

What a mess!

Dusty

MOAM, MOAN MOAN,

YER LUCKY to be able to move at all, some of us cannot

winge

If you dont like speed cameras, buy an FX4 !!!

Or an old Austin with the Perkins engine in, 40MPH top speed.

Ah yes, Nidge. They were the good old days.

I have it in good faith from a custoner who is high up in the law society that european law has effectivly out lawed the use of gatso cameras because you can say u were not driving the car. You have the right to remain silent ...Bla bla bla. So they cannot under UK law make you say who was driving your vehicle. Also they cannot charge you as you are innocent untill proven guilty. You do not have to prove you are Inocent they have to prove your guilty. This is part of the constitution. Has any one else heard any thing on this.

This happened arround the time they painted the gatsos yellow & red, and moved the road signs to make them visable. Now they "ambush" you so they get a pic of who was driving.

_________________
I am right, and I will give you your opinion when you ask for it

I've heard of a couple of cases under the Human Rights Act involving speed cameras, Mr Hun.

One argued that because (along the lines of what you say above) the car owner had to say who was driving the car then they would be incriminating themselves and thus jeopardising their right to a fair trial.

I think that one was thrown out.

Another one I heard recently, not related to speed cameras necessarily, was that someone claimed that the charge 'driving while disqualified' jeopeardised their right to a fair trial because it disclosed the fact that they had a previous conviction, which might influence the judge or jury.

I'm not sure how that one turned out.

But I think they are indicative of people who think that the Human Rights Act exists to 'get them off', and not to provide them with a fair trial.

And, of course, there are plenty of lawyers who will encourage them to do this, but like those who take legal action against a council de-limiting taxi numbers, the only winners in the end are the lawyers.

As for innoncent until proven guilty, I think the gatso picture is prima facie evidence of guilt (as a lawyer might put it), and it is thus for the defendant to prove he is guilty.

Thus usually it's effectively a case of caught red handed.

Dusty

I have a niggling memory that the first instance you mention was not thrown out Dusty.

If my memory serves me correctly, it went to the Appeal Court. I think, that the Appeal Court ruled that one did not have to disclose oneself, if onesself was the driver. However, they then ruled, that if the driver of the car was not the registered keeper, the registered keeper was bound to say who the driver was, if not himself.

Then, they said that if the registered keeper could not identify the driver, then by natural extension, the registered owner was aiding and abeting in the commission of the offence, and must pay the fine and suffer the points himself.

I remember laughing about it at the time. Its heads we win, tails you loose.

At the end of the day, while speed cameras are a pain in the butt, so too are people who fly about at stupid speeds.

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.

That must be what they call double jeopardy in legal circles.

Dusty

At the end of the day, while speed cameras are a pain in the butt, so too are people who fly about at stupid speeds.

Lets face it 90mph on the A90 at 3am. is not unreasonable. speed limits should also take into account road conditions & amount of traffic on the road at the time. some times 60mph is too fast on that particullar road.

_________________
I am right, and I will give you your opinion when you ask for it