Speed-trap police are told to look before they pounce
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
POLICE are to be given new guidelines on using mobile speed cameras because of concerns that they are breaking the law by trapping motorists at too great a distance.
Laser cameras, which can either be handheld or mounted in vans, are certified by the Home Office for use at a range of up to 1,000 metres (3,281ft).
But the law states that a camera operator must be able to form a “prior opinion” that a vehicle is breaking the limit before using the camera to record its speed. The law dates from the days before radar speed guns when all that was needed to convict a driver of speeding was the opinion of two officers.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is concerned that some officers and civilian operators may be ignoring the law and firing their lasers at random. (AtW: finally, they fecking woke up!!!)
Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, are increasingly using mobile cameras instead of fixed cameras because the rules on deploying them are less stringent. A mobile camera can be used on any stretch of road where there have been two or more serious crashes in the previous three years. A fixed camera can be installed only after a fourth serious crash.
Partnerships are also finding that their income is dropping from fixed cameras because they have been painted yellow and are easy to spot. Motorists slow down for a hundred yards and then speed up again. (AtW: oi look, they should be happy it works, but wait their incomes drop and job is more important than laws!)
Mobile cameras usually catch drivers before they have even spotted the officer standing by the road or the camera van. There is no flash and the first time many motorists realise they have been caught is when they receive a penalty notice in the post.
The Department for Transport requires camera operators to be visible from 100 metres, but admits that motorists may be caught outside this range. (AtW: if they break rules and you prove it, then it still does not affect their case against you) Several motorists caught by mobile cameras are fighting their penalties on the ground that they were detected so far away that it would have been impossible for anyone to have formed an opinion they were speeding.
Richard Cleary, 45, was allegedly caught doing 70mph on a 60mph road in Wiltshire. He requested a video from the camera partnership which showed the speed recording was made when he was 728 metres from the camera van. He revisited the site and claims that even someone with perfect eyesight could not have told the difference between 60mph and 70mph. His case has been adjourned to allow some technical issues to be clarified.
Ian Bell, ACPO’s speed camera liaison officer, said that the guidelines were being reviewed because of concerns that they were unclear. “It was felt that during the revision of ACPO’s manual it might be necessary to emphasise the need to have a prior opinion that the driver was speeding,” he said.
Mr Bell said that there were no written rules on the distance at which it would be deemed reasonably possible to form an opinion. “The operator has to be able to say that he could visually tell that the vehicle was speeding, but the distance depends on the site. From a motorway bridge, the distance could be 400 to 600 metres. But in a congested area it could be only 100 metres.”
Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed, the anti-camera campaign, said: “The system operates on the principle that people will simply pay the fixed penalty without challenging them or studying the rules. The system would grind to a halt if everyone with a legitimate case took it to court.”
---
Feckers - I am still with 3 points and keeping it all down, but God or Chico better help them when I: a) get my citizenship and b) get spare funds to fight legal cases. Feckers!
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
POLICE are to be given new guidelines on using mobile speed cameras because of concerns that they are breaking the law by trapping motorists at too great a distance.
Laser cameras, which can either be handheld or mounted in vans, are certified by the Home Office for use at a range of up to 1,000 metres (3,281ft).
But the law states that a camera operator must be able to form a “prior opinion” that a vehicle is breaking the limit before using the camera to record its speed. The law dates from the days before radar speed guns when all that was needed to convict a driver of speeding was the opinion of two officers.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is concerned that some officers and civilian operators may be ignoring the law and firing their lasers at random. (AtW: finally, they fecking woke up!!!)
Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, are increasingly using mobile cameras instead of fixed cameras because the rules on deploying them are less stringent. A mobile camera can be used on any stretch of road where there have been two or more serious crashes in the previous three years. A fixed camera can be installed only after a fourth serious crash.
Partnerships are also finding that their income is dropping from fixed cameras because they have been painted yellow and are easy to spot. Motorists slow down for a hundred yards and then speed up again. (AtW: oi look, they should be happy it works, but wait their incomes drop and job is more important than laws!)
Mobile cameras usually catch drivers before they have even spotted the officer standing by the road or the camera van. There is no flash and the first time many motorists realise they have been caught is when they receive a penalty notice in the post.
The Department for Transport requires camera operators to be visible from 100 metres, but admits that motorists may be caught outside this range. (AtW: if they break rules and you prove it, then it still does not affect their case against you) Several motorists caught by mobile cameras are fighting their penalties on the ground that they were detected so far away that it would have been impossible for anyone to have formed an opinion they were speeding.
Richard Cleary, 45, was allegedly caught doing 70mph on a 60mph road in Wiltshire. He requested a video from the camera partnership which showed the speed recording was made when he was 728 metres from the camera van. He revisited the site and claims that even someone with perfect eyesight could not have told the difference between 60mph and 70mph. His case has been adjourned to allow some technical issues to be clarified.
Ian Bell, ACPO’s speed camera liaison officer, said that the guidelines were being reviewed because of concerns that they were unclear. “It was felt that during the revision of ACPO’s manual it might be necessary to emphasise the need to have a prior opinion that the driver was speeding,” he said.
Mr Bell said that there were no written rules on the distance at which it would be deemed reasonably possible to form an opinion. “The operator has to be able to say that he could visually tell that the vehicle was speeding, but the distance depends on the site. From a motorway bridge, the distance could be 400 to 600 metres. But in a congested area it could be only 100 metres.”
Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed, the anti-camera campaign, said: “The system operates on the principle that people will simply pay the fixed penalty without challenging them or studying the rules. The system would grind to a halt if everyone with a legitimate case took it to court.”
---
Feckers - I am still with 3 points and keeping it all down, but God or Chico better help them when I: a) get my citizenship and b) get spare funds to fight legal cases. Feckers!
Comment