Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

[Guest]

Motor Cycle News 16 July

Speed Cameras "illegal"

steve.farrell@motorcyclenews.com

A LEGAL battle could lead to thousands of speeding charges being dropped and open the door for riders to appeal against past convictions.

Barrister Michael Shrimpton claims nearly every speed camera introduced since 1992 is illegal and that any evidence from them is inadmissible.

In June Shrimpton convinced Nuneaton magistrates to throw out a speeding case.

And he used the same argument in a case before Kingston magistrates two weeks ago defending Stephen Martin, who was caught allegedly speeding by a laser detector last year.

Martin's solicitor, Kieran Henry, said the case had been give "leave to appeal"

He urged riders facing speed camera charges to use the same defence.

Shrimpton's argument hinges on a section of the Road Traffic Act 1991 which he says requires every new speed detector. to be separately approved by Parliament. He says 40 devices have been brought in under a single "generic" approval dating back to 1993.

Shrimpton claims there is "no room" in the Act "for getting around Parliament" in this way. He argues the devices in question are there-fore illegal and should not be used to bring prosecutions.

The Association of British Drivers (ABD) said failure to gain separate approval from Parliament for each device meant inaccurate speed detectors had slipped through the net. The ABD's' traffic management adviser, Malcolm Heymer, said:

"Those authorised since 1992 include laser speed meters, some types of which have repeatedly caused concern that they can give falsely high readings". Had the proper procedure been followed, these devices might not have been authorised." The devices include a laser detector called the LTI20.20 which MCN tests have shown can get a motorcycle's speed wrong by up to 40mph. The device has been used both in speed camera vans and as a handheld device to catch thousands of riders.

Solicitior Kieran Henry says the list includes fixed cameras such as Gatsos.

Shrimpton said: "It seems' around 10 million prosecutions, including tlxed penalty cases, have been based on unapproved devices." There are already other cases in the pipeline and Henry urged riders facing charges to instruct a solicitor to appeal on the same point and said riders could contact him on 0161 477 8558.

Anti-speed camera campaigner ldris Francis suggested riders reply to speeding notices asking for details of the "Statutory Instrument authorising the device according to law': There isn't one of course," he said. Alternatively riders could ask "that their case is put on hold pending the Appeal decision"'.

[Sapphire]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

Oooooo Cet, if this is proved could this open up a whole new set of claims. IE getting peeps money back for speeding fines that they have paid but proved to be unlawful.

Not myself of course, because I'm a good girl I am.

[jet_black]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

This will please hubby no end, he had 3 fines for speeding since 2000

[Jester]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

I have a clean driving license so it doesn't affect me. But should I get caught in the future ....

[Celestine]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

I have 3 points on my licence for passing a GATSO at 34 mph grrrrrrrr

Does this only apply to bikes?

[Guest]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

No, certainly not. It applies to many speed-measuring devices used by the police since 1991 including fixed cameras, such as a GATSO.

MCN have been particularly active in the area of speed cameras and fines for some years because it has been shown over and over again that speed detection equipment gives inaccurate or false readings when used on motorcycles.

Furthermore, there is an article here about Swindon Borough Council and their plans to scrap speed cameras because they claim the devices are a 'blatant tax on the motorist'.

Council scraps speed cameras - because they are 'a blatant tax on the motorist' | Mail Online

[Niklowe]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

And their pathetic excuse for an MP is trying to petition for them to stay. We will have the usual crap about speed kills, and "what about the chillun". What has to be learnt, is that Inapropriate speed kills, not speed in itself.

[Xena]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

No, certainly not. It applies to many speed-measuring devices used by the police since 1991 including fixed cameras, such as a GATSO.

Excellent news!

Revenge time on hubby, for paying my last speeding fine without my knowledge!

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

You can see how this happened:

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/Ne...?&R=EPI-101738

[Guest]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

This goes much deeper that just that single, tragic incident.

MCN have for many years been at the forefront of a campaign against speed cameras and the systematic reduction of police patrols to save money and the replacement of those patrols with cameras. We have been relentlessly subjected to propaganda to justify failing road policies. That includes direct lies, distorted statistics, but also the suppression of inconvenient information and MCN have sought to expose the sham that are speed cameras for what they really are. Another form of taxation.

The 6,000 odd camera sites and routes we have cover only 3% or so of our road network, a pretty severe handicap when trying to prevent accidents, which being accidents, happen anywhere. The practical reality is that the maximum possible benefit of cameras, even in the unlikely event of all speeding being eliminated, is some 3% of the 5% of accidents due to speeds above the speed limit in the first place. ie 0.15%.

Even the hope that camera sites are well chosen to cover more than 3% of accidents despite covering only 3% of roads is cancelled out by what the Department for Transport finally admit. Which is, because accidents almost always involve multiple causes, eliminating speeding could not begin to eliminate all accidents that involve speeding, because the other causes would remain.

In other words, it is and always was, arithmetically impossible for cameras to have any statistically significant effect on the overall accident figures and they remain, as they have always been, just another revenue raising method.

[Amethyst]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

I have 3 points on my licence for passing a GATSO at 34 mph grrrrrrrr

Does this only apply to bikes?

If the limit was 30 and you agree you were going 34 then nothing to moan about.

Excellent news!

Revenge time on hubby, for paying my last speeding fine without my knowledge!

You admitted you were speeding you were breaking the law, you paid the fine (well hubby did)




Don;'t get me wrong, people who are incorrectly fined for speeding should be using this to obtain justice. People who were speeding and breaking the law should not be using it to get off on a technicality.

We will have the usual crap about speed kills, and "what about the chillun". What has to be learnt, is that Inapropriate speed kills, not speed in itself.

I agree with you, inappropriate speed is the killer. Peoples definition of appropriate differs. Some may think its appropriate to drive 40 through a built up area past a school just because they can't instantly see anyone about. Some people may think it is appropriate to race at 80 mph round a twisty country lane. Some people may think its appropriate to toddle along at 40 on same lane. You need rules for morons. I'm not into the great health and saftey nanny state culture we have but when it comes to speeding, except for on Motorways (yes I know give me a big lecture about that if you like), the law should be enforced - it is there for a reason.

In other words, it is and always was, arithmetically impossible for cameras to have any statistically significant effect on the overall accident figures and they remain, as they have always been, just another revenue raising method.

Agree with that too. I think speed cameras are crap, theres better ways of making the roads safer. But if they make a moron think twice about shooting round at ridiculous speeds where its entirely inappropriate then its worth it in my book.


I won't post again on here so no point trying to rile me or beat me down. I think what I think. Speed is dangerous. End of.

[Sapphire]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

I agree with you, inappropriate speed is the killer. Peoples definition of appropriate differs. Some may think its appropriate to drive 40 through a built up area past a school just because they can't instantly see anyone about. Some people may think it is appropriate to race at 80 mph round a twisty country lane. Some people may think its appropriate to toddle along at 40 on same lane. You need rules for morons. I'm not into the great health and saftey nanny state culture we have but when it comes to speeding, except for on Motorways (yes I know give me a big lecture about that if you like), the law should be enforced - it is there for a reason.

Couldn't agree with you more hun, I live near a school and every day see the yummy mummies in their 4 x 4's driving along at excessive speeds, chatting away on their mobiles, with their brats jumping up and down in the car (nope no seatbelts) at yet they always declare how much they love their kids, yeah right you do, you put their lives and others lives at risk every day.

Don't get me wrong I'm not just having a pop at the school run mums, it seems to be the norm for everyone nowadays to rush, rush, rush to and from everywhere without a thought for other road users, and please don't get me started on those who ride bicycles in the middle of the road.

Rant over !

[Jester]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

The problem with speed cameras is that everything is so 'black & white' (excuse the pun). You are either under the speed limit or you are over it. There is no discretion in them to use commonsense.

e.g. Exceeding the speed limit on a motorway at 3am in the morning when there is nothing else on the road is far less of a crime than exceeding the speed limit on same road during rush hour. A policeman stopping a speeding motorist can exercise this discretion taking into account the conditions of the alleged offence. A camera cannot do this.

That said, if it is true that many speed cameras are not calibrated properly and/or record incorrect speeds, then surely it is the authorities who are breaking the law by using them and therefore these safety camera partnerships should be brought to book, or even sued.

After all, a conviction for a speeding offence is heard in a Magistrates court. Furthermore, the European ruling last year that we no longer have a right to silence on speed camera offences is also a basic infringement of our human rights (an act to which this country is supposed to adhere)

[Guest]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

...I agree with you, inappropriate speed is the killer.


I won't post again on here so no point trying to rile me or beat me down. ...Speed is dangerous. End of.

I have to take issue with this bit - either it is "inappropriate speed" or it is "speed" that is dangerous, you cannot have it both ways.

Clearly it is not the latter, or every single racing driver would be dead the first time they ever raced, everyone who has ever been on holiday by air would be dead, every high-speed police pursuit would end in death, the list of those who would be killed if it were just "speed" that is dangerous is endless.

There has been a severe deterioration in road safety trends over the past decade or so and the authorities routinely and systematically misrepresent road accident and casualty statistics to conjure up the appearance of success out of what has been, by any objective standards, abject failure. Much the most significant reason - though not of course the only reason - for the disastrous figures of the last decade or so has been speed camera policy, with it's wholly inappropriate emphasis on speed limits as the primary arbiter of safe driving and it's large numbers of adverse effects in driver behaviour, effects which the DfT to this day refuse to recognise, let alone quantify.

That is the whole point of the issue and it is the ridiculous insistence by the authorities that safety can be measured in miles per hour that has led us to this point.

The KSI (Killed/Seriously Injured) parameter (90% K and 10% SI) is routinely used by the DfT, police and Partnerships to mask the appalling adverse fatality trends, e.g. Essex police claimed 1st January 2001 that their cameras had succeeded because "KSI is down". It was - except that 37 more people had died, but that was fine because 38 fewer people had been "seriously" injured.

Police/ DfT reports (eg Sept 2006) show that only 5% of all accidents, 7% of SI, 8% of KSI and 12% of fatal accidents involve speeds above the speed limit even as one of the causal factors, let alone the primary one. Further, even the DfT admits that eliminating all speeds above the speed limit would far from eliminate even those percentages, because the other causal factors would remain. Thus the maximum possible reductions if cameras were 100% effective - which they are clearly not - would be well below those figures.

Report TRL595 commissioned by the DfT found that speed cameras on open motorways increased personal injury accidents by 55% and when road works were present by 33%. SPECS (average speed) cameras increased them by 4.5% and 6.7%. Only police patrol cars reduced the numbers, by 27% and 10%. Shamefully, these figures are buried away in a table of figures with no commentary and the report summary lumps together the negative effects of cameras with the positive effects of patrols to report no change. The DfT failed to publish this report on its web site, but you could buy it for £40 - and these important findings have been ignored as millions of pounds have been spent on Specs cameras in particular as they raise money and they care more about that than about peoples lives, obviously.

That the authorities continue to refuse even to accept the possibility of the adverse effects of speed cameras that are the daily experience of millions of drivers, despite the worst road safety trends ever known beggars belief.

What on earth makes the DfT think that 35m concerned drivers, 10m worried drivers on 3 points, 2 million scared drivers on 6 points and 1 million paranoid drivers on nine points makes our roads safer?

[Amy]

Re: Motor Cycle News 16 July Speed Cameras "illegal"

I received a speeding fine for doing the blisteringly fast speed of 37mph in a 30, by a school.

It was a Saturday and the school was closed and anyone who has to do the school run in a car will know that you are very lucky if you can get anywhere near 12mph near a school at school times.

The speed limit could not possibly be raised for out of school hours driving because this would not raise the revenue for which the camera was sited and intended.

When I received my NIP, I asked the police for evidence of my alleged offence, which they eventually provided after a good few months and several letters. They do not like providing the 'evidence' in case it turns out not to be you or your vehicle and therefore, they will not receive any money.

When I received the photographs, I agreed it was me and filled in the NIP and returned it.

Two weeks later I received a letter from the police thanking me for taking the time to apply for a "speed awareness course" but unfortunately my time had run out to apply for this.

So, not having actually requested the form for a "speed awareness course" and subsequently not having filled out the form that I did not request, I wrote back to them and expressed my concerns that they had mistaken me for someone else. If they had got this wrong, what else had they got wrong?

Given that I was expected to cough up £60 and accept 3 points on my licence for allegedly committing this heinous crime, I felt perfectly justified in asking this of them even though it was me pictured at the wheel. How could I know for certain that I had in fact broken the speed limit? I asked them for some assurance. I did not receive any.

Instead, they wrote back again and suggested that I stop arguing and fill out the NIP - I had already done this so I didn't bother to write again.

I have not heard another word from them since and the irony is that it is now they that are out of time.

If I am such a bad person and a danger to others for my speeding, why have they not come for me and hauled my arse into court?

The answer is simple. The answer is because it's not about speeding, it's about raising money.