Blackmail?
 

Passing the time while scoffing my sandwich, I discovered this quote on the Kent Safety Camera Partnership website:


Now, I feel this is a little unfair, and have always felt so.

If you get caught speeding, and admit to it, fair enough - fine, points, and a few years of intensified insurance searching.

But lets say you genuinely feel that the allegations are false. It could be you don't know who was driving the car if you were camera'd; or you that the method that "caught" you was simply wrong and your speedometer displayed different information. It doesn't really matter though...

... so you elect for your right to go to Court and have your say, there is no other way to argue this fairly. But, for whatever reason, maybe you were mistaken, whatever, you get it wrong and you're still found guilty.

So instead of getting the previously agreed £60 + 3 points... you get stung with £000's + 6 points! :shock: Paying court costs I can understand fully, but these increased fines and endorsements for simply contesting the information in a fair way seems a ludicrous!

A case a few years ago, involving a woman stopped for doing 40mph in a 30 zone. The sign displaying the 30 zone was completely obscured by bushes, she had no way of knowing she'd entered a 30 zone. It was shown that her and the Policeman had to walk back down the verge and uncover the sign. She contested the situation, rightly so, showing that she assumed a 40mph limit (nothing visible had indicated otherwise) and she was doing 40mph! To her knowledge, she was not breaking the law. However, they slapped the increased fine and points on her anyway!

Madness - no wonder we don't trust speed policies in this country.

Fixed Penalties are simply a speed amnesty - worse in fact, because you can't genuinely contest the allegations in a court of law. Doing so, and risking the loss of the case, would land you in considerably more trouble than if you just admitted guilt in complete ignorance!

Discuss! :D

Re: Blackmail?
 

Look at it the other way round; rather than the hefty fine and costs that a guilty verdict at Court would bring, think of the 3pts /£60 as getting away with it cheaply.

You can always ask to see the evidence that the Authorities have against you before going to Court. In fact, you're entitled to see it under laws relating to disclosure of evidence. You never have to go into a Court case blind.

And never go to Court on a point of principle; go on a point of law.

Re: Blackmail?
 

this is exactly the same wording on my NIP,

My argument is that the speed camera ius hidden on the inside lane behind a retro fitted sign... which it is......

however i would have to go to court to deffend this so im looking at £60 as an dissapointin gbut the only whay out of it.... :cry:

Re: Blackmail?
 

Wise words!


Citing the example in my post, do you think it was right that the woman was prosecuted at all?

Re: Blackmail?
 

Legally, she was speeding. But morally it was incorrect to prosecute as it seems as though she had mitigating circumstances. And the Court should have taken account of the mitigation.

Or should they? After all, don't speed limit changes have to be sign-posted on both sides of the carriageway in the direction of travel...............? It would be rare for both signs to have been obscured.

Perhaps we shouldn't pass judgement without being in full charge of the facts? :wink:

Re: Blackmail?
 

Perhaps not, and this incident was a long time ago (6 years +).

Even so, I think I am a little hassled by the lack of equality when it comes to prosecuting motorists in court (very broadly speaking). I think the quote above triggered that.

However, if anyone else wants to chip in, please feel free - not that we need any encouragement on this forum!

Re: Blackmail?
 

Assuming she'd entered a built up area with street lights then she automatically entered a 30mph zone sign or not -
quote from highway code
"The 30 mph limit applies to all traffic on all roads in England and Wales (only Class C and unclassified roads in Scotland) with street lighting unless signs show otherwise)"

So as sad as it was for her and anyone else caught out this way - ignorance of the law is no excuse and all drivers should know the highway code.

Re: Blackmail?
 

Not sure that I understand the lack of equality bit :?

Many motoring offences are clear cut, save for perhaps a little arguing about the calibration of equipment in the vain hope that you'll get away with it or for the "buggeration factor".

A speed limit is a speed limit. If you were over it and you get caught then to all intents and purposes you're scuppered and there little point in arguing. Ditto drunk driving, where you've been "screened" by the machine at the side of the road and then accurately tested by a sample of your blood some time after the offence. For these offences the scales are heavily weighted in favour of the Police as the evidence is easily and reliably gathered. For most of the time and, assuming the evidence to be sound, the best course of action is to shut up, accept your guilt and take what's given by the Court.

Other offences may be a little more subjective, like dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention. These depend much more on the testimony of the prosecuting officer and witnesses. These are worth arguing about and why they don't do "conditional offers" for these offences.

The problem is that the vast majority of motoring offences currently being prosecuted are the "absolute" ones like speeding and hence the feeling of persecution and lack of ability to fight back.

I got more or less the exact same offer for my bus-laning last month... Only mine was a £30 fine vs the prospect of a higher fine, costs and points if it went to court. And I view it like Jabba- it's a cheap get out of jail card.

Also, you should consider that if it does go to court it's not guaranteed that you get a bigger fine/penalty. The letter tells you that it's possible, but that could be considered just a warning.

This is an example of how our justice system in this country has been eroded in recent years.

:rant:

The oneous shouldnt be on the accused to prove their inocence!