One in the eye for gatso’s

Ok mate, I'll post my answers in a different colour, I wish you luck I too have been a little way down this road, the answers will be from my own experience.

johno1066 wrote: Okey dokey, Nigel, here we go! 1. 80% of Gatso cameras are inaccurate and do not meet type specification which hasn't yet been contested by Serco or the Police scientific department,nor has such an arument been testes/allowed to pass) in a court of law. They have been type approved by the home office. 2. Section 172 of the road traffic act contradicts article 6 of the human rights convention and the said act. Will i'm sure be proven within the near future. This was ruled against in a British court ( possibly Scottish I cant remember) 3. The fact that every citizen has a right to silence and is free from self incrimination, whom also are innocent until PROVEN guilty. You do have a right to silence, but then can't rely on anything you haven't said, but now want to say in court. 4. Being forced to sign a document when in fact the law can't force you to sign anything. It would appear they can if they change the rules to make it so. 5. Incriminating yourelf or others when in fact a false accusation or incrimination would bring more serious charge such as perverting the course of justice or even perjury if under oath. So don't falsely accuse someone ! 6. Again, contrary to the human rights convention, Section 172 does not allow for the passing of sentence nor punishment that is greater than that of the first, article 7 of the human rights convention "Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed". Why then are you open to more serious penalties if you don't sign the NIP and why are other charges brought when you fail to nominate the 'driver' and be accused of not showing due dilligence? Because a Mr John Prescott made it so, which rather intestingly, my local scameraship still deny ! This is supposedly to stop the courts being jammed up with people pleading not guilty, I don't believe it but there you go. 7. Article 6 section3 states "to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him" Why then will the manufacturers whom also calibrate the cameras not to attend court to defend their devices accuracy? Because so far they have not been required to do so, we know it stinks but the anti car brigade are very strong at the moment 8. Accidents have been rising since 1993 when in fact they had been decreasing since the early 80's anyway. around about the same time as the destruction of the Police service and the introduction of speed cameras, why are deaths still increasing when speed cameras are increasing. Because speed, although a factor, is not the one and only cause of accidents, we all know this, even those writing the rules. 9. A third of all deaths and serious injuries are attributed to speed. Where is the scientific evidence to support this claim, when in fact the Transpoer research laboratory reports indicate the actual number is less than 8%. This number includes those accidents involving drink drivers, those whom are under the influence of drugs and those whom have been involved with Police chases etc. Even the Polcie themselves. The evidence to support that claim is very flimsy indeed, but if nothing moved, there would be no collision, so it does have some basis. Its an advertising slogan, and should be treated as such. I could go on all night, but who has noticed within the last 5 years or so, that whilst speeding may be down, the standard of driving has got much much worse!!

Right, back to black !

You are correct in everything you have said, but you have not given me one good reason to have these devices removed.

The rules need changing so things can be challenged, which is where people like you, I and the organisation ABD come in, but this will take time, we laughed at the anticar lobby to start with, rather than taking the threat seriously, we are now reaping the "benefits" of that mistake.

Speed cameras enforce the law, it is illegal to break the law, period.

The cow poo surrounding the cameras is the governments mistake.

I wish you luck, but in reality I think your efforts may be better spent challenging the stupily low limits being imposed on us, rathet than challenging devices placed there to enforce those limits.

johno1066 wrote: ....many people however just give up because they can't, won't or are too intimidated to fight their corners, whether it be contesting the accuracy of the cameras or identifying any flaws within the system and its procedures.

Of course people shy away from taking on the government in the courts. They have too much to loose. Also who want's to fight a battle you stand little or no chance of winning.

johno1066 wrote: Already we have an all powerful environmental lobby, intent on banning any vehicle that they consider to be a 'gas guzzler' 4x4s are their prioriy at the moment,

Your real problem here is that you can't disprove their theories on the effects vehicles like this have.

Why? because no one really knows. There are several different camps on this issue all with their own theories but when it comes down to it no one can prove of disprove anyone elses theory.

The reason the environmentallists have such a strong lobby at the moment is because they have a lot of support. More and more prominent scientists are backing the view that mans actions are having an effect on the climate. On top of this Hollywood got involved with 'The day after tomorrow' which will have had a big impact on the way the public view the issue.

The other more important point is, if they are right and we do nothing we are heading for an environmental time bomb which will cause the death of millions of people. If we do what they wish and give up our gas guzzling cars but they turn out to have been wrong then it's a pain but no one dies.

The problem is that if they are right the consequenses of doing nothing are so catastrophic that is it not worth doing it just in case? (Playing devils advocate for a moment)

It is very hard arguement for the car lobby to win.

My view, as someone with a chemistry back ground and a reasonable understanding of the science involved is that the climate is changing, for the worse. If it isn't caused by us then there is nothing we can do anyway so we should just prepare for the worst. If it is caused by us then by the time the world as a whole acts to change it we will be past the point of no return anyway.

johno1066 wrote:   But then wait! hangon, 30 years ago, didn't people vote for a free trade agreement within Europe, the EEC. Or did they vote for a United States of Europe. No could never happen surely.Perphaps that's what this Government is doing, making laws so proposterous that the people have to use the European courts, whom then give the Government a slap on the wrists, people say "well Europe isn't so bad after all, then before we know it we're in.

I don't think you need to worry about Europe for the time being. After all the people have spoken. They didn't vote for a United states of europe which is why the French said no and the Dutch said no.

However give a bit of time and we may well become the 51st state of America! People bang on about Europe but how much of what happens in this country is determined by US policy....

johno1066 wrote: Hmm, having lived in the US for abit, now that I would like to see. A constitution that matters, a 9L truck, cheaper petrol prices, the right to buy however many guns I can fit into my truck, on a drivers license! The right to shoot the burglars who invade my home,cheap flying, hmmm tempting.

LOL....I used to quite fancy the idea of living in America until I realised that there speed limts are lower than ours and enforced with just as much vigour. Not to mention that in some states what you and your wife/girlfirend get up to in the bed room is dictated by the courts. The fact that in some towns they have a limit on how many beers you can drink in one sitting, about three If I remember correctly. Then lets not forget the fact that it's only the land of the free if you agree with the right wing christian fundamentallists.

Land of the free? More like nation of nutters!

Appologies to any American readers. Much of this is from Bill Brysons 'Notes from a big country'. Since he actually is American I think he view is quite valid.

Just been reading the above, all very interesting....

I have no problem with Gatso's, I think there placement is a little suspect and feel that if more were placed outside schools,colleges,shopping centres and other busy "populated" areas it would be hard pressed for any of the arguments against cameras to be valid.

One thing we have to remember is that to be able to drive a car is not a right, it's something you earn by passing your driving test and abidding by the rules of the road (the law).  Exactly the same as it's against the law to break into someone's house and still something that they have because you want it or you want the money it cost - no, what you do is get a job, earn the money and buy it yourself. 

Now I speed, I often travel at 80 to 90 mph on motorways, I see this as safe in the right conditions BUT accept that I am breaking the law, I also accept that I could be caught and punished for doing so, if I get caught often enough I will lose the privelge to drive my car.  How can I complain? 

If I break into enough houses and get caught then I would expect to get stopped, by going to prison.  It's the samething, there are rules/laws that in this society we all live by.  These rules have to be enforced one way or another.

I travel about 20K miles a year, I speed, and I don't speed - if I see a camera I pass it at the limit (according to the speedo on the car/bike I am in) and I have never had a ticket.  So I have no issues with the accuracy of the cameras.  If I was foolish enough to risk speeding and I got caught it would be my fault, not the Police/camera partnership/goverment etc.  I was speeding, in my car so it's my fault.

Another argument I often hear is "I didn't know what the limit was", again how is this a valid argument - look at the highway code, it it's not a marked limit but there are regular lamposts then it's 30mph (not n motorways obv.), otherwise, use your eyes, the clues are normally there!  And if you are not sure then be careful, drive at 30mph!

We can all disagree with the way some limits are set, the way some cameras are positioned but something I see reguarly around Farnborough is Police in traffic cars, parked in side roads near schools/shops with speed guns stopping people for speeding in 30mph, speed there and you should get the book thrown at you for being so stupid.  I have no problem with cameras on motorways if it means that the Traffic Police can concentrate on catching idiots near schools while still maintaning a degree of law/order on motorways.

Now driving standards... thats another issue...

Cheer,

Bryce.

As far as I'm aware they never did, they certainly don't now, it is however available to you.

The BMWCC do a good job on this too, Howard Walker, Jeff Heywood, and I believe our very own John Safe organise these events throughout the year at a very very reasonable cost, actually cheaper than I can do it through the police.