Careful about boasting online.....

[glojo]

North Wales police, as you may be aware, are under the control of a Martian who has taken the Earth name, Brunstrom.

I fear that this person is your politically correct nodding poodle, and he certainly lives in cuckoo land. I once read that he intended prosecuting anyone that was one mph over a speed limit!!!! Hopefully that suggestion was put in the relevant 'basket'

I understand completely what your saying and if we were all sat down in a pub drinking some non alcoholic beverage, then no doubt we would all agree with what you are saying. The written word tends to get dissected and misunderstood.

I personally think I understand what you are saying and I am firmly of the opinion that most camera's are indeed out to 'trap' the unwary and NOT make our roads safer.

Go for it I say,
Regards,
John

 

[Alfie]

... . The fact is that you could be exceeding the speed limit on, say 4 seperate occasions, but not know anything about it until 14 days later when the NIPs drop through the letterbox.

Interesting debate. One which I wont contribute to myself other than to say this;

Fortunately we still have the 'Innocent until proven guilty' law in this country. This very law saved my licence once many years ago. Being a young chap with a nice new fast motorbike I was often tearing around with my mates. I was stopped for speeding on three occasions. By the time the third summons popped through the letter box I was worried that under the 'totting up' practice I was going to lose my licence . However at the time of the third offence I was technically innocent of the others as I had not been convicted of them . Therefore the court couldnt ban me. It did make me slow down and realise that I very nearly lost my licence.

Now, if NIP's drop through the letter box, the trick here is to accept the latest one and contest the earlier ones. It is not possible for the court to openly use what would be a future conviction against you at an earlier hearing! However, if you are unlucky the court will get to hear of the number of NIP's and use that to 'influence' their decision over the harshness of the earlier incidents.

 

[prprandall51]

I fear that this person is your politically correct nodding poodle, and he certainly lives in cuckoo land. I once read that he intended prosecuting anyone that was one mph over a speed limit!!!! Hopefully that suggestion was put in the relevant 'basket'

I understand completely what your saying and if we were all sat down in a pub drinking some non alcoholic beverage, then no doubt we would all agree with what you are saying. The written word tends to get dissected and misunderstood.

I personally think I understand what you are saying and I am firmly of the opinion that most camera's are indeed out to 'trap' the unwary and NOT make our roads safer.

Go for it I say,
Regards,
John

I do a lot of driving in North Wales - and I confess that I go there specifically for that purpose. Whilst I agree that the Chief Constable is an idiot, I have never seen his draconian attitutude put into practice in Wales. There are remarkably few fixed speed cameras on Welsh roads (right now, I can't think of any) and the mobile traps are usually situated in areas whose limit is 30, 40 or 50 mph - on the approach to residential areas, locations in which I am happy to see them.

At weekends, of course, all the nutters drive (and especially ride) over to Wales to treat it like a race track and that's when the helicopters and patrol cars come out in force; but for the average citizen in Wales, they would be shocked at how many speed cameras there are in other parts of the country (England).

Wales, ironically, is about the only place I know where speed cameras appear to be used for their "intended" purpose - enforcing safer driving rather than raising revenues.

Philip

 

[Ashley]

I was doing 140ish up m6 near j36 (cumbria) this morning.

 

[Ashley]

and i know the judge

 

[glojo]

I was doing 140ish up m6 near j36 (cumbria) this morning.

So it was you I undertook!!

John

 

[Flyer]

Wales, ironically, is about the only place I know where speed cameras appear to be used for their "intended" purpose - enforcing safer driving rather than raising revenues.

There's a fixed camera on the A548 near Gronant that is completely hidden behind a railway bridge ... that's one off the top of my head. As I said in a previous post, I've seen the camera vans on straight sections of 60mph road, ideal for overtaking, that are there for one reason only ... and it isn't enforcing safer driving

For those of you who believe that anyone who earns enough points to warrant a ban deserves it, have a read of this:

A DRIVER who jumped a red light to let a 999 ambulance pass has been given a £60 fine and three points on his licence.

Railway engineer Mark Freeman, 36, was snapped edging across a junction near his home in Doncaster, South Yorks.

The dad of five said: “The law is barmy. Moving was the only course of action I had — there could have been someone seriously ill or dying.”

He admitted the offence rather than face a big legal bill.

A Department of Transport spokesman said: “The Highway Code states a vehicle should get out of the way of emergency vehicles but not in a way that endangers other road users.”

Still, at least they got their 60 quid ...

 

[glojo]

There's a fixed camera on the top of my head.

(sorry)

For those of you who believe that anyone who earns enough points to warrant a ban deserves it, have a read of this:
Still, at least they got their 60 quid ...

If this were true and he merely 'edged' over the line to allow the emergency vehicle through then no doubt the ambulance would also be in the picture and his car would be stationary!!! (Two pictures are usually taken)

He could have produced the pictures to the court?? It is easy to plead mitigating circumstances whilst at the same time pleading guilty.

Never let the truth spoil a good story though.

I apologise if I appear suspicous, but.......


Regards,
John

 

[fuzzer]

If this were true and he merely 'edged' over the line to allow the emergency vehicle through then no doubt the ambulance would also be in the picture and his car would be stationary!!! (Two pictures are usually taken)

He could have produced the pictures to the court?? It is easy to plead mitigating circumstances whilst at the same time pleading guilty.

Never let the truth spoil a good story though.

I apologise if I appear suspicous, but.......


Regards,
John

But , why go to all that bother of going to court , I know i wouldnt ... Ive always thought they would do this. That sun article has confirmed my worst fears ....

 

[glojo]

But , why go to all that bother of going to court , ...

I have only read the link that Flyer very kindly posted, the driver might have gone to court, but the article merely states he pleaded guilty.

John

 

[Swiss Toni]

I have only read the link that Flyer very kindly posted, the driver might have gone to court, but the article merely states he pleaded guilty.

John

If the guy thought "going through a red light is an absolute offence - so I'll plead guilty and hope they are lenient" - then it suggests he got duff advice. It would not have taken much (in my opinion, and based on the VERY limited facts in the article) to state that the vehicle was being used for emergency purposes (I believe that would apply under these basic circs).

Suggests that there is more to know.

 

[glojo]

If the guy thought "going through a red light is an absolute offence - so I'll plead guilty and hope they are lenient" - then it suggests he got duff advice. It would not have taken much (in my opinion, and based on the VERY limited facts in the article) to state that the vehicle was being used for emergency purposes (I believe that would apply under these basic circs).

Suggests that there is more to know.

As usual, you get my vote.

John