"Colonel Colt" NoneOfYourBusiness@feckoff,org wrote:

"Aidy" wrote in message
...
The presence of street lighting means nothing.

If you don't know the limit of the road you are on you shouldn't be
driving, it's that simple.

Rubbish. I've seen quite a few examples of non-existent or contradictory
signage. As someone who habitually obeys the speedlimit, and always looks
for evidence of what the limit is, I well know the truth of this. One
particularly bad example I can think of was a stretch of dual carriageway in
Coventry, limit 60, repeater signs and enforced by fixed camera. On the
slip road there was a NSL sign. The first 60 repeater sign was *after* the
camera. When I first encountered that road, it was pure luck that I did go
past the camera at 70 and thus get a ticket. So don't **** down my back and
tell me it's raining!.

Same thing happened near here. A NSL country road ended in a junction
with a single-carriageway main road, also NSL.

However, at some point the main road past the junction was made into a
40, but there were no signs on the country road to say so. The first
time I was aware of this was when I turned into the main road,
accelerated, and a 40 repeater flashed past at nearly 70 mph.

Months and months later, they posted the 40 limit near the end of the
country road.

Another SC road near here used to be NSL, although lit. Later, it went
down to 40, and finally is now 30. All that changed was the posted
limit.

At least these things are consistently inconsistent, so nothing can be
read into the presence of street lighting.

--
from
Kim Bolton

"Aidy"
If you want me to 'do the time', you can give me full proper "due
process".

And the option is there if you want to take it.


No it isn't. The option is to admit guilt if you want the lesser sentence,
even if you aren't sure you were guilty.

mentalguy2004 wrote:
"Palindrome" wrote in message
m...
Adrian wrote:
Palindrome gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were
saying:

In this case the road was continuing without any apparent change in
surroundings or street lighting (that could be seen at night), yet with
different stretches at 40 and 30 and even 50.

As it happens, I *thought* it was a 40 zone. But any sensible motorist,
seeing a camera, asks themselves why it was put *there*. No sign of any
road change, pedestrian crossing, etc - the logical reason was that the
speed limit had recently changed.
I'd assume there were plenty of signs, then, otherwise you wouldn't have
known there were lots of changes...?
Anyone can miss a set of signs on a strange road, at night, with no other
traffic around. It could take a km or more to notice that the roundels
aren't there any more.

However, the question is, what do you do when you see a speedcam ahead,
when you are driving on a strange road, at night, with no other traffic
around? Where the speed limit on the road has been going up and down for
no apparent reason?

Me, I'd be passing it at 30.

Quote: "You knew what speed you were doing at all times and what the
prevailing speed limit was at those times. If not, you have no business
being behind the wheel." Unquote.


What's the problem? If a passenger asks me, as I am driving along, what
the prevailing speed limit is, I expect to be able to answer and I
expect to be right.

However, on approaching a speed camera, I look for confirmation that I
am correct. That can come from a huge variety of sources. Without any, I
take the fail-safe approach and assume that I could be wrong.

Don't mistake this for *really* thinking that I might be wrong. But it
simply isn't worth taking any chance with something as unforgiving as a
speed camera.

--
Sue

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:33:05 +0100, "Aidy" wrote:

I think you misread what i wrote. If the accused only admits guilt after
the evidence is disclosed to them, is that held against them?

You're muddying the waters. In the situation we are discussing there is no
"accused". You are referring to steps further down the legal process.

Its a convuluted mechanism to avoid having to disclose evidence. In the
way that a parking ticket is considered a 'charge' and not a 'fine'.

No, it's a courtesy and benefit to allow everyone (the driver, the police
and the courts) to deal with what is a trivial matter in an easy way.
However many people fail to see this as a benefit and, given an inch, want
to take a mile. No-one is convoluting to avoid anything. If you want "due
process" then follow the steps and be treated like every other person
accused of an offence, deny the charges and go to court and see the
evidence. Why do you think drivers should be given a benefit that people
accused of other offences are not? Don't want to do the time....don't do
the crime.

I think you're all forgetting something by comparing speeding cameras to other
offences. In all other matters (pretty much), it's a *person* who's suspected,
investigated, charged, accused, whatever. In the case of a NIP it's
(effectively) the *car* which is 'suspected' (via a largely automated process),
and the NIP goes to the registered keeper - it's the very earliest stage of an
investigative proceeding. Comparing this to any other kind of offence involving
an accused *person* is irrelevant and unhelpful. Speed camera NIPs are pretty
unique legally, and pressuring registered keepers into making admissions before
they've had a chance to make any checks is bad and wrong and unjust.

What is the *point*, I ask once again, of the 28 day limit mentioned by the OP?
What does it achieve?

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

No it isn't. The option is to admit guilt if you want the lesser sentence,
even if you aren't sure you were guilty.

And why does that differ from many other offences?

pressuring registered keepers into making admissions before
they've had a chance to make any checks is bad and wrong and unjust.

I fail to see why. It is your duty as the car's owner to know who is
driving your car, if you fail in that duty you must accept the consequences.
So that is the ID process dealt with quite easily. Next, if you feel you
weren't speeding then go to court and plea your case and the police will
produce their evidence. It's no different from any other offence.

What is the *point*, I ask once again, of the 28 day limit mentioned by
the OP?
What does it achieve?

The process needs *some* limit, so 28 days is reasonable. Maybe you're on
holiday when you get the letter? There has to be some flexibility.

"Aidy" wrote in message
news
No it isn't. The option is to admit guilt if you want the lesser
sentence, even if you aren't sure you were guilty.

And why does that differ from many other offences?

Punishment is not influenced by admission of guilt after evidence has been
disclosed (though the principle exists, that the earlier a defendent enters
a plea, the greater the reduction in sentence).

Gaz

"Aidy" wrote in message
news
No it isn't. The option is to admit guilt if you want the lesser
sentence, even if you aren't sure you were guilty.

And why does that differ from many other offences?

Because in relation to any other offence you have the right of
non-self-incrimination - ie you have the absolute and inviolable right to
decline to answer the question on the NIP, and you have the right to remain
silent (ie to not give an answer to the question). A court may place an
interpretation on the refusal to answer, but may not presume guilt and
convict solely on the basis of the silence.

Also to address the claim that the accused has no right to see any evidence
because at this stage there is no "accused" - this is complete and utter
loose-stool water of the most pungent kind. The document is a "notice of
intended prosecution". You cannot intend to prosecute "person or persons
unknown" - it is a direct accusation that the registered keeper of the
vehicle is guilty of the offense unless they can refute it by directing the
accusation to someone else. If it was not an accusation the RK could not
face any personal sanction for failing to respond to it (under the rights to
silence and of non-self-incrimination). The suggestion is abject ******** of
a size which would rival those of a blue whale.

Because in relation to any other offence you have the right of
non-self-incrimination

As you do here. You have a legal requirement to ID the driver of your car,
and once you have done that you are well within your rights to then remain
silent on the speeding charge.

Also to address the claim that the accused has no right to see any
evidence because at this stage there is no "accused" - this is complete
and utter loose-stool water of the most pungent kind.

I'm afraid not. If you don't understand the legal process then no words I
write will be able to convince you that you are wrong. And given the fact
that the police regularly (thought not always, they can be nice if they
want) decline requests to see the evidence kind of suggests I'm on the right
side of the fence.

I have to go with PDR on this one, the above and this earlier post:

"Your car was photographed speeding. Was it you? Be advise that if you say
it was right now, before we produce even a shred of evidence to support our
allegation then you will get off with a slapped wrist, but if you don't and
then attempt to challenge us in the court then it will cost you big-time."
"Ah, so I'm completely stiched then?"
"Yes Sir, that's the way we've rigged the system. We've had letters of
complaint from Robert Mugabe and Slobby Milosovic threatening to sue us from
bringing dictators into disrepute".
"Well in that case I guess the only answer I can give is 'yes'..."
"Very wise, Sir."

The counter arguments only work on the assumption that the fixed penalty system, and not only for alleged motoring offences, is fair.
The point I think PDR is making (sorry PDR if I've got this wrong) is that the entire fixed penalty system only works by standing on its head certain fundamental principles of English Law ie the right to remain silent, the right of non-incrimination, the right to see ones accusers and to hear their evidence, some of which incidentally are enshrined in the Human Rights Act. In order for the system to work the accused must admit their guilt on the say-so of the prosecuting authority, be it the police or a local authority,
for one of any number of offences now covered by the fixed penalty system, eg, wheelie bin with wrong rubbish in = fixed penalty, dropping litter = fixed penalty, dog fouling = fixed penalty, shoplifting = fixed penalty, common assualt = fixed penalty, drunk and disorderly = fixed penalty. It is too easy to lose sight of what, were it not the emotive subject of speed cameras, would be a discussion on the application of a fair judicial process and if anyone can produce a cogent non-emotive argument for the fairness of a system which allows an accusation to be made without substantiation and requires the accused to admit their guilt so that a punishment can then be levied I'd be fascinated to hear it.