From HelenS:

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 09:35:13 +0000 (UTC), "vernon" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In one
instance a batch of policment got off speeding charges because a
helpful colleague pointed out the loophole to them.

If that's the case I'm thinking of, what actually happened was that
the speed limit was signed correctly, but the magistrate let them off
because there was no black border on the sign warning of enforcement
cameras. Quite why the magistrate thought that speeding was somehow
not illegal if there was a minor clerical error in the warning to
criminals about enforcement is beyond me.

Because the LAW defines the correct legally enforceable signage - and for
very good reasons the courts should not simply set aside the law just to
convict someone they know is guilty.

pk

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 13:02:50 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If that's the case I'm thinking of, what actually happened was that
the speed limit was signed correctly, but the magistrate let them off
because there was no black border on the sign warning of enforcement
cameras. Quite why the magistrate thought that speeding was somehow
not illegal if there was a minor clerical error in the warning to
criminals about enforcement is beyond me.

Quoted message said:

Because the LAW defines the correct legally enforceable signage - and for
very good reasons the courts should not simply set aside the law just to
convict someone they know is guilty.

No, the LAW allows for cameras to be completely concealed, and for
completely unsigned enforcement (e.g. plod on bridges). A regulation
with the force of law regulates the layout of informational signs (and
that also applies to things like holiday routes, diversions and event
signage) to prevent confusion. As I understand it no sign is
_required_ for enforcement activity to be permitted, that is just a
policy.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy said:

So, if the signs in a town about the CCTV cameras are the wrong
colour, it's fine for rapists to be let off, yes?

No, because the sign is not required for their legality. It has yet to
be challenged though whether such footage is legal under Article 8 of
the HRA.

Quoted message said:

There is no suggestion that the evidence-collection device was faulty.
Or that they were unaware of both the speed limit and the presence of
the camera.

It of itself was not faulty but it did not comply with the law because
the sign was incorrect and a correct sign was required by law. The law
is precise on these matters and the fault is with whoever installed the
sign incompetently. Its not as if the sign requirements are not clearly
defined.

On the other hand I assume you are happy for people to have those fancy
confusing number plates that are difficult to read on speed cameras
because after all its only a different font and a few extra lines on them

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

David Hansen <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

That's ridiculous. I bought my own hardware and plugged it in and
programmed it several days before the stated date for the line being
converted. Full marks to British Telecom locally, a couple of days
before the stated date I noticed the appropriate light was lit on
the router. That was it.

Maybe my system was more complex, maybe you are technically more
competent than I. I wasn't too fussed about things taking a while to get
sorted, though my partner was. He was even *more* upset when I got the
system to work on my computer when he had failed!

The BT disc would not run at all on my David's laptop PC[1] but he got
the wireless link to work anyway.
The BT disc did install on David's PowerMac G5 and he managed to get
things working there for him.
The BT disc installed on my comupter but no network/router was detected.

Things eventually settled after I had uninstalled all the BT software
and reinstalled it while connected up.

I don't really like the BT Yahoo browser thing, which I use as
infrequently as possible.

[1] Toshiba Satellite purchased within the past year.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Quoted message said:

So, if the signs in a town about the CCTV cameras are the wrong
colour, it's fine for rapists to be let off, yes?

Not the same thing. There's statutary regulations for the construction,
dimensions and siting of road signs.
To the best of my knowledge, similar regulations do not exist for CCTV
cameras.

Quoted message said:

There is no suggestion that the evidence-collection device was faulty.
Or that they were unaware of both the speed limit and the presence of
the camera.

Nevertheless, a strict set of protocols exist for the prosecution of
offenders and if they are not followed exactly then a prosecution can be
challenged, often sucessfully.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 13:25:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, if the signs in a town about the CCTV cameras are the wrong
colour, it's fine for rapists to be let off, yes?

Quoted message said:

No, because the sign is not required for their legality. It has yet to
be challenged though whether such footage is legal under Article 8 of
the HRA.

I don't believe the sign is required for automated speed enforcement
to be legal either. Otherwise it would not be lawful for plod to
mount mobile enforcement.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Once again from the PSF:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html
"March of speed cameras halted
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
<snip><snip>

+
I had the misfortune to have my little Suzuki Swift trashed on 28 Oct by a
SMIDSY driver of a motorhome which ripped of the off side of my car ( I was
stationary and I was sitting in it watching it about to happen). That is
just to lead into my point. I was given a courtesy car a VW 4 door thingy
and drove off to my destination -- another 100 miles.
But I found it v v difficult to adjust my speed in the new car. I am sure
most of us are aware of general "speed" when driving our cars without
directly looking at the speedometer. I hit lots of "too fast" flashes on my
journey that night adjusted downhill when I saw them.

However yesterday in my home local area I drove through a speed camera, of
which I am well aware, and I don't know whether it flashed or not but I
suspect that instead of doing 30 mph I was doing 40 mph - ish! It is all
tied in with listening to engine rev and noise in the car.

So if I get a notification of an offence I shall protest my innocence -- I
shall certainly not pay the fine but opt to have a court appearance and I
would expect to have to plea guilty but be able to enter a plea of
mitigation.

The area was totally free off traffic at the time but the speed cameras
don't take account of that.

To be honest, as a daily cyclist ( At 68 I cycle about 5,000 miles every
year) I am quite in favour of various traffic calming schemes but any awful
lot of them are heavily weighted against the cyclist. I find I cycle more
positively -- i.e. aggressively month by month).

So what to do about speed cameras? I do think the flashing "too fast" seems
to be effective with most motorist (including me) at the moment. But how
long will it be effective?

A final aside. I was cycling on my morning shopping trip when a van overtook
me on a straight road and turned directly across my front with about 6' to
spare -- I had to stop quite quickly!. As he stopped I remonstrated with
him gently (!!!) and he got upset ---- "I indicated" -- I suggested
gently(!!!) that I hadn't got eyes in the back of my head and that if he had
taken about 2 more seconds he could have turned in behind me. I was "gently"
showered with verbal abuse!

Ah well. I have his number and I have report the happening to the police (
who were not interested -- of course) but if by chance He does it again ( he
is a local driver) I will report him again! Perhaps, eventually, the police
might start taking proper measures to control the metal box clad "blind
motorist

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply

On 5 Nov,

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 13:25:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, if the signs in a town about the CCTV cameras are the wrong
colour, it's fine for rapists to be let off, yes?

Quoted message said:

No, because the sign is not required for their legality. It has yet to
be challenged though whether such footage is legal under Article 8 of
the HRA.

I don't believe the sign is required for automated speed enforcement
to be legal either. Otherwise it would not be lawful for plod to
mount mobile enforcement.

Signs are only required if the local authority/plod are in the 'netting off
scheme', where part of the proceeds of the fines goes to the local speed
camera organisation. If not, then no signs are required, and the proceeds go
straight to the govt.

--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:10:26 GMT, "Pinky"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So if I get a notification of an offence I shall protest my innocence -- I
shall certainly not pay the fine but opt to have a court appearance and I
would expect to have to plea guilty but be able to enter a plea of
mitigation.

And the court will quite legitimately ask: being aware of this fact,
what steps did you take to ensure that you kept your speed within the
limit? Was the vehicle fitted with a working speedometer?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 13:25:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, if the signs in a town about the CCTV cameras are the wrong
colour, it's fine for rapists to be let off, yes?

Quoted message said:

No, because the sign is not required for their legality. It has yet
to be challenged though whether such footage is legal under Article
8 of the HRA.

I don't believe the sign is required for automated speed enforcement
to be legal either. Otherwise it would not be lawful for plod to
mount mobile enforcement.

IIRC (sorry, no citation, can't think of good terms to search for), if a
site is used more than a fixed (and not very high) threshold of times in a
given period, it *is* required that there's a camera sign put up. Ditto the
Police Speed Check area signs on motorways don't say there's cameras, just
that there are regular patrols.

--
Ambrose

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:10:26 GMT, "Pinky"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So if I get a notification of an offence I shall protest my
innocence -- I shall certainly not pay the fine but opt to have a
court appearance and I would expect to have to plea guilty but be
able to enter a plea of mitigation.

And the court will quite legitimately ask: being aware of this fact,
what steps did you take to ensure that you kept your speed within the
limit? Was the vehicle fitted with a working speedometer?

Interestingly enough, I was chatting with the bloke who put a new axle stub
back on my car when the (remaining) wheel nuts sheared, and he said it was a
good job that it didn't happen on the motorway. I said I'd hit something
(later turned out to be a clod of earth, given the lumps stuck to the side
of the car) just before the incident at 70mph (which actually *was* me lying
slightly, as I think I was doing an indicated 75), and he said that you
never know, and if you're not concentrating, you can find yourself doing
100mph without noticing.

The interesting thing about that is that he claimed that you'd be
accidentally driving at 100mph rather than deliberately, so even the boy
racer types have some guilty feelings about speeding nowadays. At least
enough not to endorse it in front of their clients. (Even if they're happy
to avoid VAT in front of their clients. [censored].)
--
Ambrose

Urban myth (I hope) currently doing the rounds as "fact" with the local
taxi drivers; a FOF got done for speeding at 35 in a 30 zone and was let
of by the beak because "everyone knows that ACPO guidelines disregard
any speed under 36".

I spend too much of my time trying to change cabbie's views of speed
cameras.

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 13:26:45 GMT someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Maybe my system was more complex, maybe you are technically more
competent than I.

I have done this sort of thing before, using ordinary modems, cable
modems and ISDN, as well as ADSL, so I'm more familiar than most
people.

Quoted message said:

I wasn't too fussed about things taking a while to get
sorted, though my partner was. He was even *more* upset when I got the
system to work on my computer when he had failed!

Male pride, particularly regarding being able to master gadgets, is
often rather pathetic.

Quoted message said:

The BT disc would not run at all on my David's laptop PC[1] but he got
the wireless link to work anyway.

I hate "easy to use", "friendly", "don't worry your pretty little
head about it", software. It fails to perform as claimed far too
often for my liking. It is often best left in the plastic coffin it
comes in.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

vernon said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Appalled by the person who claimed that because a 40 mph speed
limit sign 'didn't exist' because it had a flourescent yellow
border.

I'd be surprised if that worked. Legally the speed limit applies
to the road irrespective of any signs. In law the signs are there
only for the purposes of informing motorists there is a speed limit
on the road at that point.

I've seen newspaper reports of people getting of moving traffic
offenses because the signage does not meet the standard
specifications.

I heard of a case some time ago where a motorist of the creative
variety was caught speeding. He proceeded to locate a sign indicating
a higher speed limit, took it off its post, and replaced the sign near
the place he'd been caught. He might have gotten away with it, had it
not been for the speed limit sign found in the boot of his car.

--
Måns Rullgård
[email hidden]

David Hansen <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

I hate "easy to use", "friendly", "don't worry your pretty little
head about it", software. It fails to perform as claimed far too
often for my liking. It is often best left in the plastic coffin it
comes in.

Indeed, but I felt I should follow the instructions.

The fact the BT CD would not run *at all* on David's laptop riled me.
The configfree program on it saw him to rights; delightful *not* to have
those silly BT Yahoo things too!

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

I don't really like the BT Yahoo browser thing, which I use as
infrequently as possible.

Take it out then. It isn't required to use the BT Broadband / BT-Yahoo
broadband services, save for perhaps a few Yahoo specific tricks.

See BT-Yahoo help pages, these being perhaps the most relevant:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/uk/bt/nb/browser/browser-35.html
and
http://help.yahoo.com/help/uk/bt/nb/browser/browser-36.html

If uncertain, run Firefox for a bit to be comfortable, and then remove the
BT-Yahoo bits.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

"Nigel Cliffe" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't really like the BT Yahoo browser thing, which I use as
infrequently as possible.

Quoted message said:

Take it out then. It isn't required to use the BT Broadband / BT-Yahoo
broadband services, save for perhaps a few Yahoo specific tricks.

Quite. That's why I have not uninstalled it.

Quoted message said:

See BT-Yahoo help pages, these being perhaps the most relevant:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/uk/bt/nb/browser/browser-35.html
and
http://help.yahoo.com/help/uk/bt/nb/browser/browser-36.html

Thanks.

Quoted message said:

If uncertain, run Firefox for a bit to be comfortable, and then remove the
BT-Yahoo bits.

I've not yet got Firefox.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

I've not yet got Firefox.

Try it - you won't be disappointed

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

p.k. said:

Above is for me the key point - the objective is not fining motorists for
breaking the law, it is safer roads.

I certainly find that the radar controlled flashing speed limit reminders
very effective - there is one for the 20mph limit in Hampton that certainly
seem to slow traffic.

I find that one fairly ineffective. When the traffic is flowing freely
along there most cars ignore the flashing sign and the 20mph limit
completely.

--
Dave...

Just zis Guy said:

No, the LAW allows for cameras to be completely concealed, and for
completely unsigned enforcement (e.g. plod on bridges). A regulation
with the force of law regulates the layout of informational signs (and
that also applies to things like holiday routes, diversions and event
signage) to prevent confusion. As I understand it no sign is
_required_ for enforcement activity to be permitted, that is just a
policy.

Guy
--

That's what I understood too. The 'guidelines' apply to the use of
cameras by Safety Camera Partnerships who are allowed to keep the fines
in order to fund the partnership. The police are perfectly entitled to
enforce the speed limit where they like, using 'hidden' cameras if they
please but if they do the fine revenue goes straight to the treasury.

BD is of the same mind too I see...