Today, Saturday 19th July 2003, I have recieved my first ever 'Notice of intended prosecution' which is for driving at 58 mph on the M6 where there was a temporary 50 mph limit (last week).

I remember the moment quite clearly because I saw the mobile unit on a bridge. It crossed my mind that everybody else in the middle lane was doing the same and that they just couldn't prosecute all of us. I suppose I was just kidding myself.

The letter comes with a little leaflet entitled "REDUCING SPEED, NOT LIVES" which attempts to answer all of the 'commonly asked questions' about speed cameras. As I happen to know that the road casulty figures for Warwickshire Police have actually increased in the past two years (road deaths included), I can only assume that the title of the leaflet was some sort of attempt at humour.

I have had a little think and I am certain of a few things:

I wasn't driving dangerously that day. I wasn't tailgating or switching lanes. I was calm, aware and concentrating. It was a dry, bright, clear day. The motorway was unusually empty and the traffic was flowing nicely. I was flowing with it.

For that sin, I now have to pay 60 quid and accept three points on my licence - my first ever points in 20 years of motoring!

The important announcement is as follows:

Forthwith, funkiiprez will be joining bogush's campaign and arguing vociferously against SPEED TAX CAMERAS and ARBITRARY, INAPPROPRIATE, SPEED LIMITS.

Considering that, in the past, I was somebody who argued in favour of them, you might like to take the opportunity to personally thank Warwickshire Police for helping recruit me to the campaign.

Well bugger me! Welcome to the club, Funkii - I'm sorry to hear of your NIP for driving safely at a little over an arbitrary number on a stick. at least it has made you realise what a crock of sh!t the 'speed kills' mindset is.
Why don't you send a copy of your excellent diatribe to a national paper?

I'm not surprised with your conversion, Funki, it is a common syndrome that you have been suffering from, its called 'naivety'.

I have come across literally hundreds of people that thought our police were honest and competent, that is until they actually had direct contact or dealings with them, now they believe them to be dishonest and corrupt.

Every cloud has a silver lining and you can learn from your mistake, ie, by making sure that the car you drive is either not registered , or registered in a fictitious name, that way any further tickets you incur will not be worth the paper they are written on.

Welcome to the Dark Side, you little speedophile you!

I hope you haven't filled in the forms yet, or at least haven't signed them.

If you haven't:

Fill them in.

BUT DON'T SIGN THEM

REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY TELL YOU!

And at the very least send a copy of that post to your local paper.

I hope I have your permission to repost it!?

If I haven't I'll just have to make that a term and condition of my forum retrospectively ! ; - )

 

You certainly have my permission to repost it wherever you like (and quote the source) but I would be interested to hear what sort of responses you get to it.

I just did a quick search on signing the NIP and I see what you are getting at. I am not legally required to actually sign the thing but if I don't sign it, the matter is referred to the courts. In that case, the unsigned declaration may well be considered inadmissable as evidence by the court clerk - so in theory I could get away with it.

The trouble with me (and I recognise that it may be a weakness Kim!) is that I would feel uncomfortable in trying to weedle out of it.

I know that I WAS doing 58 at that time and I knew that it was breaking the law - even if only in a wholly technical sense. My instinct is that I should accept the consequences.

Besides that, if there really is a genuine loophole, my bringing attention to it will only hasten the plugging of it!

As you can see though, it doesn't mean that in future I will accept that these type of fines or the ways of policing them are just or fair (or effective).

And I promise that I will expend a great deal of energy relating that to anyone who will listen - armed, of course, with facts that you, Andy and the rest have provided for me over the past couple of years

Dear All,

The weather is great and the roads are nice and clear. I have been having a lovely time zooming up and down the M6.

The police have written to me asking if I would like to donate some money to help buy some more nice vans like the one on the front of the postcard.

I think its some sort of pyramid scheme or something. Maybe one day everyone will have their own nice van!

Wish you were here!

Funkii

> "The trouble with me (and I recognise that it may be a weakness Kim!) is that I would feel uncomfortable in trying to weedle out of it."

You're not "weedling" out of anything:

The law works both ways!

Do you pay your highest rate of tax on all your income, or do you "avoid" (rather than "evading") paying it on the lower bands and claim (and pay no tax at all) on your tax allowances?

The law says that you must complete the form.

The law also says that you don't have to sign it.

And it says that you don't have to incriminate yourself.

Why should using a "loophole" available to rapists and child murderers make you feel "guilty" just because you are a safe motorist who never harmed anyone?

Do you surrender yourself to the police every New Year for having illegally enjoyed Christmas Pud?

> "I know that I WAS doing 58 at that time and I knew that it was breaking the law - even if only in a wholly technical sense. My instinct is that I should accept the consequences."

Do you even send the police £60 every time you notice that you are driving in excess of the limit?

I bet you've caught yourself doing that more than three or four times:

Did you volunteer to ban yourself from the roads?

> "Besides that, if there really is a genuine loophole, my bringing attention to it will only hasten the plugging of it!"

And the point is?

That you want it to continue?

But you don't want it to be used?

Or that you only want it to be used by people breaking the law in a NOT wholly technical sense?

Anyway it's going through the process of being confirmed at the moment and so will undoubtedly be plugged soon after.

So shouldn't you make use of your rights while you still have some left?!

 

What were the exact circumstances of the "temporary limit" and your crime by the way?

Was it roadworks?

New overhead enforceable signs?

Was it early morning, evening, weekend?

If road works:

Was there any work in progress/on that section?

Or was it beyond the roadworks, or even after they had finished?

Or on the other side to the roadworks with a contra flow?

 

Funkii

Much as I have enjoyed our sparring in the past, I get a very funny feeling, given your previous views on this subject, that this is either a life changing event of "damascus" proportions, or a wind-up.

Or is it a case of "Oh yes, I fully support the almost orgasmic, unfettered use of speed cameras. Eh? Sorry? You mean they will use them on ME too? Well, I don't think I agree with that!"

But hey, if you were driving "like a loony" and "putting peoples lives at risk" then I'm sure you will agree with your previous advice on this subject and accept your fine and points with good grace.

That's a fair point Sam but I haven't suddenly changed my mind. I still think that speed cameras can be useful but I have taken note of some of the arguments against the more recent 'cash for cameras' for some time.

In all honesty, my 'NIP' is more like the straw the broke the donkey's back. It wasn't the road to Damascus, just the road to Wolverhampton.

Bogush:

The ticket says it was 10.44 am on a Tuesday and I was in the roadworks section around J3-J4 which (I think) is being widened on both sides. Some of it is contra-flow but not where I got flashed.

Considering the conditions at the time, I believe that I was driving safely but I accept that the 50 mph limit is reasonable. I don't expect any sympathy on that score.

What has shocked me is this: there are plenty of classes of petty crime for which a caution is issued at the police's discretion. Considering that this was my first motoring offence (my first offence of any kind, actually) in 20 odd years of driving and that I was not dangerously flouting the law, it is hard to understand why I am not being treated with the same discretion.

Don't remind me that you have been telling me the same for years. I know.

I grudgingly accept the fine and I don't want to use the loophole to get away with it. After speaking to different people, I am considering asking to go to magistrate's court rather than accept the 'conditional offer' of a 60 quid fine and 3 points (which strikes me as nothing short of plea-bargaining). If I do that, at least I have a chance to tell the magistrate what the road conditions were like etc etc - even if I risk ending up even more out of pocket.

Anyway, maybe I deserve it for missing the point in the past.


Another thing, Sam. Having now had some experience, I really am amazed at how this system works. Because there is no police officer to witness the offence, they send a letter asking if you were driving the car. If you admit it, they kindly offer to save theselves a lot of time and expense by letting you off with a fine and three points (in the leaflet, they make a point of telling you that you risk a higher fine and more points if you don't accept). Considering the current policy on siting cameras (i.e not necessarily in accident black spots), this is just too random to be called justice. I didn't see it before but I do now. Sorry for being such a dunce

Too true Funkii.

Not only do thay ask you to incriminate yourself, but the threaten you with a criminal ofence if you do not.

Now, I am no expert in the law, but that does sound like coercion to me. Unfortunately, the law disagrees (recent cases have supported the current arrangements).

This is why we have been so angry for so long. It so obvious what the objective is here, yet when you point out blatent inconsistencies with the approach taken and the objectives sought, you are simply called a "loony" or a "speed freak".

Personally, I am just waiting for the tipping point to arrive. Eventually, they will push too far and that will be that. It happened with the poll tax and it will happen with the ludicrous persecution of motorists.

If you accept it's just a rip-off stealth tax:

Why let them rip you off?

To fund NOT chasing real criminals?!

Remember that most of the money has to go to "safety" work and will almost certainly go to fund even more cameras in even less dangerous speed trap locations!

 

By the way:

You said that there wasn't a contraflow at that point.

If there was: you would have been on a smooth, straight single carriageway with no pedestrians, and crash barriers on at least one side.

Which would normally be a too low 60mph limit!

 

Was there actually a coned off lane on your side?

And/or actually work being carried out in it?

 

Or are you actually saying that you were in a section between roadworks and/or cones, but that there wasn't any at that point?

But the limit continued through?

 

Please clarify.

 

By the way:

I think that if you go to court you get hit by a fine of up to £1000 plus costs and possibly more points.

They don't like you asserting your rights and trying to give the impression this is a democracy.

Don't forget:

The magistrates are usually part of the "Safety" partnership.

 

IE The "Safety" Partnership is Judge, Jury AND Executioner in it's own prosecution!?

 

Nearly forgot:

I don't think you realise (have forgotten some of the things we pointed out in the past?):

Speeding is a crime of strict liability.

There is NO defense, mitigation, whatever.

You're either innocent because you were below the limit.

Or you were guilty because you were above it.

This is the gripe about "robot" policemen.

A real traffic cop could could say fair enough, turn on his blues and twos, and escort you to the maternity unit or wherever.

Or give you a ticking off for doing 90 on the open road and tell you to be more "careful" in future.

A robo-highway revenueman just automatically taxes you.

And brings you closer to a ban.

Don't forget:

Your tax contribution might be used to fund two or three far worse located tax scams which will trap you in quick succession.

After they've closed the loophole

And get you BANNED.

And don't forget the £HUNDREDS, if not £THOUSANDS, in insurance you will be paying for your high mindedness!

 

I still have two weeks to make up my mind but I think I may as well just pay up and treat it as TWO lessons learnt:

a) Don't speed. It might not always be dangerous but it can be costly.

b) Do argue for speed cameras to be sensibly sited - at proven black spots where excessive speed is almost always dangerous.

I really can't remember the exact layout where I was flashed. The roadworks are quite extensive as it is all part of the M6 toll scheme which branches off between J3 and J4. I had passed through the contra-flow and it was a section with three lanes but I think they were narrower than usual with no hard shoulder. I would say that, as a guide, a 50 mph limit is perfectly sensible in those circumstances.

I was under the impression that exceeding temporary speed limits on contraflows etc. was not an endorsable offence.

Also, does it really matter whether or not pedestrians are in the vicinity of coned-off areas, surely these areas are for the extra safety of the workers.

Incidentally, funky has my full sympathy.

Regards Explorer

"I still have two weeks to make up my mind but I think I may as well just pay up and treat it as TWO lessons learnt:

a) Don't speed. It might not always be dangerous but it can be costly.

b) Do argue for speed cameras to be sensibly sited - at proven black spots where excessive speed is almost always dangerous."

I must say, Funkiiprez, (and I'm trying not to patronise) that I have been impressed by the honesty and lucidity of your posts on this subject. As someone else who is in support of cameras yet has points on their licence, I can appreciate how you feel.

However, as you state you were doing 58 in a 50 zone, and knew it. While going to court might make you feel better, it sounds like you're guilty as charged. Best stick to the limit in future!

All the best, gofl.

Explorer - someone mentioned the same point about temporary speed limits to me in conversation.

Apparently, they are not enforceable in general circumstances but the roadworks where I 'flouted' the law are subject to "Articles 2-8 of the M6 Motorway (Junctions 3-4) Temporary Prohibition and Restrictions Of Traffic Order 2002". So it looks like the authorities can apply for a statutory instrument that makes the temporary limits enforceable.

I agree that they are probably there to protect construction workers as much as anyone but it is a question of balance. The speed limit was being enforced at that point because there just happened to be a handy bridge on which to park the van - not because construction workers were nearby.

gofl - Sorry to dissapoint you.

Yes, I was breaking the speed limit and I am thus guilty as charged.

But the point is this: the most dangerous thing that happened as I approached the speed camera was not the speed I was travelling at, which was safe for the conditions. It was when I momentarily stopped concentrating on the road and looked down at my speedometer!

Furthermore, had I of panicked and attempted to scrub some speed off by braking, I might even have caused an accident.

All the best, funkii

funkiprez

I have to agree with all your points. I will add to your comments regarding distractions when driving. I drive for a living, clocking up 60000 miles per annum. I find it almost impossible to focus continually on every facet of hazard, and my speed consciousness sometimes fails due to other thought processes interfering when driving over extended periods of time.

I do make a habit of stopping after at least two hours of driving, if only to straighten my back and ease tiredness(I have suffered from a slipped disc in the past). Sometimes, I only realise that I have exceeded the local limit upon leaving a restricted area. These momentary lapses of speed consciousness can occur several times over a three hour drive, and I believe that they must be common in all motorists and form part of the 'reflex' habit of driving that we all have. 'Reflex driving' is surely necessary for all of us to be safe on the roads, but it can allow these momentary lapses of concentration to occur. It is these times when we are all vulnerable to speed cameras, hidden or otherwise.

For this natural human fallibility we are punished and 'taxed' by the increasing use of police self-financing speed schemes, in the name of safety. There is no discretion, as has been said by others above, and is a PR disaster for the police. They may be gaining monetarywise, but their relationship with the public is rapidly deteriorating as a result. In the end we all suffer for this kind of blind and contrived application of the law.

o

So is Funkii still banged up ?? no ones seen him since. Wasnt he the one that used a bike ?? cool as to do 100 mph on pedal power.

I like cams, at least they (mostly) put up little signs. These effing bumps they put up round here are screwing my tyres and suspension, and there's NO kiddie play areas in sight.

No, it was ol' Almacal the anarchist who kept crashing his bike.

 

And then disappeared after taking driving lessons.

 

Don't know if he saw the light or was even more unsafe in a car than cycling!

 

 

Funki dissapeared to his own website, and then faded off the internet.