www.boxertrix.com

You are guilty now if photographed speeding:
http://www.dwalker.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2710

What do you think?

MCN fills pages full of this every week.

If you can't see a yellow backed camera coming up you're not looking hard enough ahead.

Might think differently if I was caught by a mobile unit appearing behind a tree (which has yet to happen)

Having said that think the guilty till proven innocent scenario is unacceptable.

I think that MCN's often hysterical journalism doesn't do us any favours but I suppose they have a point...

The implications of surveillance are all bad, however do speed cameras constitute surveillance as they are only allegedly triggered by people speeding?

Ditto stealth tax - they don't penalise all automatically and are therefore not tax.

Laws are set through a supposedly democratic process for the benefit of all, no one makes us speed and we all know the consequences... its a personal choice.

Obviously having traffic cops around rather than cameras would be better as it might improve the general standard of driving (I havn't completed a motorway journey recently without witnessing the aftermath of at least one accident - how you run into the car in front in good conditions is a mystery to me...)

I of course never get caught speeding (kiss of death).

What say others?

Ade

I think the problem that MCN are trying to highlight is that many of the speed cameras used have not in fact been subjected to Home Office verification trials for the use of detecting speeding motorcycles, but that despite this, the Police continue to use them to prosecute speeding motorcyclists.

It's just a pity that MCN's hyperbolic, journalistic style often obscures rather than highlights the issues.

As far as the general issue of using speed cameras goes, I don't really have a problem with it where it genuinely is used to promote safety. Having said that, however, I see little evidence of this.

I have a 25 mile commute along a single-carriageway A road which is mostly national speed limit, but which has 4 villages on it, three of which have posted 30mph limits, and one which has a posted 40mph limit. I am one of the very few drivers (on both bike and car) who obey these limits, and it is common to see vehicles (including 40 tonne trucks) driving at 45mph through the 30mph zones. There is also a bad junction after a bend which has been the scene of at least 3 serious accidents that I know of in the last two years - I slow down to approx. 45mph for this junction on pure safety grounds, much to the annoyance of following vehicles.
So, where would you expect the regular "safety camera" to be on this road? No, it's not located on any of these sections, but in a lay-by about half-way along a 1 mile straight with no junctions and a good overview in both directions.

Stevie wrote:
So, where would you expect the regular "safety camera" to be on this road? No, it's not located on any of these sections, but in a lay-by about half-way along a 1 mile straight with no junctions and a good overview in both directions.

Good post Stevie.

As to the above quote - a moot point. Cameras, for the most part, are placed where people are likely to break the speed limit ie where they're going to get caught £££££££ (sorry finger slipped on keyboard there...). NOT where people really need to be slowing down for reasons of safety etc etc.

MCN are asking the government to freeze all motorcycle speeding fines until the equipment has been tested and approved but why? Has there been a spate of motorcyclists nicked for speeding when in fact they were well within the speed limit? I doubt it.

Seems like knee jerk journalism to me and to the government it probably looks like motorcyclists trying to find a loophole and wriggle out of speeding tickets.

On a slight tangent, we've been getting adverts about the dangers of speeding on rural roads. It's obviously dawned on them that the smarter speeders have opted to hoon around on the smaller back roads as the main routes are littered with speed cameras. So have the cameras really cut casualties or just moved them to a different location?

Adam

adamski49 wrote:MCN are asking the government to freeze all motorcycle speeding fines until the equipment has been tested and approved but why? Has there been a spate of motorcyclists nicked for speeding when in fact they were well within the speed limit? I doubt it.

Adam

Totally agree - and just more evidence of what has become a large part of the 'victim mentality' many motorcyclists posess. A large part of this is that we've had things very good for a very long time, and to a certain extent we're now reaping what has been sown over the years. Some folk don't seem to like that.

As Adam rightly says the 'smarter' speeder will take his or her activity to places where it's quiet.

Personally, it is the principle of the matter that annoys me - why am I guilty until I have to prove myself innocent. If the Police/authorities have the evidence to hand then why do they not just release it at the time. This way it may make the person accept the charge rather than challenge it in court thus wasting everybody's time and money. Don't forget that we all pay taxes and these are currently being swallowed up heavily with cases being challenged in courts whether or not the person is guilty or not.

Gromit wrote:

adamski49 wrote:MCN are asking the government to freeze all motorcycle speeding fines until the equipment has been tested and approved but why? Has there been a spate of motorcyclists nicked for speeding when in fact they were well within the speed limit? I doubt it.

Adam

Totally agree - and just more evidence of what has become a large part of the 'victim mentality' many motorcyclists posess. A large part of this is that we've had things very good for a very long time, and to a certain extent we're now reaping what has been sown over the years. Some folk don't seem to like that.

As Adam rightly says the 'smarter' speeder will take his or her activity to places where it's quiet.

IF you put it that way, then it seems almost reasonable......right up to the point that you are convicted of speeding.

Now, I have no idea whether there has been a spate of motorcyclists being convicted of speeding when they weren't, but even if there were, there would be no evidence of it, because the only evidence that exists comes from speed cameras which have NOT been verified to be accurate when used against motorcycles.

As far as I know this is unique. If you recall, the SPECS system currently dumps data for vehicles that have swapped lanes between the start and end point for precisely this reason ie it has not been verified by the Home Office to be accurate across two adjacent lanes. Common sense tells us this is ludicrous, but you have to ask yourself why different standards apply.

Apart from the title where is this new ruling that says you are guilty until proven innocent? You can still plead not guilty.

Unfortunately, despite what you may like to think, speed cameras are pretty accurate pieces of kit and when they're set higher than the speed limit to allow for speedo error you would have to be amazingly unlucky to get nicked for speeding when you hadn't.

Adam

This opens up the debate further in that some Forces were thinking of having the speed cameras set to the limit on that road and not with a bit added on for inaccuracy of vehicle speedometers. Therefore, you could be driving along at say 50mph by your speedo but in fact could be nicked for breaking the speed limit on that 50mph road.
As most people might know speedos are generally accurate up to about 30mph but above they can read up to 10% inaccurate, either too low or too high. Check your speed on a TomTom or something against your vehicle one and you will see what I mean.

Stevie wrote:IF you put it that way, then it seems almost reasonable......right up to the point that you are convicted of speeding.

No, it would still be reasonable if I got nicked for speeding.

I've set off numerous speed cameras on the bike when exceeding the speed limit (front facing, personal race track etc ) but I've never managed to trigger one when riding at or below the limit.

This might not be scientific or sufficient to gain a certificate of accuracy but it's conclusive enough for me to know that if I don't speed past a camera I won't get nicked.

How simple does it need to be? We all need to take some responsibility for our actions instead of pointing the finger and looking for someone else to blame.

Adam

JoeC wrote:This opens up the debate further in that some Forces were thinking of having the speed cameras set to the limit on that road and not with a bit added on for inaccuracy of vehicle speedometers. Therefore, you could be driving along at say 50mph by your speedo but in fact could be nicked for breaking the speed limit on that 50mph road.
As most people might know speedos are generally accurate up to about 30mph but above they can read up to 10% inaccurate, either too low or too high. Check your speed on a TomTom or something against your vehicle one and you will see what I mean.

The downside to this argumentis that all speedos only ever read high, not low. I think manufactureers have to build them like this by law. Definitely seems to be the case with any vehicle I've checked against my GPS.

Doesn't stop the copper standing in court and saying his car's speedo (not the calibtrated one) was off the clock trying to catch you.

Adam

adamski49 wrote:

Stevie wrote:IF you put it that way, then it seems almost reasonable......right up to the point that you are convicted of speeding.

No, it would still be reasonable if I got nicked for speeding.

I've set off numerous speed cameras on the bike when exceeding the speed limit (front facing, personal race track etc ) but I've never managed to trigger one when riding at or below the limit.

This might not be scientific or sufficient to gain a certificate of accuracy but it's conclusive enough for me to know that if I don't speed past a camera I won't get nicked.

How simple does it need to be? We all need to take some responsibility for our actions instead of pointing the finger and looking for someone else to blame.

Adam

I don't disagree with any of this, but we're talking about a point of legal principle.

As this standard of evidence wouldn't be acceptable in any other legal process, why is it that you think that it should only be acceptable when prosecuting motorcyclists for speeding?

Legal principles are what makes solicitors, barristers and the like wealthy and I for one don't want to support that.

If it was a grey area I might agree but it's fairly black and white, either you were speeding or you weren't. You'll most likely know if you were and will either:

1. Plead guilty, take the 3 points and £60 fine and walk away lesson learned or
2. You chance your arm and plead not guilty based on a technicality that the speed camera equipment, no matter how accurate, doesn't have a ticket to say it's been tested on bikes.

OTOH if there has been a spate of bikes nicked for speeding when they genuinely weren't then I'm all for it, let's get a proper petition together not the Mickey Mouse one MCN have produced.

Just my opinion.

Adam

adamski49 wrote:Legal principles are what makes solicitors, barristers and the like wealthy and I for one don't want to support that.


Adam

Fair enough. Let's just hope your never in a position where you're reliant on one to represent you.