Phew! - .: XT660.com

Gas_Up_Lets_Go · # 1 04-03-13, 14:38

A couple of weeks ago, took the Tiger out to stretch her legs....

Had a lovely ride out over Alston, Hartside, and back home. Came across this guy in a car being a bit of a dick, unnecessary braking, swerving, speeding up/slowing down etc etc. After following him for a mile or two, I decided to put some distance between us. The Tiger has a good does of instant power when you want it, I did, and she delivered....

Passed the munchkin before he realised, unfortunately, I was now doing just shy of 60 in a 40... straight into the sights of the speed camera van.....

For the last 14 days I've been waiting for the action picture to drop on the matt....

Today is day 16, the post man has been ,, and no NIP !

So, either he hadn't put out his 'bike catcher' cameras (the vans up here have front facing AND rear facing to get bikes) or he's seen what was going on and let me go.

Either way, licence is still clean!

Kev · # 2 05-03-13, 10:50

Lucky man.

Black Dog · # 3 05-03-13, 12:22

I'd like to know more about these 'bike catcher' things. I haven't heard of them before. All the scamera vans round here (West Wales) are front-facing as far as I know, and can't catch a bike in normal operation.

I believe (and could be very wrong) that if you haven't been served the NIP within 14 days of the (alleged) offence, you are in the clear. That's probably an old wives' tale, but I hope you stay clean. Or cleanish

Gas_Up_Lets_Go · # 4 05-03-13, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Dog

I'd like to know more about these 'bike catcher' things.

It's such a simple concept,,, the camera vans have the usual laser guided front facing speed cameras that record you, and your speed, then as you pass the van, a small deploy-able camera captures your reg plate as you pass the van. Sometimes they put them in the same place they get your speed, sometimes at the front of the van, sometimes (in Gamblesby for instance, on the Heartside road) they record the registration before the offence.

To my knowledge, no one has defended a speeding conviction when these are used so I imagine they are pretty well solid as evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Dog

I believe (and could be very wrong) that if you haven't been served the NIP within 14 days of the (alleged) offence, you are in the clear. That's probably an old wives' tale, but I hope you stay clean. Or cleanish

No, you are correct. If they don't speak to you at the time, or by subsequent visit then they must issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) within 14 days of the offence taking place. They can issue it on the 14th day, such that it may reach you on day 16, but they must be able to show they have acted correctly if there is any delay. Also the NIP only has to go to the recorded keeper in that time. So if it's a lease vehicle, and the leas company take 2 months to pass it on to you that's just tough!

In my case that latest they could have issued a NIP was Friday 1st, meaning it would land on my floor Saturday (2nd) or Monday (4th)... it didn't, and still hasn't.

I've no issue with speed cameras, after all they only capture you if you are speeding. I could have waited behind the munchkin, or taken another route, so it was a fair cop. Also in this case, if it had been a traffic car then the munchkin would probably had a careless or dangerous driving charge, which is something cameras don't do.

It also has to be said that the Safety Partnerships up here support BikeSafe, and it's the contributions from speeding motorists that help mean BikesSafe is free. Also, the Safety Partnership also contributes to the PassPluss courses meaning new driver only pay �50 towards it. (PassPluss is a post driving test course that covers Motorway driving, nighttime driving, overtaking etc). So given these good things they do, fining speeders is OK in my book....

Had I received the NIP, I would have paid up without any issues - after all, it was my right hand

Black Dog · # 5 05-03-13, 16:09

You're a lot more tolerant of speed cameras than I am, then! Pulled by an actual policeman for riding/driving too fast, without due care etc, and I won't complain. Caught at 62 in a 50, late summer evening on an broad empty road in the middle of nowhere, while the unroadworthy, the uninsured, the untaxed, the drunk and the incompetent get away with it, and I felt a bit sore. Never mind, that's a whole new argument!

I can't imagine that it's easy to prosecute someone by linking one image with another, as you describe. The single image with reg plate and recorded speed is pretty conclusive (as long as the machine is correctly calibrated, of course), but how they get away with saying, in effect, here is a picture of a speeding bike with no identifying marks, and here is another picture of a bike's number plate, and we are asking you to believe that they are the same bike, is a bit of a mystery. I would have thought any decent brief could blow holes in that one. Maybe not - in my experience, the courts believe what they want to believe, and the word of the operator is good enough for them.

I wasn't sure about the 14 day thing - whether you had to receive it in 14 days, or whether they had to post it within 14 days. Thanks for clearing up the detail. Anyway, it looks as though natural justice has prevailed, and I can applaud that

Gas_Up_Lets_Go · # 6 05-03-13, 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Dog

I would have thought any decent brief could blow holes in that one.

Two bikes, the same makes , same colour, with the same helmet design, a rider in the same clothes, time stamped photos 1 to 2 seconds apart on the same road......

The brief would have to turn up in a TARDIS to prove it wasn't the same person.

I am more tolerant than most with regards speed cameras. It's true they don't capture the drunks, uninsured, etc, but you do have to be speeding before they get you...
Then again, it's lapses in observation that would result in you getting caught (was with me, and a bit of red mist), so if you can't see a big yellow van on the roadside, you kinda deserve it.. it could after all be a small child about to run out, and if you don't see a big yellow van, how could you hope to see a small child ? That's my view on it, and it helps to stop me getting all wound up by them.

I'd much prefer to have traffic officers on the roads though.

Black Dog · # 7 06-03-13, 01:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gas_Up_Lets_Go

I'd much prefer to have traffic officers on the roads though.

I'd agree with that. Yes, once they have established the precedent of two photos matching the same bike, it will probably be taken by the court as routine, although I still think that a good lawyer ought to be able to introduce enough 'reasonable doubt'.

I don't ride stupid fast, and I haven't much patience for those that do. But I do exceed the speed limit on a regular basis. I stick to 20 and 30 limits religiously because I can see a good reason for them. Others I treat on their merits, and try to ride to the conditions rather then an arbitrary number on a stick. I don't buy the argument about a child running out, though. I am hyper-observant for that kind of thing, but usually when a camera van gets you, you are still a long way away from it, and concentrating on the hazards in front of you, not a strangely-parked white van half a mile away.

I have no issue with sensible speed limits, enforced with common sense and discretion, but you might be able to guess that I have little time for the 'safety partnership' vans, which seem to me to be a revenue generator and nothing else. If they worked, how come the KSI rate (which has been declining since the 60s) stopped declining around 1990, when speed became seemingly the only thing the authorities cared about?

Here's an example from my own experience. Mid-morning, in the car (I was on a business trip) on the M4 Eastbound near Membury Services, about 10 years ago. Long set of road works with a 50 limit, which I and everyone around me obeyed. Road works end, road is clear, but I didn't see any derestriction signs. I started to speed up slightly but cautiously, but most of the cars around me got back to 70 pretty quickly. Something told me not to follow them. And sure enough, well over a mile further down the road, and over the brow of a hill, were the NSL signs and just before them a camera van on the hard shoulder. They must have caught literally thousands that day, although not me. I considered the positioning of the speed signage and camera a deliberate attempt to confuse motorists and to 'catch' as many as possible, almost like a game. That brings the whole deal into disrepute.

Lots of studies (some by the police themselves) have shown that 'exceeding the posted speed limit' (as distinct from 'excessive speed') is a factor in a tiny minority of accidents. But when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. If they seriously wanted to reduce casualties, they would scrap all speed cameras except at specific, hazardous locations, and put coppers back in patrol cars to monitor, educate and if necessary prosecute those who are posing a danger to others. But that doesn't raise revenue, of course.

Sorry for the rant. I am still glad you didn't get a nasty fine and points for something which (from your description) was clearly a reasonable and safe bit of riding. I'll shut up now.

Gas_Up_Lets_Go · # 8 06-03-13, 09:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Sorry for the rant.

A good rant is perfectly acceptable in my book.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode