for doing 36mph in a 30mph zone.

now i aint gonna detest it as i shouldnt have been committing the ultemate life imprisonment offence of speeding while some dirty old motherfucking paedophile abuses kiddies on the estate up the road from me and gets away with it

really does piss me off that the police have fuckall better to do than sit in a van with a fucking camera pointing out the back, while hiding behind the biggest bush/wall and tree with a road sign attatched to it - invading peoples prvacy by taking pictures of them in their car - maybe i should contest it and say that they havn't recieved the relevant papers allowing them to infring on Fords copyrighting of the vehicle thus allowing them to woefully capture images of it - arn't the polcie themselves committing an act of PIRACY (which they all too well know is illegal) by taking pictures of thus said vehicle without attaining the correct copyright dispensation and the permission from the priveleged owner?


i'll stop moaning now, sign the paper, hand over my licence 60 hard earned quid, which will no doubt be used to fund another days wages for the wasted wanker to sit in his van tossing himself to high heavan at the amount of people he will be pissing off,

that takes the grand total to 9 points with the above 3 - god i'm so frigging naughty,

maybe i should go run someone over while driving a stolen car with no tax, insurence or mot and then claim its their fault that they died and only get a 70 quid fine and no points or prison sentence?




i aint pissed off - just slightly angry that my number plate wasnt filthy dirty and i had the stupidity to clean the fucker

 

36 in 30, proper harsh, esp as you KNOW them penis's in the van would blatantly be doing 35mph or so in a 30 too if the conditions allowed it...

 

 

ahhhh, my anger and vented brutellness of murder.

sorry, wrong person :P lol

anyway, i've written a nice letter to the man in charge - gonna go take some pictures and then see what he says about it.



Dear Mr S Torevell

With reference to the NIP (Notice number C12526550), which I received today, the 4th December 2004, It is with regret that I have to write to you first before returning the NIP with said £60 fine and my licence for endorsement.

After reading the NIP thougherly, it has come to my attention that, with no question at all, it was a mobile “Safety Partnership Vehicle” that was used to house the vehicle speed check device.

This is all very good and well, but on your website,

http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk

It clearly states the following points, in your question and answer/FAQ section.

“Visibility of mobile enforcement sites: Camera operatives at the mobile camera sites should wear fluorescent clothing and abide by all Health and Safety requirements. Vehicles should be clearly marked as camera enforcement vehicles with reflective strips (uniquely identifying them as speed camera enforcement vehicles).”

This, I would be more than happy with, but unfortunately, it has been noted on several occasions that the vehicle which you use, does not have these marking that are visible upon approach from the rear with its doors open, and therefore is easily confused with a council/contractors vehicle. Also, the operative is never seen to be wearing a hi-visibility fluorescent vest, which as you state, is required under the Health and Safety at Work law.


“Signing: Camera warning and speed limit reminder signs must be placed in advance of fixed or mobile speed enforcement taking place. Ideally these should be placed within 1 km of fixed camera housings and at the beginning of a targeted route for mobile enforcement sites. Signs must only be placed in areas where camera housings are present or along routes where mobile enforcement will be targeted.”

As you state in the above paragraph, the location, local speed limit and warning of any fixed or mobile speed cameras must be well signed prior to reaching the location of the speed camera to within 1 kilometre. There were no signs warning of any fixed or mobile devices on the approach to the safety partnership vehicle – this is the direct opposite to other locations where the mobile camera is used, IE, the A653 (Leeds Road) in Dewsbury, where the mobile camera is well signed prior to reaching it while travelling towards it. Please find printed below pictures of all the road-signs within 1km of the location of the safety camera van, from the direction of travelling East on the A62 towards Huddersfield from Marsden.

“Communications: The location of both fixed and mobile cameras should be well publicised via local web-sites, public sector announcements on radio stations and in local newspapers.”

This is an area that seems to be somewhat lacking in the fact that, even though I am a regular listener to Huddersfield’s local radio station, and a daily reader of the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, I have never seen or heard about the locations of mobile speed camera devices. If I had regular access to the Internet, then I would be more than happy to visit your Camera Partnership website and review the location of all your fixed and mobile speed camera devices, However, since I, and no doubt, many others don’t, it would only be deemed fair that you publish the location in the local newspapers.


“Site review: Each site must be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that conditions on prominence, visibility and signing have not changed or do not require alteration.”

I would be pleased to see a review of this site, as I am unable to find the review on your website, in the limited time I had to look at it.

I await your response to the matter in hand





Yours




Paul S Wood

 

straw clutching are we

Good Luck matey

 

tony - just a bit. lol, truth be known - if i know i am speeding i expect the punishment - fair and propper.

but lets play them at their own game and see what happens

 

nice letter!!!

good luck

 

Fooking quality -

I recently got off a Truvello camera speeding fine (forward facing camera)
As I said I wanted to see the photo.
Anyway, I got the photo and you cannot tell who is driving.
I told them that I could not tell who was driving the car at the time of the
offence and could not provide any details of the driver at that time as I could not
say for sure which one of 3 people were actually driving - Case dropped !

 

"I would also be interested in viewing the photographic/video evidence which you may have also – this is to satisfy myself that the image which was used to gain the vehicle registration details has not been digitally altered in any way to enhance the quality to make the vehicle appear closer so the VRN plate be legible, as it is my understanding that any altered image or video to enhance the quality is deemed to be inadmissible evidence due to it been tampered with."

added the above bit aswell after reading what Simon just put above

 

i might claim that i was in Clitheroe at that time on the telephone to horrocksford Signalbox about a shunt manuver against a red signal, which i passed at danger (please prosecute me for running a red light) and that i didn't even know my car had left home as i travel by train to work



OOORRRRRR

"how can i be driving my car at that time as i was shagging the camera operators wife up the arse while she moaned and begged me for more" ???

 

nice letter hope it get the charge dropped

 

fookin arseholes

just to piss you off a little more , heres some info on the numberplate recognition vans that are all over the uk at the mo
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/portal/m...menuId=4385&me nuItemId=-1&view=&grid=&targetRule=

Car number plate camera trials see 13,500 arrested
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 03/11/2004)

Thousands of motorists stopped by police using number plate recognition scanners have been arrested for a range of non-driving offences.

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said the success of the new Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras was such that he was extending the scheme.

An extra £15 million would be spent equipping the police with the system, which is used by half the forces in England and Wales. Figures published yesterday showed that in a 12-month pilot period in 23 force areas there were nearly 13,500 arrests for a wide range of offences.

The Home Office said the arrest rate was nine times the national average. Police intercept teams stopped 180,000 vehicles using the system. They recovered 1,152 stolen vehicles worth more than £7.5 million, stolen goods worth more than £640,000 and drugs valued at £380,000.

Officers also recovered 13 firearms and 266 offensive weapons. There were 3,330 arrests for driving offences, 2,263 for theft and burglary, 1,100 for drug offences and 1,300 for vehicle theft.

The cameras can check up to 3,000 vehicles an hour. Mr Blunkett said ANPR was "a powerful tool" that brought enormous benefits to the police and to society.

The system works even if the targets are travelling at 100 mph. The infrared digital cameras can capture images, even in poor light, rain, reflection or dazzle. Computer software reads the number plates and sends the information to databases that can alert officers within seconds to stolen, unregistered, untaxed or uninsured vehicles.

Most drivers are stopped for failure to display a tax disc or for talking on a mobile phone and are given a £30 fixed penalty.

For more serious offences, such as driving without insurance, £200 endorsable penalties can be issued but the research showed that only 14 per cent of these were paid.

The report said there was evidence that penalties in court were sometimes less severe than the fines themselves, encouraging offenders not to pay the on-the-spot fine and go to court instead.