Petition to freeze speeding fines on Motorcyclists

[Honoop]

Hi Guys,

Seeing mmh's post about the petition on Road Tax has prompted me to post you all a link to this one.

Any of you guys who are motorcyclists will be aware of the debates constantly raging in the motorcycle community about the accuracy of speed cameras on motorbikes, since they are designed and tested on cars and have been shown to be inaccurate on motorcycles.

Hence, there is now a petition to get the speeding fines frozen until the speed detection equipment has been tested and approved for use on motorbikes - see below:

"Speed detection equipment has been proven to be untested for it's accuracy on motorcycles. Various devices have been proven to give innaccurate or false readings when used on motorcycles. We petition the Government to freeze all speeding fines levied against motorcyclists until speed detection equipment has been tested and approved by an independent body for use on motorcycles."

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SpeedingFines/

Ive signed up to it, as have nearly 1000 others.

At the end of the day if you are speeding you deserve to get caught, but its not fair that motorcyclists are suffering because of inaccurate detection equipment.

Jen

[chuckskull]

Yeah it you're speeding fair cop, cough up and pay, but I've signed, known a few people get wildly inaccurate tickets.

[badass]

I've not signed and do not intend to. All this will achieve is encouraging motorcyclists to speed.
It is a persons responsibility to know their rights, and if they do they will know that they can contest their ticket if the equipment is so p1ss poor.
No one will actually accept a speeding ticket unless they think they were speeding anyway, or they are such a fool that they will happily bend over and accept the fine even though they think they are innocent.
Either way, you can look at it as a fine for what they know they are guilty of anyway, or a £60 and 3 points stupidity fine.

Flame away.......

[dave87]

I will flame away, as its evident you haven't got a clear perception of all the facts.

Motorcyclists do not speed for the hell of it, anymore than car drivers do. The perception that we are the reckless ones in society is a myth that should be challenged - there are more sensible motorbike riders out there than there are hooligans. As an article in the most recent MCN shows, the Speed Camera Partnerships know about the flaws with detection on motorbikes, and are going to be only sending one of the two photographs (when supplied with both it is possible to check the accuracy of the measurement) where as now you risk 6 points and £2000 fine if you go to court to contest it. Who is it going to benefit? - The guilty rider? Nope, he'd still get done. The Innocent Rider? Nope, he can't prove his innocent until he gets to court. The Speed Camera Partnership? Of course. Does it cost them any more to send two photos instead of one? Marginal. So obviously it demonstrates they have something to gain from only sending one photograph. One camera partnership even went so far as to say it was the riders responsibility to demonstrate his innocence - does the British legal system not rest on the idea that we are Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

This is one issue which has really got my back up. Alongside the raise in test fees (instead of £20, they are going to be £30 - way above the rate of inflation) and the idea that we should restrict the types of bikes people ride even further (thank goodness I'll be 25 by the time it is introduced, and therefore exempt). Without sounding like a martyr - It amounts to the repression of a minority in society. Depending on your views of us obviously irresponsible lot this may well be acceptable, that is until the government turns its attention to your past time. Regardless of motive, the state should not limit the freedoms we enjoy - the liberal JS Mill sums it up quite nicely in his 'harm principle'. The arguments the government have used vary from department to department, year to year, but comes down to this - removing motorcycles from the roads is the easiest way to meet their road death reduction targets.

I for one will be signing this petition, and I hope the rest of you can find the time to do so too. Not for us motorbikers, that point is irrelevant, but for the freedoms that we hold so close as a nation, and have gone so far as war to protect.

Thank you Honoop, for bringing the petition to the wider audience.

[badass]

I will flame away, as its evident you haven't got a clear perception of all the facts.

Motorcyclists do not speed for the hell of it, anymore than car drivers do. The perception that we are the reckless ones in society is a myth that should be challenged - there are more sensible motorbike riders out there than there are hooligans. As an article in the most recent MCN shows, the Speed Camera Partnerships know about the flaws with detection on motorbikes, and are going to be only sending one of the two photographs (when supplied with both it is possible to check the accuracy of the measurement) where as now you risk 6 points and £2000 fine if you go to court to contest it. Who is it going to benefit? - The guilty rider? Nope, he'd still get done. The Innocent Rider? Nope, he can't prove his innocent until he gets to court. The Speed Camera Partnership? Of course. Does it cost them any more to send two photos instead of one? Marginal. So obviously it demonstrates they have something to gain from only sending one photograph. One camera partnership even went so far as to say it was the riders responsibility to demonstrate his innocence - does the British legal system not rest on the idea that we are Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

This is one issue which has really got my back up. Alongside the raise in test fees (instead of £20, they are going to be £30 - way above the rate of inflation) and the idea that we should restrict the types of bikes people ride even further (thank goodness I'll be 25 by the time it is introduced, and therefore exempt). Without sounding like a martyr - It amounts to the repression of a minority in society. Depending on your views of us obviously irresponsible lot this may well be acceptable, that is until the government turns its attention to your past time. Regardless of motive, the state should not limit the freedoms we enjoy - the liberal JS Mill sums it up quite nicely in his 'harm principle'. The arguments the government have used vary from department to department, year to year, but comes down to this - removing motorcycles from the roads is the easiest way to meet their road death reduction targets.

I for one will be signing this petition, and I hope the rest of you can find the time to do so too. Not for us motorbikers, that point is irrelevant, but for the freedoms that we hold so close as a nation, and have gone so far as war to protect.

Thank you Honoop, for bringing the petition to the wider audience.

All good points. Apart from the 6 points and £2000 fine. No court will dish out anything like that for an offence where a fixed penalty was offered. Still not going to sign the petition though.

[dave87]

All good points. Apart from the 6 points and £2000 fine. No court will dish out anything like that for an offence where a fixed penalty was offered. Still not going to sign the petition though.

Its not the fact they won't, its the fact they theoretically can. It's your democratic right to sign the petition or not, but I think it serves as clear example of the governments plans affecting those in the minority, whilst the majority stand idly by.

[Honoop]

I've not signed and do not intend to. All this will achieve is encouraging motorcyclists to speed.
It is a persons responsibility to know their rights, and if they do they will know that they can contest their ticket if the equipment is so p1ss poor.
No one will actually accept a speeding ticket unless they think they were speeding anyway, or they are such a fool that they will happily bend over and accept the fine even though they think they are innocent.
Either way, you can look at it as a fine for what they know they are guilty of anyway, or a £60 and 3 points stupidity fine.

Flame away.......

All good points. Apart from the 6 points and £2000 fine. No court will dish out anything like that for an offence where a fixed penalty was offered. Still not going to sign the petition though.

Im sorry but you clearly have not got the point and you not signing the petition isnt going to bother anyone. The only reason I have posted it on here is to bring it to the attention of people who do understand and see it as a problem which requires re-assessment from the government.

I think anyone speeding, regardless of which vehicle they are driving or riding will accept that they were speeding and suffer the consequences of the violation. However, how would you feel if you were speeding in your car and received a harsher penalty because the camera says you were going MUCH faster than you know you were. This is the reality which is affecting bikers, consistently.

This petition is NOT about getting bikers off of speeding tickets, its about stopping them being judged on equipment which is incorrect.

[ikonia]

They can and will dish out great points / fines and charges for turning up at court.

I know of an incident that I won't go into great details on where a person was given a fixed penalty for doing 41 in a 40 zone.

He contested it as he swore blind he was dead on 40 and know cameras can have a sligh inaccuracy due to not being calibrated recently.

He pleaded not guilty and went to court. No calibration certificate in the last 2 months (I think from memory) could be presented, however the charge was upheld as in the courts eyes - 41 is not 40.

He was given 5 points in stead of 3 - charged £300 fine (for pleading inncocent) and then told to pay £150 court fees.

He still stands by the fact he was doing 40, but the truth is the system is bent and flawed.

[sTrAnGeFrUiT!]

I signed up

[chuckskull]

I know of an incident that I won't go into great details on where a person was given a fixed penalty for doing 41 in a 40 zone

I thought there was a margin for error granted on all speeding cases to allow for speedo inaccuracy, tire depth and all the other things that can throw a speedo a couple of MPH off, 10%, thats why everyone is done for going 34 in a 30?

[badass]

They can and will dish out great points / fines and charges for turning up at court.

I know of an incident that I won't go into great details on where a person was given a fixed penalty for doing 41 in a 40 zone.

He contested it as he swore blind he was dead on 40 and know cameras can have a sligh inaccuracy due to not being calibrated recently.

He pleaded not guilty and went to court. No calibration certificate in the last 2 months (I think from memory) could be presented, however the charge was upheld as in the courts eyes - 41 is not 40.

He was given 5 points in stead of 3 - charged £300 fine (for pleading inncocent) and then told to pay £150 court fees.

He still stands by the fact he was doing 40, but the truth is the system is bent and flawed.

If he would have done his proper research he would know that there is no device type approved in this country to be more accurate for court purposes than +-1 MPH, and would have successfully contested it.

[badass]

I thought there was a margin for error granted on all speeding cases to allow for speedo inaccuracy, tire depth and all the other things that can throw a speedo a couple of MPH off, 10%, thats why everyone is done for going 34 in a 30?

The margin for error is a police policy thing. It has no legal significance. You can in theory be done for 1MPH over the limit, but it would have to be done by a device type approved for that kind of accuracy. There are no devices type approved for that kind of accuracy in this country. In theory a policeman can use his opinion, but that would not stand up in court for just 1 MPH.

[ikonia]

He did do his research, and did argue this point.

As I said the system is flawed and bent.

The solicitor said that the magistrates noses where out of place for questioning a police officer which they see as their doers of good deeds.

The point I'm trying to make is that they can and DO give out harsher penalty for having the arrogance to turn up to a court case.

(there is a little more to this case - but as I said I won't go into it as its not fair on the person involved)

[badass]

Im sorry but you clearly have not got the point and you not signing the petition isnt going to bother anyone. The only reason I have posted it on here is to bring it to the attention of people who do understand and see it as a problem which requires re-assessment from the government.

I think anyone speeding, regardless of which vehicle they are driving or riding will accept that they were speeding and suffer the consequences of the violation. However, how would you feel if you were speeding in your car and received a harsher penalty because the camera says you were going MUCH faster than you know you were. This is the reality which is affecting bikers, consistently.

This petition is NOT about getting bikers off of speeding tickets, its about stopping them being judged on equipment which is incorrect.

I do understand that, but if it was announced that all speed cameras weer to be switched off, do you think that speeding would not increase?

[badass]

He did do his research, and did argue this point.

As I said the system is flawed and bent.

The solicitor said that the magistrates noses where out of place for questioning a police officer which they see as their doers of good deeds.

The point I'm trying to make is that they can and DO give out harsher penalty for having the arrogance to turn up to a court case.

(there is a little more to this case - but as I said I won't go into it as its not fair on the person involved)

He has the option to take it to crown court. It does not cost as much as you would think. All he would have to do then is convince a jury that he is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That'll be pretty simple for a 1MPH over the limit.

[ikonia]

now that he, nor I knew, nor was he advised by his solicitor to do that as far as I know