How about British law - can the Dutch way work?
Discussion
Being a member of Dutch Tuftufclub.com, I'd like to inform you about one of our ways to act against excessive numbers of speeding tickets.
In Holland, when you get a ticket, you can write a letter to appeal against the fine.
We're now trying to convince every motorist to appeal against any kind of ticket. This way, the "justice" system will crack up on the high numbers of appeals.
It's a legal, and nice way to tell them to put police efforts there where they're needed, and to quit hunting down innocent drivers.
What we've done is that we've generated a standard letter of appeal, and made a web-base form for it.
This way, all you have to do is fill in your personal stuff, and a great letter rolls out of your printer.
In this letter, we not only state that we weren't there, but ask for all the prove, like the photo's, but also the certificate of the radar-operator (he should have had proper training to operate such a high-end device as a Gatso), and the prove that the radar device was legally gauged, stamped, and verified to be working properly, etcetera.
In 50% of the cases, the driver gets off the hook, not a bad score, right?
Plus, and that's the most funny part, the system really is starting to show signs of not being able to deal with this overload of appeals.
I just wonder, would this be a good idea for you British to set up? Is your legal system ready to be torn down by thousands of appeals?
Hope this might help.
In Holland, when you get a ticket, you can write a letter to appeal against the fine.
We're now trying to convince every motorist to appeal against any kind of ticket. This way, the "justice" system will crack up on the high numbers of appeals.
It's a legal, and nice way to tell them to put police efforts there where they're needed, and to quit hunting down innocent drivers.
What we've done is that we've generated a standard letter of appeal, and made a web-base form for it.
This way, all you have to do is fill in your personal stuff, and a great letter rolls out of your printer.
In this letter, we not only state that we weren't there, but ask for all the prove, like the photo's, but also the certificate of the radar-operator (he should have had proper training to operate such a high-end device as a Gatso), and the prove that the radar device was legally gauged, stamped, and verified to be working properly, etcetera.
In 50% of the cases, the driver gets off the hook, not a bad score, right?
Plus, and that's the most funny part, the system really is starting to show signs of not being able to deal with this overload of appeals.
I just wonder, would this be a good idea for you British to set up? Is your legal system ready to be torn down by thousands of appeals?
Hope this might help.
quote:
I think that in this country you can end up getting a heftier fine/more points if you appeal though (unless of course you succeed).
So, that would mean getting punished for using your legal rights? That would sort of conflict with the ETHR (or whatever it may be called) the Europen treaty for Human rights, that's the one I mean.
In most countries civilians are innocent unless proven guilty, right? So, being charged for speeding, isn't it the role for the police to absolutely prove your guilt? And in my opinion, 99% prove is no prove at all.
That's were you might be able to hit them, any speedtrap can make errors. Let them prove that at the certain point in time when you past the trap, it wasn't erroneous. F.i.: a Gatso that doesn't point to the road in the right angle (wich is 22 degrees or so), could cause massive faults. Which could lead to a camera going of whilst you were not even speeding.
Just my 2 cents, again, I hope it might lead you guys (and girls) into a right direction.
Sorry for possible bad English.
>> Edited by kiwi45 on Thursday 20th June 15:32
quote:
So, that would mean getting punished for using your legal rights? That would sort of conflict with the ETHR (or whatever it may be called) the Europen treaty for Human rights, that's the one I mean.
In most countries civilians are innocent unless proven guilty, right? So, being charged for speeding, isn't it the role for the police to absolutely prove your guilt? And in my opinion, 99% prove is no prove at all.
That's were you might be able to hit them, any speedtrap can make errors. Let them prove that at the certain point in time when you past the trap, it wasn't erroneous. F.i.: a Gatso that doesn't point to the road in the right angle (wich is 22 degrees or so), could cause massive faults. Which could lead to a camera going of whilst you were not even speeding.
Just my 2 cents, again, I hope it might lead you guys (and girls) into a right direction.
Sorry for possible bad English.
Most people do not bother to appeal against a speeding fine, they just accept it. Saying that, if there was a group that supported drivers then we may have more clout.
Its a shame your groups site www.tuftufclub.com/ is not in English, as my Dutch is crap.!
I did notice however that the site seems to dissaprove of any enforcement to speeding whatsoever, this I do not agree with as I think some areas should be "watched" over.
The argument in the UK is that speed cameras should be used in certain areas, like blackspots (an area with a high accident rate) or outside schools and built up areas for example.
Also, posting pictures of peoples "flat out" speed is somewhat damaging to the cause I think.
Regards
Adam (as in A'dam!)
quote:
Most people do not bother to appeal against a speeding fine, they just accept it. Saying that, if there was a group that supported drivers then we may have more clout.
Its a shame your groups site www.tuftufclub.com/ is not in English, as my Dutch is crap.!
I did notice however that the site seems to dissaprove of any enforcement to speeding whatsoever, this I do not agree with as I think some areas should be "watched" over.
The argument in the UK is that speed cameras should be used in certain areas, like blackspots (an area with a high accident rate) or outside schools and built up areas for example.
Also, posting pictures of peoples "flat out" speed is somewhat damaging to the cause I think.
Regards
Adam (as in A'dam!)
Our cause is generally the same. We don't bother about speedcamera's on proven black spots or near schools. of course not.
We do publish photo's of burned down Gatso's and police officers "in action". Just to show that the general public is sick of those camera's.
The unofficial Dutch policy is to use speeding as a great source of taxes. Sheer propaganda is used to inform the public about the negative effects of speed.
We're just a tiny bunch of active people, trying to get things into the right perspective, and that is that official police statistics speak of only 3% of all accidents had speed as the main cause.
The flat-out section is just a bit of fun, when looked closely at it, you'll see that most pictures were actually taken in Germany. Thank God our neighbours don't have speed limits everywhere.
Appealing against a speeding ticket does make sense. There are lots of grounds on wich your appeal can work out fine. And, at least in the Dutch system, you've got nothing to lose!
And once again, it's a perfectly legal way to show you don't like the policy.
quote:
Lets ask Outlaw! hehehehe Should "appeal" to his sense of humour.....
shaw thung
apeal em all bring the bastards to there knees. do the day cut the cams down.
so peeps local are going on a cam screwing outing soon as the mobiles are comeing near us and cuting down a few cams will keep em busy.
I would like yto get up a red flag go slow protest localy to me.
as im feed up with there taxing scam
localy the wounderful local boy in blue was an hour lat to help some guy beat senclis with a base ball bat.
break the speed limet by a few mph and theres 3 cop cars there in 2 mins.
The issue in this country is that, I think ,if you want to appeal you have to appear in court.
I got a FPN while sitting in the back of a police car. I'm sure that they said I had to decide there and then whether to accept the FPN or go to court, which on reflection seems a little unreasonable. May be mistaken though this was >3 years ago (Wa-hey, a clean licence!)
I got a FPN while sitting in the back of a police car. I'm sure that they said I had to decide there and then whether to accept the FPN or go to court, which on reflection seems a little unreasonable. May be mistaken though this was >3 years ago (Wa-hey, a clean licence!)
quote:
So, that would mean getting punished for using your legal rights? That would sort of conflict with the ETHR (or whatever it may be called) the Europen treaty for Human rights, that's the one I mean.
Yes it does conflict with the treaty but our government don't worry about that (even though it was they who adopted the treaty here) in motoring offences the owner of the vehicle is told to say who was driving and if they don't then they are prosecuted for not saying (unless of course he is a Police officer!)
Interestingly "serious" criminals (murderers, paedophiles, rapists etc) can use the right "not to incriminate them self" and need to be proven guilty beyond "reasonable doubt" what does that tell you about UK justice?
quote:
I think that in this country you can end up getting a heftier fine/more points if you appeal though (unless of course you succeed).
I think we must distiguish between appealing against an actual conviction and challenging a speed camera fixed penalty notice. Advice on the latter can be found here:
www.pepipoo.com/FightBack/messages/38.html
I believe there are some estimates which suggest that only 20% of speed camera tickets need to be challenged/questioned for the system to collapse. Kiwi45 is correct. However apathy, lack of understanding of legal rights and the coercive nature of section 172 of the RTA all play their part in keeping this revenue machine alive.
quote:
Yes it does conflict with the treaty but our government don't worry about that (even though it was they who adopted the treaty here) in motoring offences the owner of the vehicle is told to say who was driving and if they don't then they are prosecuted for not saying (unless of course he is a Police officer!)
But they did and he was found guilty and fined £700
quote:
Interestingly "serious" criminals (murderers, paedophiles, rapists etc) can use the right "not to incriminate them self" and need to be proven guilty beyond "reasonable doubt" what does that tell you about UK justice?
You really should learn a little about the system before making generalisations like this.
The system is weighted heavily on the side of the offender, regardless of the offence. Any reasonable doubt thrown on a case will see it dismissed
Do any of you remember the programme 'Karachi Cops'
Where the Superintendent of Police examined the hands of a suspect involved with a theft from a shop.
He took the suspects hands in his, examined them and then stated " You have the hands of a thief..."
suspect found guilty.
Great system that one. It would really work well for the safety Cameras!
" You are the driver of a car. Let me see you drive. You have the drive of a speeder"
GUILTY
>> Edited by madcop on Friday 21st June 00:11
quote:
The issue in this country is that, I think ,if you want to appeal you have to appear in court.
I got a FPN while sitting in the back of a police car. I'm sure that they said I had to decide there and then whether to accept the FPN or go to court, which on reflection seems a little unreasonable. May be mistaken though this was >3 years ago (Wa-hey, a clean licence!)
Isn't that the point - if everyone appealed, the system would collapse under the strain of dealing with these really heinious (sp?) crimes, making it obvious for the scam that it is.
You are given the choice in the car - why cant we have a "cooling off" period, like you do with other people who come knocking on your door wanting to scam your money off you??
I suppose the way its looked at is "we've got you on vid, here's the evidence, cough for £60 and 3pts now (immediate discount) or go to court and take your chances.." Just like double glazing salesmen really... hehehehehquote:
"we've got you on vid, here's the evidence, cough for £60 and 3pts now (immediate discount) or go to court and take your chances.." Just like double glazing salesmen really... heheheheh
No thanks, I've already got some! You think the police will start cold calling soon... You have a car, you must speed, therefore would you like some points now, or will we give you extra later?
Just a poinr in reference to being sat in the back of a cop car and having to make a choice whether or not to acept an FPN. Even a few of my colleagues get this wrong. The choice of whether or not to issue an FPN is down to the officer, the other options being advice or report for summons. I personally always go for FPN rather than summons (I still do advise some drivers) even if they are saying they will "take it all the way" , "Get the best solicitor they can" etc. this is because the FPN still has the option for the offender to plead 'not guilty'. I work on the principal that a most people that 'gob off' at getting a ticket usually calm down later and plead guilty at court/pay the ticket. Once you have reported an offender for summons they have only one choice, court and that means me writting out a summons report. The other problem with court in respect of the offender is the costs that the end up paying. In answer to the original thread there is nothing stopping anyone writting in to the police asking to be 'let off' a ticket, it does happen a quite often, and on occasion it does work, usually on the non-endorsable tickets though. The problem with the endorsable ones is that you only have seven days to produce your licence and at that time you have to make the choice as to whether you surrender the licence and accept the FPN or keep the licence and go for a court hearing. I think that if everyone decided to write in they would just start sending out pro-forma letters advising you to take it to court if you think you should be let off. Now if everyone did that it would cause problems, eventually.
So John - just so that I understand this -
If you are offered a fixed penalty you can accept it and then change your mind, plead not guilty and challenge it in court?
When you say "surrender your licence" do you mean if you have enough points totted up that you lose it?
When it happened to me I had the licence with me, but I got it back after the nice man in blue had looked at it - although the only previous points had expired so I certainly wasn't in danger of losing it.
Is that about right?
If you are offered a fixed penalty you can accept it and then change your mind, plead not guilty and challenge it in court?
When you say "surrender your licence" do you mean if you have enough points totted up that you lose it?
When it happened to me I had the licence with me, but I got it back after the nice man in blue had looked at it - although the only previous points had expired so I certainly wasn't in danger of losing it.
Is that about right?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff