Watchdog slams speed fine booklet

John Scheerhout

June 21, 2006

| Submit Comments | Comments (29) | Previous | Next

A POLICE booklet aimed at stopping people trying to "get off" speeding fines has been criticised by the Advertising Standards Agency.

The booklet, titled "A book of tricks - for those who want to get off speeding", was produced by Drivesafe, a group of agencies which includes police, the Highways Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service.

The booklet, which has since been withdrawn, was sent out with speeding tickets issued in Greater Manchester and encouraged anyone considering a "clever way" of avoiding a é60 fine to "think again" because "we know every trick in the book".

The booklet was issued following incidents such as a woman from Hyde who tried to avoid a speeding fine by flying to Bulgaria and sending a postcard to her husband from a phantom driver who claimed responsibility.

Made-up

They later admitted they had made up the story and paid out é11,000 in fines and costs.

The booklet said police were responding to the "growing number of cheaters" and had a team of officers who would inspect every contested ticket and visit the homes and workplace of anyone rousing suspicions.

It warned that anyone trying any of the tricks could be fined or spend a long time in prison as well as listing a number of "tricks", for instance falsely nominating a fictional or real person from another country as the driver.

Complaints

The ASA, in rulings being published today, upheld two complaints from a member of the public in Hampshire - the first that it was "denigratory" to list certain websites, which were not operating illegally, under the heading "trick dealers" along with others that encouraged people to act illegally.

"We advised Drivesafe not to imply in future campaigns that information on those sites was illegal if it was not," said the ASA.

The second complaint concerned a statement in the booklet that "the cost to the NHS for each high-speed collision was about é100,000". The ASA ruled that although it had been copied in good faith from a document based on NHS statistics, it had seen no evidence that the figure was a "representative average cost to the NHS".

The Association of British Drivers, whose website was named among the "trick dealers", welcomed the rulings.

Spokesman Nigel Humphries said: "We don't think that the vast majority of speeding tickets issued are justified on road safety grounds at all."

| Submit Comments | Comments (29) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Anon, Stretford (21/06/2006 at 13:49)

Good grief, I'm pretty sure that there must be far better things that the ASA can apply themselves to. Some of the adverts on the telly nowadays are shocking/disgusting/nauseating, etc, etc.

Tony, Hampshire (21/06/2006 at 17:26)

Manchester police tried to take the credit over opperation cheater. Yet when the ASA ruling comes out they tried to hide behind "Drivesafe"

They insult our inteligance with phoney statistics. They mis-use thier power and size.

It is time they came clean and addmitted that speed cameras cannot solve road saftey. All the time they rely on these infernal boxes , other issues are being ignored.
Tony , hampshire, The person who did all the work on this ASA complaint.
(not the ABD)

P Walker, Midlands (21/06/2006 at 19:32)

Perhaps the police Sergeant who detected the couple from Hyde and the recent case of the person who moved a 40mph sign to avoid a ??60 fine will now detect those who wrote this blatantly incorrect document, better still with his no proven skills perhaps he can move to the CID and detect the drugs, gun and knife crimes that blight Manchester rather than spending all that cash chasing ??60 fines, and they say its not about the money.

peter, stockport (21/06/2006 at 19:51)

No doubt I will be the first of many to say that it is a pity the police did not show the same diligence in tracking down criminals.

Gareth, Southampton (22/06/2006 at 00:06)

Anon - they do investigate all complaints, have you complained about any recently?

This was in response to a complaint that an inccurate and potentially denigratory leaflet was directly sent to thousands of people. It labelled three websites as inciting illegal activities in return for money, when this was not true. To my mind this is far more serious than a TV advert which might upset a few people who make a hobby from being "outraged".

Tom, Sale (22/06/2006 at 06:48)

We seem to have acquired a culture in this country where threats by officialdom are commonplace, TV is littered with these 'threatmercials'. Nice to see the ASA trying to reign this in.

John Segall, Bolton (22/06/2006 at 08:10)

I have seen this pamphlet and I consider it to be intimidating and threatening. Although it may slow down a person trying to defraud the systemn, it also threatens the innocent driver who is trying to get a fair trial. In my opinion, it is not there to stop fraudelent claims, it is there to stop people standing up to their rights and is just a bullying tactic to make life easier for the Police to have an esay life.

Disgusting!

Andy Cunningham, England (22/06/2006 at 08:14)

It's good to see some sense from the ASA. If the police start labelling a legitimate road safety organisation as a source of illict tips to "get off" speeding tickets, it only goes to show how desperate they are to protect their increasingly untenable position for the revenue it generates.

Road fatalities fell every year in this country until speed cameras were introducted, and have levelled out since. I think we should ask why.

Anon, Manchester (22/06/2006 at 08:37)

Anon of Stretford - the ASA has an obligation to investigate any complaint they receive. Its not up to them to choose how to spend their time.

Its also important that we have controls in place to highlight state sponsored lies and deceit in any form.

Bill, down south ! (22/06/2006 at 10:17)

Hi,

It is about time the camera speed partnerships were brought to account.They have told lie after lie to substantiate their reason for being.

now they are into liable.. I thought more of our police before they became embrolied in this get rich kwik scheme, who's sole purpose is to keep those involved in pocket money and golden pensions.

rgds
Bill

Chris, Staffordshire (22/06/2006 at 10:31)

The police sent out demands for money along with a leaflet threatening drivers that if they tried to defend themselves against the charge they'd send teams of coppers round to investigate them. "Pay up or we'll send the boys round".

Anyone accused of an offence is entitled to defend themselves, and to send out a leaflet threatening people with dire consequences if they try to defend themselves is coercion. We're being robbed, but who do you complain to when you're being robbed by the police?

Well done to the ASA - upholding the rule of law and the rights of individuals against state oppression is one of the most important things they could do.

Richard, Midlands (22/06/2006 at 10:47)

Speed Cameras are only there to raise revenue. If you pay the ??60 ticket, the money goes into the local Camera Partnership's coffers.

If you challenge the ticket instead one of three things can happen:-
1. Nothing. This happens much more often than people think.
2. You go to court and WIN. This also happens much more often than people think.
3. You go to court and LOSE. In this case all fines go to Central Government and NOT the local Camera Partnetship.

Camera Partnerships are DESPARATE to keep their revenue stream open (It's one of their main Key Performance Indicators). They'll do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to make sure that they get their greedy hands on YOUR MONEY.

Don't let them - FIGHT THAT TICKET!

Simon, Wales (22/06/2006 at 11:21)

Conratulations to the ASA for seeing fit to deal with this. No, it wasn't a telly advert, but it is precisely this sort of insidious misinformation that makes this country such a miserable place to own or drive a car.

Paul Biggs, Staffordshire (22/06/2006 at 11:45)

The police made false accusations about legitimate, responsible websites in an effort to maximise revenue raising from a guilty until proven innocent system.

Simon, Aberdeen (22/06/2006 at 11:45)

Come on Anon - what are you trying to say - it's OK for camera partnerships to misrepresent and lie about facts, individuals or groups? They get away with too much as it is, under the falsehood that they're doing something to improve road safety. Personally, I find that sickening...

Peter, Dawlish (22/06/2006 at 12:35)

Has mother Taressa risen again or Mary Whitehouse?
Does not the law apply to everthing and everyone?

Tony, United Kingdom (22/06/2006 at 13:06)

Surely it is not acceptable that people who are suspected of the 'heinous' crime of speding should be faced with, at the least, dis-information from the Police. After all aren't the police te people that we are supposed to trust - on the basis of this story it seems that they are as devious as the criminals that we would like them to apprehend - the robbers, muggers et al.

mark, MANCHESTER (22/06/2006 at 13:20)

Contrary to the first comment made, the ASA are doing EXACTLY what they are supposed to do, UNLIKE certain other organisations in the country. Money first, real road safety a very poor second every time. Speed does not kill - bad driving kills.

Eric, Bath (22/06/2006 at 17:41)

I'm confused.
Those who we fund to uphold the law are found to have falsely accused legitimate law abiding 'organisations' of encouraging law breaking..........and then these same organisations use lawful methods (the ASA) to show that those who are supposed to uphold the law are misleading the public.
Poetic Justice at it's best! Well done to all concerned in raising these issues.

Sarah, Preston (22/06/2006 at 18:56)

Hear, hear Richard.If you get a speeding ticket make sure you get your money's worth. Ask to see the evidence before you give them a penny. My father recently got a ticket for doing 48mph (in a 30 limit) on a Manchester road after being flashed by a Gatso scamera. Photographs confirmed he was doing only around 24-26mph. The camera never lies? I don't think so.

Dave, Bolton (22/06/2006 at 21:01)

It's a disgrace that our one time respected police force should stoop to such low tactics in an attempt to raise revenue. Drivesafe is also made up of our so called independant Judiciary and Crown Prosecution Service. Looks like the days of getting Justice are now numbered when theres so much spin around.

jester, warrington (22/06/2006 at 21:20)

Maybe the "team" that GMP had available to look into every contested speed tax ticket would be better employed by actually doing what they are paid to do, ie fight crime, and not chase all over europe to net sixty quid. Mention this next time you are a victim of crime and you get told that the police are "too busy" to send someone to help. At the end of the day its quite obvious that taking our money is all that matters to the current government, and as long as we all pay up on demand, things won't get any better. Remember, "its 30 for a reason" - Sixty quid.

Terry Hudson, Kent (22/06/2006 at 22:16)

Fully automated speed detection has made normal decent people do things that in the normal course of life they would not dream of. It is the government that is turning us into 'criminals'. If so called 'speeding' was so dangerous then those in public life should be sacked from their jobs when caught! The sad fact is that anti speeding enforcement equipment is a multi-billion pound industry, while those fighting against this system are all basically volunteers.

Bruce, Edinburgh (22/06/2006 at 23:09)

I am appalled to see the police and Crown Prosecution Service lending their names to an organisation that is not only dishonest in its blatant "propaganda" but that it is also arguably libellous, an issue that the CPS and police should be able to recognise. Clearly their supervision of this fundraiser is inadequate.

Ian, London (23/06/2006 at 08:29)

How interesting that B'liar is announcing yet more legislation to redress the balance between the rights of offenders and the law-abiding. This from the leader of a government that has done more than any other to criminalise ordinary law-abiding people. When a nurse who tries to defaud a "Safety" Camera Partnership is given a longer sentence than most violent muggers you know where the real priorities lie. Long prison sentences for violent offenders will make the streets safer. Jailing nurses will not. The scamera partnerships need to produce a continuous stream of lies to justify their existence. This latest lie is just another in a long line.

()

Report

News