Where have all the old Pepipoo bruisers gone?, Threads merged Options

[pentiumsarebest]

No disrespect is intended to contributers. This is a genuine puzzle for me.

It's been a while since I visited the Pepipoo forums. At least three years.

What a difference!

The advice largely on the speedings section largely seems to consist of "take the points and pay the fine." Whatever happened to the old Pepipoo bruisers who delighted in squeezing the law, suggesting when to go unsigned and challenging procedures? Are there no recent cases drivers can use?

The success list has it's last entry in 2012.

Perhaps there is another newer place the Bad Boys and Girls Club meet.

[Advertisement]

[Earl Purple]

The Police are doing their duty in enforcing speed limits and are not doing it as cash-cows. The equipment is much better than before, and a lot more is done over distances with average speed which is much harder to dispute. With regards to who is driving the vehicle, that has become harder to fight than before.

In a sense it is good that motorists cannot just get away with it.

With regards to council parking, we do get a few "I can park anywhere without paying and get away with it" lot who come here but a lot of the time the cases are badly marked junctions and restrictions and over-zealous enforcement e.g. someone cutting through a bus lane a bit early to make a turn, and much of the time the councils seem to go out of their way to "trap" motorists as it raises revenue for them.

In addition we constantly see roads closed off to traffic and restricted turns that were not there before and drivers simply following their usual route unaware of the change.

[seank]

The Police are doing their duty in enforcing speed limits and are not doing it as cash-cows. EVIDENCE, PLEASE.
The equipment is much better than before, HOW, AND IN WHAT WAY IS IT BETTER?
and a lot more is done over distances with average speed EVIDENCE PLEASE. WHAT PERCENTAGE?
which is much harder to dispute. WHY?
With regards to who is driving the vehicle, that has become harder to fight than before.EVIDENCE, PLEASE.

In a sense it is good that motorists cannot just get away with it. WHY? EVIDENCE PLEASE.

With regards to council parking, we do get a few "I can park anywhere without paying and get away with it" lot who come here EVIDENCE, PLEASE
but a lot of the time the cases are badly marked junctions and restrictions and over-zealous enforcement EVIDENCE, PLEASE
e.g. someone cutting through a bus lane a bit early to make a turn, and much of the time the councils seem to go out of their way to "trap" motorists as it raises revenue for them.

In addition we constantly see roads closed off to traffic and restricted turns that were not there before and drivers simply following their usual route unaware of the change. CONSTANTLY SEE THIS? I DON'T THINK SO, BUT EVIDENCE, PLEASE.

[southpaw82]

If we followed the logic in your first sentence, everyone would just pay up. I reckon this is what happens in 99% of speeding, parking and similar offences.

That’s entirely a choice for the OP, nobody is forced to fight or fold.

He just pointed and pinged, whereas the law says he must form prior opinion and then use the LTI to corroborate that.

People keep saying that but nobody can cite the law, other than a misunderstanding of s 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

[Earl Purple]

I'm always surprised there are so many speeding incidents on here and not so many careless driving. It's not simply a matter of the fact that more are caught speeding than careless, but the fact that a speeding case is harder to dispute.

We get a few "caught on dashcam" cases here but we don't always see the follow-up.

[seank]

If we followed the logic in your first sentence, everyone would just pay up. I reckon this is what happens in 99% of speeding, parking and similar offences.

That’s entirely a choice for the OP, nobody is forced to fight or fold.

He just pointed and pinged, whereas the law says he must form prior opinion and then use the LTI to corroborate that.

People keep saying that but nobody can cite the law, other than a misunderstanding of s 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Hmm.
RTRA 1984 89(2) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/part/V... :
A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.

and Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 20(6) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/sectio...
[i]In proceedings for an offence to which this section applies, evidence (which in Scotland shall be sufficient evidence)—
(a)of a measurement made by a device, or of the circumstances in which it was made, or
(b)that a device was of a type approved for the purposes of this section, or that any conditions subject to which an approval was given were satisfied,

may be given by the production of a document which is signed as mentioned in subsection (1) above and which, as the case may be, gives particulars of the measurement or of the circumstances in which it was made, or states that the device was of such a type or that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the statement, all such conditions were satisfied. RTRA 1984 89(2) does not lay any requirement that there needs to be at least one witness, only that if there is a witness then corroboration is required. RTOA 1988 says the reading from the equipment is evidence on it's own (this is the killer). There is nowhere (that I found!) that says evidence from a mobile device can be used so long as an opinion was formed in advance.

I take that to mean the reading given by an approved device is accepted as gospel.
The unsubstantiated opinion of an operator is insufficient.

What is your interpretation, please?
The reality is that I was successful in my appeal. Cole was pinging everything and said the job is boring, even though he chose it. That was why he was looking for diversions and I ripped him apart, in front of a packed court.

I see your point, but the NIP and subsequent documents were accompanied by Cole's witness statement. I can see where his witness statement might be an irrelevance. All that would be needed would be the result from an approved device, which seems strange. That is certainly not the case across Europe, Japan or the USA. A person is accused by an accuser, supported by evidence. It seems in the UK only evidence is reuired, unsupported by an accuser.

This post has been edited by seank: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 13:23

[typefish]

I see your point, but the NIP and subsequent documents were accompanied by Cole's witness statement. I can see where his witness statement might be an irrelevance. All that would be needed would be the result from an approved device, which seems strange. That is certainly not the case across Europe, Japan or the USA. A person is accused by an accuser, supported by evidence. It seems in the UK only evidence is reuired, unsupported by an accuser.

I suspect you'd be disappointed to be driving through rural parts of the Netherlands, where most roads that we would be able to travel down with ease at speeds well in excess of 60mph, have speed limits nearer to 40mph - and lamppost grey GATSOs without any markings on the ground.

This post has been edited by typefish: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 14:03

[seank]

I see your point, but the NIP and subsequent documents were accompanied by Cole's witness statement. I can see where his witness statement might be an irrelevance. All that would be needed would be the result from an approved device, which seems strange. That is certainly not the case across Europe, Japan or the USA. A person is accused by an accuser, supported by evidence. It seems in the UK only evidence is reuired, unsupported by an accuser.

I suspect you'd be disappointed to be driving through rural parts of the Netherlands, where most roads that we would be able to travel down with ease at speeds well in excess of 60mph, have speed limits nearer to 40mph - and lamppost grey GATSOs without any markings on the ground.

Belgium is the place I enjoy driving.
Along footpaths, half-cut if you like.
No points, no hassle.
What I love most about the Netherlands is the Thalys train. Absolutely superb piece of kit, zooming along at 300kph / 186mph. My daughter lives in Overijse, so we use this quite a bit when I'm at Wolfsburg, Ingolstadt oe wherever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubfu8szAlLo&t=11s

[southpaw82]

What is your interpretation, please?

My interpretation is that the opinion of a single witness cannot found a conviction in certain circumstances. The reading created by a mechanical device is not an opinion. The purpose of the rule is to protect the accused against conviction based on a single unreliable opinion (aka unreliable evidence). No such protection ought to be required from evidence produced by a mechanical device, which is presumed to be operating correctly.

[seank]

What is your interpretation, please?

My interpretation is that the opinion of a single witness cannot found a conviction in certain circumstances. The reading created by a mechanical device is not an opinion. The purpose of the rule is to protect the accused against conviction based on a single unreliable opinion (aka unreliable evidence). No such protection ought to be required from evidence produced by a mechanical device, which is presumed to be operating correctly.

If only everything was as reliable as a Volkswagen?
Thank you

[andy_foster]

The argument for prior opinion is pretty much that actively operated devices are generally only approved to corroborate the opinion of the operator, which would be "as tested". There is no stipulated requirement that the opinion *must* be prior, but if the operator is simply pinging everything in sight and then claiming that whatever the reading is is what he thought the vehicle was doing, then I would say that his "opinion" is worthless.

[henrik777]

The argument for prior opinion is pretty much that actively operated devices are generally only approved to corroborate the opinion of the operator, which would be "as tested". There is no stipulated requirement that the opinion *must* be prior, but if the operator is simply pinging everything in sight and then claiming that whatever the reading is is what he thought the vehicle was doing, then I would say that his "opinion" is worthless.

Never gonna happen.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebrityn...r-Loophole.html

[southpaw82]

The argument for prior opinion is pretty much that actively operated devices are generally only approved to corroborate the opinion of the operator, which would be "as tested". There is no stipulated requirement that the opinion *must* be prior, but if the operator is simply pinging everything in sight and then claiming that whatever the reading is is what he thought the vehicle was doing, then I would say that his "opinion" is worthless.

Is there authority that his opinion is required? Or would it, at best, render the use of s 20 impossible and the evidence would have to be led by a witness?

[andy_foster]

'Authority' appears to be somewhat of a moveable feast at the moment, with some judges considering themselves bound by obiter comments and at the same time at liberty to utterly disregard the ratios of properly argued cases which run contrary to their agendas.

Not that I'm at all cynical...

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 20:24

[Tank Engine]

Here's a theory.

The original Fredd, southpaw etc. have been quietly replaced years ago by Lizard People.

These substitutes have little of the belly for fighting that their predecessors did.

And the rest of the forum by and large goes with them.

So - as I have the last five or is it six times - enquirers are told they have little or no hope, again and again. By supposed experts.

(As in Nick Freeman's recent One-Day-Late case).

Fortunately for me, I used Pepipoo -only- to find what lame-duck, untruthful, dishonest arguments might be used by the other side (Private Parking, Council / TfL, Cops) and therefore readied myself to refute them.

THE LAST FIVE OR SIX TIMES I WAS TOLD** CATEGORICALLY HERE THAT I HAD LITTLE OR NO CHANCE OF WINNING.

And then I went on to win, every one of those 6 times (at least 5 of which I'd bounced around Pepipoo in advance).

The question must be - what have they done to the real Fredd, the real Southpaw?

Can we rescue them? Or they now sleeping with the fishes?

** Honourable exceptions - hcandersen, bama, Hippocrates (and a few others who've given up or even been banned for upsetting delicate egos). They all feel as I do.

:-)

[The Rookie]

As you only have 2 previous threads its hard to follow how 5 or 6 times you were told you had no chance. Or are you admitting breaching the rules?

Also noting that SP never says anything of the sort anyway.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 12:49

[Fredd]

The original Fredd, southpaw etc. have been quietly replaced years ago by Lizard People.

These substitutes have little of the belly for fighting that their predecessors did.

Try to get at least some of your facts right: I've always dealt with the technical side of the site, rather than providing advice, and still do, so you're going to be hard pressed to make the argument that I've starting telling people to roll over.

I've recently made the point here myself that some people are unduly negative and tell people what they'd do rather than advise them of what their options are - you'll probably think that's just a cunning Lizard false flag tactic, though?

[seank]

In fairness, where else can people go for motoring advice?
Honest John's backroom forum used to be very good for motoring discussion, technical problem solving and general chat. It has lately become moribund with a few old fogeys who try to answer every post, even though they know little about the subject to help the OP.

We see that here, with a small number in a clique, and one member in particular, who regard the Forum as their own. They seem to have an urgent need just to reply, without actually thinking the options through to give a balanced set of options that the OP could choose, exactly as Fredd outlined.

There are other forums for different purposes, Legal Beagles, Consumer Action Group, Pistonheads and others. Pepipoo offers some extremely good advice, but a newcomer will find it hard to differentiate the good advice given by those you list, from the 40,000 posts of drivel given by a few people who just enjoy posting because they have nothing much else in life.

If you value the advice here, which I do, you can use it. If you don't, at least you've had the advice and don't have to take it.
I do miss Bama,(who I introduced here from AV Forums), HCAnderson, Hippocrates and many others. I just think that posting quantity is currently inversely proportional to posting quality, as you identify Tank Engine.

[southpaw82]

I see this thread had been merged - I thought we’d covered this ground before.

For my own part, I’m not aware of the tenor of my advice changing significantly over the decade or so that I’ve been posting here. My advice generally is quite conservative, for several reasons. Two that loom quite large are (a) what I might be able to pull off for a proper client I can spend time with and deal with face to face and then represent in court is quite different to what I can do at arms length online for a litigant in person and (b) it’s not my money/licence/liberty on the line. The latter point is one that is quite often forgotten, in my opinion.

Being frank yet without wishing to be offensive, I don’t really care what people in general think about my advice. It is given in good faith and to the best of my knowledge based on the circumstances known at the time. Subject to the caveat given in the paragraph above it is very similar to the way I give advice in actual practice - which has served me and my clients well and I don’t intent to change drastically.

One point I will make though is that “you have a poor/low/little chance” does not equate to “you have no chance”. I have often advised clients they have poor chances but if they wish to push on I will do so - and sometimes they win, perhaps through my skill, luck, or something else. It makes little sense to say “you told me I had a poor case but I won, neener neener neener” - because poor does not equal none. Equally (and this is perhaps now two points) advice is generally given on the basis of the legal merits of a case. If it is subsequently dropped because of a mistake by the prosecution or an exercise of discretion then that has no relation to the legal merits so again it would be wrong to use such a case as an example of the advice being wrong.

I too have noticed a general trend of giving negative advice that appears to be based on reflex or rote rather than a consideration of the circumstances of the particular case. This is probably related to the quite stark reduction in cases seen in the speeding forum (I recall it being well over a page of new posts per day - now perhaps 1/3 of a page). This may be symptomatic of cases being generally harder to win on what used to be “loopholes” as a result of procedures being tightened up and the law being changed or interpreted differently. The CrimPR will have had an impact on this. That is not to say that all negative advice is wrong and anyone wanting a “fight it at all costs” approach will get short shrift from me unless they are the accused - in which case I will advise them accordingly. Ill thought out advice based on rote or reflex can be legitimately challenged if it is objectively wrong.

the 40,000 posts of drivel given by a few people who just enjoy posting because they have nothing much else in life.

I just think that posting quantity is currently inversely proportional to posting quality, as you identify Tank Engine.

As a postscript (you posted as I was replying) I think you need to be careful with sweeping generalisations. I have no idea who you have in mind when you say what you say but I’d imagine a lot of people with a high post count do have other things to do but choose to give of their time freely to (at least try to) help others. That’s not to be lightly disregarded.

I agree with you that quantity is not necessarily an indicator of quality, though I’d not agree they were inversely proportional. I don’t foresee any sort of coup d’etat happening here - I’m not going to go away and I very much doubt many of the other high post count posters are either. If that’s a problem for some people then that’s a cross they’ll have to bear I’m afraid.

[seank]

Very fair replies, SP.
My comments were certainly not directed at you.
It's a pity the Forum doesn't have a reputation facility, that I've come across elsewhere. An OP who receives a relevant and valuable contribution is able to award a feedback credit, so people can see whose comments are valuable.
I don't believe you when you say that you don't care how people value your advice. Of course you do, or you wouldn't carry on giving the advice. We all want to try and help people, it's human sociability.
The problem is manifest for a newbie, who's in trouble, and asks for help. They are then effectively given a copy and paste answer by the mass poster and have to wait until someone with more knowledge visits the thread. They then have to disseminate the wheat from the chaff.
Once you've been here a while, it's easy to see who posts chaff.

[Ocelot]

In my experience of the site (over 14 years), if incorrect information is given in response to a case, it is normally jumped upon very quickly and corrected.

In the early days we had the likes of unsigned NIPs and the PACE witness statement to suggest. However, IMHO, there doesn't seem to be as many options to suggest at present, sadly.