ScaniaUltimate:
falsely accused.
sounds like a more interesting story than normal on here, care to share?
stu675:
ScaniaUltimate:
falsely accused.sounds like a more interesting story than normal on here, care to share?
A cop claimed he had seen me using my phone, as he went past in the opposite direction, which was completely untrue.
I believe he initially genuinely thought he had seen me using my phone but it was in my pocket at the time.
When he came to the window with the usual “do you know why I’ve stopped you?” line of questioning my partner & I were genuinely at a loss & unable to give a reason.
He then informed us had seen me using my phone - at which point there was an immediate, spontaneous, ‘stereo’ response of incredulity from us both that shook his own conviction.
Part of this instant rebuttal was because I wasn’t using my phone, but the other part that angered us both instantly so much is that I am known for my view that even talking on a hands free call when driving should be banned.
Cops being cops though don’t like backing down - so he dug in.
To keep a long story short: he had zero evidence of the alleged offence as it did not happen. His car & my vehicle both had camera’s, my phone had neither received or made any calls or texts since the previous day & until about 4 hours after the incident.
Both he & I knew he would not win in court.
The cop however had the pleasure of knowing I would have a very long drive to prove my innocence (you appear in court in the area of the offence).
I refused to play their paperwork game which ended up with them quietly dropping the case months later.
Once they did that I struck back with a formal complaint which saw the secondary officer criticised. The primary officer had left the force therefore nothing could be done about him.
I then complained about the handling of my complaint which was mostly upheld too.
I was simply putting them to the inconvenience they had put me to as it is a ‘no win’ procedure.
There is so much more than this brief explanation can get across, but it is fair to say it changed my view of the Police to this day.
One rogue cop can be handled, but as the Wayne Couzens story proves most will back each other up even when they know their colleagues are in the wrong.
Is that a win for a driver facing camera in your case then?
I would agree there is probably the odd bad one that gets into the police however if you look how difficult it is to get in they are usually weeded out before they begin.
If they do put a foot wrong was in again they are in trouble.
ScaniaUltimate:
stu675:
ScaniaUltimate:
falsely accused.sounds like a more interesting story than normal on here, care to share?
A cop claimed he had seen me using my phone, as he went past in the opposite direction, which was completely untrue.
I believe he initially genuinely thought he had seen me using my phone but it was in my pocket at the time.
When he came to the window with the usual “do you know why I’ve stopped you?” line of questioning my partner & I were genuinely at a loss & unable to give a reason.
He then informed us had seen me using my phone - at which point there was an immediate, spontaneous, ‘stereo’ response of incredulity from us both that shook his own conviction.
Part of this instant rebuttal was because I wasn’t using my phone, but the other part that angered us both instantly so much is that I am known for my view that even talking on a hands free call when driving should be banned.
Cops being cops though don’t like backing down - so he dug in.To keep a long story short: he had zero evidence of the alleged offence as it did not happen. His car & my vehicle both had camera’s, my phone had neither received or made any calls or texts since the previous day & until about 4 hours after the incident.
Both he & I knew he would not win in court.
The cop however had the pleasure of knowing I would have a very long drive to prove my innocence (you appear in court in the area of the offence).
I refused to play their paperwork game which ended up with them quietly dropping the case months later.
Once they did that I struck back with a formal complaint which saw the secondary officer criticised. The primary officer had left the force therefore nothing could be done about him.
I then complained about the handling of my complaint which was mostly upheld too.
I was simply putting them to the inconvenience they had put me to as it is a ‘no win’ procedure.There is so much more than this brief explanation can get across, but it is fair to say it changed my view of the Police to this day.
One rogue cop can be handled, but as the Wayne Couzens story proves most will back each other up even when they know their colleagues are in the wrong.
The original post was about AI.
You are discussing a bad cop.
However, the bad policing didnt result in a conviction in your case. It did need a lot of lot of effort on your part, and bad policing, and bad police cant be defended.
I still maintain that nothing can be 100% proven. The margin of doubt may be a ridiculously small one, but it exists.
I disagree that a traffic offence can be 100% proved.
We recognise (certainly not happily) that there will be miscarriages of justice to get genuinely bad people locked up. The same applies to traffic offenders.
It`s the real (less than perfect) world we live in.
Having a sudden, uncontrollable sneeze (or 2 in a row) is way more dangerous than touching a phone (or yourself)
ETS:
Having a sudden, uncontrollable sneeze (or 2 in a row) is way more dangerous than touching a phone (or yourself)
What’s even more dangerouser and distracting is having a bloody wasp flying around! I’ve lost hundreds of miles watching the angry little critters flying around my head
the maoster:
What’s even more dangerouser and distracting is having a bloody wasp flying around! I’ve lost hundreds of miles watching the angry little critters flying around my head
True that! Last week I was filling up at the pumps early morning still dark, no one around - I’m half asleep at the end of my shift all of a sudden this giant thing flies into the back of my neck and down my spine (a butterfly most likely)
It startled me and immediately I started twitching and reaching back with my left hand while my right hand was holding the pump nozzle pumping into the tank. Instinctively my brain summoned the right hand to help fend off the invading beast so it tried to go up and towards my back of course still holding the gun and pumping diesel. It splashed over the tank and back towards me, I had a nice diesel shower that day. Luckily as I said it was the end of the shift with about 20 min drive back to the yard
Judging by my … overreaction I don’t dare to think what would happpen if I was driving
stu675:
Is that a win for a driver facing camera in your case then?
No driver facing camera in my vehicle, but the one in the Police car would have recorded me & strangely they would not allow me to see the footage on the scene due to GDPR! Cowboys from the start.
I consistently refused to fill in the NIP paperwork; each time responding with written replies instead.
This appears to have stymied them (as it was intended to, as well as causing excess workload) & eventually they stopped sending me the threats.
After about 9 months I contacted them for confirmation that no further action would be taken & they sent a curt 1 line reply confirming that.
I had to be prepared to go to court hundreds of miles from my home though if I was summonsed & I did all the necessary preparation for that.
They could never have won the case (because evidence was impossible to find as the offence was not committed) & I had excellent counter evidence.
Had the PC not already left the force by the time I began making the complaints I would have pushed very hard to have him disciplined.
I guess there is some comfort in knowing he is no longer in the force as he was a truly appalling example of a Police officer.
My retained dislike of the Police is because to a man & woman (including his partner on the scene who was clearly embarrassed by his colleague’s poor treatment of me) they refused to listen to my defence & complaints which could have resolved the case at the scene or at the Police stations I visited in the area immediately afterwards; they closed ranks as one.
The relevance to AI is that there is no debate allowed - I gathered a lot of my evidence through the debate at the scene & I know the PC would not have liked it being played back in court. Easy to be a pumped up & psyched up idiot, less comfortable to see it played back in court.
Once you receive the incorrectly AI assessed NIP it is either attend court or pay the fine. (OFC you could take your chances & do as I did but it is a risky option & supposedly creates some statutory offences in of itself).
Think about that. You are wearing your seat-belt. You are driving in Southampton. You live in Carlisle.
AI misinterprets what it ‘sees’.
Do you attend court hundreds of miles form home just to show your counter evidence (if you have any) & have it thrown out? Or do you take the cheaper, easier option & pay the fine? There are no alternatives- as I was repeatedly informed - attend court or pay the fine.
ScaniaUltimate:
stu675:
Is that a win for a driver facing camera in your case then?No driver facing camera in my vehicle, but the one in the Police car would have recorded me & strangely they would not allow me to see the footage on the scene due to GDPR! Cowboys from the start.
I consistently refused to fill in the NIP paperwork; each time responding with written replies instead.
This appears to have stymied them (as it was intended to, as well as causing excess workload) & eventually they stopped sending me the threats.
After about 9 months I contacted them for confirmation that no further action would be taken & they sent a curt 1 line reply confirming that.I had to be prepared to go to court hundreds of miles from my home though if I was summonsed & I did all the necessary preparation for that.
They could never have won the case (because evidence was impossible to find as the offence was not committed) & I had excellent counter evidence.Had the PC not already left the force by the time I began making the complaints I would have pushed very hard to have him disciplined.
I guess there is some comfort in knowing he is no longer in the force as he was a truly appalling example of a Police officer.
My retained dislike of the Police is because to a man & woman (including his partner on the scene who was clearly embarrassed by his colleague’s poor treatment of me) they refused to listen to my defence & complaints which could have resolved the case at the scene or at the Police stations I visited in the area immediately afterwards; they closed ranks as one.The relevance to AI is that there is no debate allowed - I gathered a lot of my evidence through the debate at the scene & I know the PC would not have liked it being played back in court. Easy to be a pumped up & psyched up idiot, less comfortable to see it played back in court.
Once you receive the incorrectly AI assessed NIP it is either attend court or pay the fine. (OFC you could take your chances & do as I did but it is a risky option & supposedly creates some statutory offences in of itself).
Think about that. You are wearing your seat-belt. You are driving in Southampton. You live in Carlisle.
AI misinterprets what it ‘sees’.
Do you attend court hundreds of miles form home just to show your counter evidence (if you have any) & have it thrown out? Or do you take the cheaper, easier option & pay the fine? There are no alternatives- as I was repeatedly informed - attend court or pay the fine.
Having to travel to answer a charge is a problem, but is not relevant to level of proof, nor to AI.
Cops, the less good ones, may “rally around” a mate. They won`t do the same for a machine.
Debate regarding machines is allowed.
The testing/certification of speed cameras for a start.
The automatic “reading” of number plates being another.
The AI that read a ladys jumper being another. (I didnt dream that did I?)
I like your style Franglais! You are a smart cookie. Unfortunately that doesn’t always go well with some on here as I’m sure you have noticed. 
Franglais:
.Debate regarding machines is allowed.
The testing/certification of speed cameras for a start.
Every time a motorbike is “caught” speeding is because they’ve aimed the speed gun at the top of the front tyre coming towards them which records double the speed!
True that.
jakethesnake:
I like your style Franglais! You are a smart cookie. Unfortunately that doesn’t always go well with some on here as I’m sure you have noticed.
Careful !
We`ll be called multiple user/twins/non-lorry-drivers etc soon.
Although I expect you`d be as worried about that as I am. 
stu675:
Franglais:
.Debate regarding machines is allowed.
The testing/certification of speed cameras for a start.Every time a motorbike is “caught” speeding is because they’ve aimed the speed gun at the top of the front tyre coming towards them which records double the speed!
True that.
Of course that`s true.
Rider`s own fault though, for not dangling a CD in front of his fairing. As we all know, that breaks the RADAR gun.
stu675:
Franglais:
.Debate regarding machines is allowed.
The testing/certification of speed cameras for a start.Every time a motorbike is “caught” speeding is because they’ve aimed the speed gun at the top of the front tyre coming towards them which records double the speed!
True that.
What if you’re pulling a fifth gear minger and the front wheel isn’t turning?
Franglais:
Having to travel to answer a charge is a problem, but is not relevant to level of proof, nor to AI.Cops, the less good ones, may “rally around” a mate. They won`t do the same for a machine.
Debate regarding machines is allowed.
The testing/certification of speed cameras for a start.The automatic “reading” of number plates being another.
The AI that read a ladys jumper being another. (I didnt dream that did I?)
This is the problem exacerbated.
Had I been pulled by a reasonable Police officer the matter would have been concluded at the roadside. An obvious lack of evidence & 2 V 1 witness statements was an essentially impossible prosecution to win. I had the roadside ‘debate’ which made the Police officer embarrass himself, thereby helping my case if it came to court.
With AI automatically posted fines there is no debate after the NIP has been produced. No chance to plead for a sensible resolution outside of court. It is go to court or pay the fine.
There needs to be an intervention between the NIP being received & going to court. An oportunity where you can say “please look at the obvious (to a human) here & stop this clearly time wasting process”; but there is not, & I can assure you there will not be, as they want the money more than anything else & that procedure would eat into their ‘profits’.
Right now humans are overlooking the AI work as it is early adoption but that will change ASAP.
Acknowledging the machines are fallible yet not worrying about having to defend yourself hundreds of miles from home is a strange stance but I suppose until you have had to do it for yourself maybe won’t realise just how awful they make the process of defending yourself.
ScaniaUltimate:
With AI automatically posted fines there is no debate after the NIP has been produced. No chance to plead for a sensible resolution outside of court. It is go to court or pay the fine.
metro.co.uk/2021/10/18/surrey-w … -15439916/
“The couple contacted the council who thankfully saw the funny side and agreed to waive the £90 fine.”
ScaniaUltimate:
Acknowledging the machines are fallible yet not worrying about having to defend yourself hundreds of miles from home is a strange stance
Franglais:
Having to travel to answer a charge is a problem, but is not relevant to level of proof, nor to AI.
robroy:
Franglais:
robroy:
No …the only way to avoid wrong prosecutions is to ensure they are 100% accurate, if there is any doubt, afaik we are still on an ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ policy last time I looked, so the benefit of that doubt should be given to the poor sod who is about to be nicked for doing nowt wrong.Nope.
The UK law doesn`t require 100% proof.
It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Not beyond any doubt.If it was necessary to prove all cases 100% then no-one would ever be convicted.
As I said, nothing in the real world is perfect, and proof of guilt cannot be made 100%.Would you be OK with 999 murderers walking the streets, because one innocent man might be falsely convicted?
Ahh right we’re talking about murderers now,. and here’s me thinking we were talking simple traffic offences.
Tell ya what, I won’t dignify that ridiculous statement with a reply so there ya go.And I’m fully aware it does not have to be 100% that is the point I was making , it maybe should be…but not including terrorists, paedophiles, rapists or architects of genocide in case you were wondering…and thanks for explaining the rule of law to me btw.
Franglais:
metro.co.uk/2021/10/18/surrey-w … -15439916/
“The couple contacted the council who thankfully saw the funny side and agreed to waive the £90 fine.”
Council fines not Police fines.
Different procedures.
In response to my request asking for a sensible pre-court intervention:
“Thank you for your email.
We are unfortunately not able to intervene in this matter prior to a court hearing.
If you wish to dispute the evidence or put forward mitigation you should consider exercising your right to request a court hearing and place the facts before the magistrates.
Please ensure you act within the time constraints set on the notice, or 10 days from the date of this letter whichever is the latter, in relation to payment or request for a court hearing.”
Franglais:
ScaniaUltimate:
Acknowledging the machines are fallible yet not worrying about having to defend yourself hundreds of miles from home is a strange stanceFranglais:
Having to travel to answer a charge is a problem, but is not relevant to level of proof, nor to AI.
Accepted correction. Thanks.