More bad news for Wiltshire partnership
Discussion
Safe Speed proudly issued the following PR at 22:47 this evening:
[b]PR218: Folly Bottom: all fines to be refunded (at last)[/b]
News: for immediate release
The CPS have called for all fines issued for speeding at the road works at
Folly Bottom on the A303 in Wiltshire to be refunded. This follows a drawn out
battle where many motorists were wrongly fined for allegedly exceeding a
speed limit they couldn't know was there.
As far as we can tell around 6,200 motorists are affected, with the fines
amounting to more than £372,000.
The speed limit laws are strict - if a speed limit isn't properly signed, then
no one can be convicted for exceeding it. Safe Speed points out that this
aspect of the law is fair and necessary, because no one can reasonably be
expected to observe a speed limit if they didn't have any way of knowing that
it existed.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "I hope any motorist who has suffered any loss as
a result of this wrongful application of the law will be able to obtain proper
compensation without too much difficulty. Of course, if anyone lost their
driving licence and their job as a consequence then the compensation could be
considerable."
Paul continues: "It was soon after the court cases exposing the Folly Bottom
'folly' that the Wiltshire and Swindon Camera Partnership announced that they
would be placing camera vans on the M4 motorway. I wonder if they have made up
the deficit yet?"
Safe Speed recommends that motorists should ensure that any alleged case
against them is accurate, complete and legal BEFORE they pay any fixed
penalty. There are far too many errors being made by greedy camera
partnerships.
The partnerships may not 'recover costs' from court fines - only from fixed
penalty tickets.
<ends>
New BBC story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4701181.stm
Previous Safe Speed PRs on the story:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/21
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/23
[b]PR218: Folly Bottom: all fines to be refunded (at last)[/b]
News: for immediate release
The CPS have called for all fines issued for speeding at the road works at
Folly Bottom on the A303 in Wiltshire to be refunded. This follows a drawn out
battle where many motorists were wrongly fined for allegedly exceeding a
speed limit they couldn't know was there.
As far as we can tell around 6,200 motorists are affected, with the fines
amounting to more than £372,000.
The speed limit laws are strict - if a speed limit isn't properly signed, then
no one can be convicted for exceeding it. Safe Speed points out that this
aspect of the law is fair and necessary, because no one can reasonably be
expected to observe a speed limit if they didn't have any way of knowing that
it existed.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "I hope any motorist who has suffered any loss as
a result of this wrongful application of the law will be able to obtain proper
compensation without too much difficulty. Of course, if anyone lost their
driving licence and their job as a consequence then the compensation could be
considerable."
Paul continues: "It was soon after the court cases exposing the Folly Bottom
'folly' that the Wiltshire and Swindon Camera Partnership announced that they
would be placing camera vans on the M4 motorway. I wonder if they have made up
the deficit yet?"
Safe Speed recommends that motorists should ensure that any alleged case
against them is accurate, complete and legal BEFORE they pay any fixed
penalty. There are far too many errors being made by greedy camera
partnerships.
The partnerships may not 'recover costs' from court fines - only from fixed
penalty tickets.
<ends>
New BBC story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4701181.stm
Previous Safe Speed PRs on the story:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/21
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/23
I linked to the BBC news article, and from there to the Wilts Scam partnership site.
There proudly emblazoned is "We don't want to catch you we do want to slow you down" (I assume there's meant to be some punctuation in there). Odd, then, that the means to us determining that a hidden camera is there is being removed from us. But perhaps they mean something else?
A ticker along the bottom of the site claims that more cameras will be used in Wiltshire, and that everyone will benefit from lower speeds. Again I find this odd considering the Government has just said that there will be no expansion of cameras pending the review. But perhaps they mean something else?
And then on another page, it says that the "total value [sic] of preventing road traffic collisions in Britain per year is estimated to be around £18,094 millon". Now it's obvious that a number "estimated to be around" cannot then be given to 5 significant figures but we'll let that pass. But wherever does such a number arise from? If over £18b is being spent yearly by the government to "prevent collisions", are we getting good value for our taxes? Has the Audit Commission looked into this? How many collisions have been prevented? What has been done to achieve this? But perhaps they mean something else?
Quite amazing. Someone in this debate has more money than sense, and I think we know where the money is coming from.
There proudly emblazoned is "We don't want to catch you we do want to slow you down" (I assume there's meant to be some punctuation in there). Odd, then, that the means to us determining that a hidden camera is there is being removed from us. But perhaps they mean something else?
A ticker along the bottom of the site claims that more cameras will be used in Wiltshire, and that everyone will benefit from lower speeds. Again I find this odd considering the Government has just said that there will be no expansion of cameras pending the review. But perhaps they mean something else?
And then on another page, it says that the "total value [sic] of preventing road traffic collisions in Britain per year is estimated to be around £18,094 millon". Now it's obvious that a number "estimated to be around" cannot then be given to 5 significant figures but we'll let that pass. But wherever does such a number arise from? If over £18b is being spent yearly by the government to "prevent collisions", are we getting good value for our taxes? Has the Audit Commission looked into this? How many collisions have been prevented? What has been done to achieve this? But perhaps they mean something else?
Quite amazing. Someone in this debate has more money than sense, and I think we know where the money is coming from.
e of the scamera partnerships 
so of the 6200 motorists that did exceed the non-existant speed limit and were fined wrongly, how many crashed?
The suposed limit must have been assessed as being set a x figure but as no one knew of it and they carried on at a speed left to their own discretion it goes to show that driving in excess of a nominal limit is not dangerous and a suitable safe speed can be assesed by drivers.
The suposed limit must have been assessed as being set a x figure but as no one knew of it and they carried on at a speed left to their own discretion it goes to show that driving in excess of a nominal limit is not dangerous and a suitable safe speed can be assesed by drivers.
catso said:
And what would happen if someone had received a ban due to these 'bogus' points and lost their job, home etc would be interesting to see how they would compensate for that.
It surely would be pretty incredible if no-one out of the 6000 affected was brought to the point of being banned (or perhaps committed subsequent offence(s) and got banned.
Is there any way of finding out?
Despite the finding, the Pratnership maintained that the drivers were breaking the law!
What law?
The signing was incorrect, the limit was invalidated.
Only drivers exceeding 70 could be said to be "breaking the law".
Now, how many of those were there? And have they had their fines and points overturned?
Everyone penalised originally should hammer the Pratnership for costs too: postage, court expenses (for those who did), loss of employment (for those who did); increased premiums (for those who renewed between times); damages for suffering (angst) caused, etc., etc., etc. Mind you, it will only make the Pratnership more determined to recoup in their loss
.
Streaky
What law?
The signing was incorrect, the limit was invalidated.
Only drivers exceeding 70 could be said to be "breaking the law".
Now, how many of those were there? And have they had their fines and points overturned?
Everyone penalised originally should hammer the Pratnership for costs too: postage, court expenses (for those who did), loss of employment (for those who did); increased premiums (for those who renewed between times); damages for suffering (angst) caused, etc., etc., etc. Mind you, it will only make the Pratnership more determined to recoup in their loss
. Streaky
streaky said:With the usual ianal warning, it's been said that there is no law making 70mph an 'automatic' limit when there is nothing else. A road or highway or motorway can only have one limit at a time and in a similar but weirder way it can't not have two limits at one time. Sorry wish I could think of a better way of putting it. So if a limit is unlawful then there is no limit in operation. So the argument goes - and it's from someone who advised the police on limits and signing so it's got some pedigree. Anyone know more about this?
The signing was incorrect, the limit was invalidated.
Only drivers exceeding 70 could be said to be "breaking the law".
turbobloke said:70 used because this is the maximum limit settable on UK roads - Streaky
The signing was incorrect, the limit was invalidated.
Only drivers exceeding 70 could be said to be "breaking the law".
With the usual ianal warning, it's been said that there is no law making 70mph an 'automatic' limit when there is nothing else. A road or highway or motorway can only have one limit at a time and in a similar but weirder way it can't not have two limits at one time. Sorry wish I could think of a better way of putting it. So if a limit is unlawful then there is no limit in operation. So the argument goes - and it's from someone who advised the police on limits and signing so it's got some pedigree. Anyone know more about this?
turbobloke said:
70 used because this is the maximum limit settable on UK roads - Streaky
Appreciate that, not questioning why you quoted it - but in law there may have been no limit applicable so BiB can whine about 70 all they like. Unless someone knows different...
This is the law in question:
RTRA 1984 S85
(4) [Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road,] but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above.
The theory, which I presently accept, is that improper signing causes all speed limits to fail, including the national speed limit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff