Speeding When You Didn't See The Signs?
Discussion
I have been putting off posting this, but "a friend of mine" was caught a few weeks ago exceeding a temporary speed limit through road works on the northbound stretch of the M18 (near Rotherham). He had travelled up from down south, through numerous reduced speed limits all of which he managed to stay within.
He didn't realise, until he reached a NSL sign and a SPECS camera that he had been driving (for an unknown length of time) through a reduced limit. It was dark, there were no people working in the roadworks, no lanes closed and no apparent repeaters. He didn't see the 50 limit sign at the start of the section and had the cruise control set at 68mph.
Is there any point contesting this? I don't know if he will get the chance to do a speed-awareness course. He's been driving for 10 years and has never even had a warning for speeding before. He needs to drive for his job and, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't deserve the extra cost that will be associated with receiving points on his licence.
There's a good chance that the speed limit sign wasn't there or wasn't visible, but I guess that there's no way of him proving this. He's an exceptionally aware driver, but the sign(s) might have been hidden by another car/bus/lorry at the time.
Upon seeing the NSL sign, he decided that the safest thing to do was continue at his current speed. In hindsight, it might have been better for him to stop on the motorway for a couple of minutes before driving through the final SPECS camera.
He didn't realise, until he reached a NSL sign and a SPECS camera that he had been driving (for an unknown length of time) through a reduced limit. It was dark, there were no people working in the roadworks, no lanes closed and no apparent repeaters. He didn't see the 50 limit sign at the start of the section and had the cruise control set at 68mph.
Is there any point contesting this? I don't know if he will get the chance to do a speed-awareness course. He's been driving for 10 years and has never even had a warning for speeding before. He needs to drive for his job and, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't deserve the extra cost that will be associated with receiving points on his licence.
There's a good chance that the speed limit sign wasn't there or wasn't visible, but I guess that there's no way of him proving this. He's an exceptionally aware driver, but the sign(s) might have been hidden by another car/bus/lorry at the time.
Upon seeing the NSL sign, he decided that the safest thing to do was continue at his current speed. In hindsight, it might have been better for him to stop on the motorway for a couple of minutes before driving through the final SPECS camera.
If you can prove the speed limit signs weren't visible you might have some defence.
Have you actually received a ticket yet?
It's possible there were no signs because the road was in the process of being altered, the cameras may have been switched off and the nsl sign just left by mistake.
Have you actually received a ticket yet?
It's possible there were no signs because the road was in the process of being altered, the cameras may have been switched off and the nsl sign just left by mistake.
There is a stated case that might help.
A driver drove through a speed camera, pre average speed cameras, at excess speed through road works. The circumstances included:
No one working on the road works,
The lane reduction being removed,
Some repeater signs also being removed.
Appeal successful.
I've discarded all my notes so cannot give you name and year, but it was fairly recent I believe. But in essence there was the suggestion that although the order still remained in force, if the need for it was removed then prosecutions should not be started.
I have also noted that if the road works are not illuminated with those tremendously bright lights, no work goes on when it is dark - H&S I've always assumed. In these circs the signs are sometimes not illuminated. I've always wondered if there would be a defence there.
A driver drove through a speed camera, pre average speed cameras, at excess speed through road works. The circumstances included:
No one working on the road works,
The lane reduction being removed,
Some repeater signs also being removed.
Appeal successful.
I've discarded all my notes so cannot give you name and year, but it was fairly recent I believe. But in essence there was the suggestion that although the order still remained in force, if the need for it was removed then prosecutions should not be started.
I have also noted that if the road works are not illuminated with those tremendously bright lights, no work goes on when it is dark - H&S I've always assumed. In these circs the signs are sometimes not illuminated. I've always wondered if there would be a defence there.
Derek Smith said:
snip*
I have also noted that if the road works are not illuminated with those tremendously bright lights, no work goes on when it is dark - H&S I've always assumed. In these circs the signs are sometimes not illuminated. I've always wondered if there would be a defence there.
But your normal speed limit signs aren't usually illuminated either so does that mean I can speed with impunity when it's dark?I have also noted that if the road works are not illuminated with those tremendously bright lights, no work goes on when it is dark - H&S I've always assumed. In these circs the signs are sometimes not illuminated. I've always wondered if there would be a defence there.
Snowboy said:
If you can prove the speed limit signs weren't visible you might have some defence.
Have you actually received a ticket yet?
It's possible there were no signs because the road was in the process of being altered, the cameras may have been switched off and the nsl sign just left by mistake.
I have received the NIP. I went down there last week and I think that they've now removed the temporary speed limit, which means that there's no way of me proving whether or not there was sufficient signage at the time.Have you actually received a ticket yet?
It's possible there were no signs because the road was in the process of being altered, the cameras may have been switched off and the nsl sign just left by mistake.
One of my hopes after passing the NSL sign was that the cameras weren't switched on, but sadly they were.
[quote=Derek Smith]There is a stated case that might help.
A driver drove through a speed camera, pre average speed cameras, at excess speed through road works. The circumstances included:
No one working on the road works,
The lane reduction being removed,
Some repeater signs also being removed.
Appeal successful.
I've discarded all my notes so cannot give you name and year, but it was fairly recent I believe. But in essence there was the suggestion that although the order still remained in force, if the need for it was removed then prosecutions should not be started.
...........................
Case if I recall was a temp speed restiction for works on a road leading into Luton. Works completed but signs left out and done for speeding. Driver invoked provision of Direction 36 Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 (Part 11) which vitrually states if works completed then signs no longer have any effect,
dvd
A driver drove through a speed camera, pre average speed cameras, at excess speed through road works. The circumstances included:
No one working on the road works,
The lane reduction being removed,
Some repeater signs also being removed.
Appeal successful.
I've discarded all my notes so cannot give you name and year, but it was fairly recent I believe. But in essence there was the suggestion that although the order still remained in force, if the need for it was removed then prosecutions should not be started.
...........................
Case if I recall was a temp speed restiction for works on a road leading into Luton. Works completed but signs left out and done for speeding. Driver invoked provision of Direction 36 Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 (Part 11) which vitrually states if works completed then signs no longer have any effect,
dvd
Dwight VanDriver]erek Smith said:
There is a stated case that might help.
A driver drove through a speed camera, pre average speed cameras, at excess speed through road works. The circumstances included:
No one working on the road works,
The lane reduction being removed,
Some repeater signs also being removed.
Appeal successful.
I've discarded all my notes so cannot give you name and year, but it was fairly recent I believe. But in essence there was the suggestion that although the order still remained in force, if the need for it was removed then prosecutions should not be started.
...........................
Case if I recall was a temp speed restiction for works on a road leading into Luton. Works completed but signs left out and done for speeding. Driver invoked provision of Direction 36 Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 (Part 11) which vitrually states if works completed then signs no longer have any effect,
dvd
Yep, that's the one. Thanks for that. I was surprised at the decision as the order was still in place, but I can see the logic. And agree with it.A driver drove through a speed camera, pre average speed cameras, at excess speed through road works. The circumstances included:
No one working on the road works,
The lane reduction being removed,
Some repeater signs also being removed.
Appeal successful.
I've discarded all my notes so cannot give you name and year, but it was fairly recent I believe. But in essence there was the suggestion that although the order still remained in force, if the need for it was removed then prosecutions should not be started.
...........................
Case if I recall was a temp speed restiction for works on a road leading into Luton. Works completed but signs left out and done for speeding. Driver invoked provision of Direction 36 Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 (Part 11) which vitrually states if works completed then signs no longer have any effect,
dvd
'I known someone' who got flashed coming onto the M40 into roadworks a little while after that stated case. Firstly, the signs were placed in a manner which did not conform to the recommendations.
I came along a slip road, looking to my right, as you do, and didn't notice the first sign (I went back to look). A van coming along flashed at me and, thinking that he was allowing me precedence, I accelerated into the gap in front of him, reaching about 65 max before slowing. I raised my arm to thank the bloke - I was in my Chimaera with the roof down - just as the camera, hidden behind a bridge support, flashed.
The signs suggested that there was a restriction to two lanes on the three lane motorway but, due to it being a busy weekend, it was opened up to three, full width lanes.
I was asked who was driving. I sent back a list of excuses/mitigation, including the poorly placed signs, both well short of the advisory gap, and the first in a position where most drivers would be looking elsewhere for safety reasons. There wasn't one on the offside of the slip. As a point of interest, when I returned to the scene of the crime, the two cars in front accelerated into the slip and the first car braked hard at the first sign, despite only going at most 10mph over the limit. It nearly caused an accident. I'd said to my passenger, after I'd been flashed, that the signs were poorly placed and that they could have caused an accident. I got the normal reaction one would expect from a wife of some 35 years standing. When the near accident occurred on my return I tried valiantly to hide my smugness. But failed.
I also mentioned this case and the fact that there were no road works at the time and the road was fully open. That said, the works would have been reinstated after the long weekend. I heard no more.
I accept I was speeding by the way and if they had given me an FP I would not have felt hard done by. I would have moaned though.
The signs were the big thing for me. I can appreciate the problems with a slip that went about 150 deg so why not put warning signs at the roundabout the slip fed from? Also, don't hide a speed camera. Evidence shows that where they are obvious in road works, that section has less accidents.
It is very easy at road works for the speed signs to be obscured by other vehicles. I to have found myself driving quicker that the posted limit because of this. I've also seen speed signs blown over in strong winds. I'm guessing if they don't conform to regulations at the moment in time you passed them, then they're not enforceable. If you can prove it of course. Dash Cam ?
Busted!Breadvan72 said:
Derek Smith said:
There is a stated case that might help.
Hey Derek, tell us what a "stated case" is. (I am teasing Derek because he keeps using that meaningless term.)
I think case stated is a reasonable shorthand for a decision by a third tier court. What would you suggest should be used? What brief term to convey a situation where a third tier court has come to a decision on a specific set of circumstances, and what the English/Welsh court's use of precedent means?
We had a file in my process unit that contained a number of decisions that, amongst others, CPS contributed to. The, originally, envelope it came in was headed case stateds and the same title was used for the email when, for ecological reasons, paper communication was frowned upon.
A reasonable shorthand.
Why not just use the language that everyone else uses, Derek? If you invent terms of your own, how does that assist in conveying meaning? Inventing you own lexicon means that people have to ask you what your made up terms mean. I gather that "stated case" may be one of those made up terms that cozzers like to use because they mistakenly think that it invests what they say with the appearance of formality and import, along the same lines as "I was proceeding in a westerly direction", and so on. A lawyer would just say "a case." We used sometimes to say "a reported case", but in these internetty times almost every blooming case is reported.
PS: yes, what is a third tier court? Got any other made up legal terms to puzzle us with?
PPS: I am just teasing you. Happy Easter.
PS: yes, what is a third tier court? Got any other made up legal terms to puzzle us with?
PPS: I am just teasing you. Happy Easter.
Breadvan72 said:
Why not just use the language that everyone else uses, Derek? If you invent terms of your own, how does that assist in conveying meaning? Inventing you own lexicon means that people have to ask you what your made up terms mean. I gather that "stated case" may be one of those made up terms that cozzers like to use because they mistakenly think that it invests what they say with the appearance of formality and import, along the same lines as "I was proceeding in a westerly direction", and so on. A lawyer would just say "a case." We used sometimes to say "a reported case", but in these internetty times almost every blooming case is reported.
PS: yes, what is a third tier court? Got any other made up legal terms to puzzle us with?
PPS: I am just teasing you. Happy Easter.
Perhaps he should write 2% if his posts in Latin, ut bene eruditi?PS: yes, what is a third tier court? Got any other made up legal terms to puzzle us with?
PPS: I am just teasing you. Happy Easter.
I am not sure that is what Derek meant (this is another reason why using standardised terminolgy is preferable to using terms that you have made up or learned when you were a teeny from some ancient Desk Sergeant who had no clue what he was taking about). No lawyer that I know (and for some reason I happen to know lots of lawyers) uses the term "stated case", or puts much store by cases that have no precedential effect. One term that you might use for such cases is "irrelevant". Try citing a case that has no precedential effect to a Court and you are likely to me met with some acerbic comment.
Derek may perhaps have meant "reported case" (that means a case that has been considered by some editor or other to be sufficiently important to be included in one of the various series of Law Reports). Perhaps Derek meant that the decision in question was made following what is known as an "appeal by case stated". That is a type of appeal from a Magistrates' Court to a part of the High Court known as the Divisional Court. The Mags are required to prepare a document for the Div Court. That is referred to as stating a case. The Div Court then gives its ruling on the case, but the term "stated case" isn't used to describe the decision.
This is, of course, a discussion about nothing at all, but I like teasing Derek when he comes out with old fashioned copper-speak.
Derek may perhaps have meant "reported case" (that means a case that has been considered by some editor or other to be sufficiently important to be included in one of the various series of Law Reports). Perhaps Derek meant that the decision in question was made following what is known as an "appeal by case stated". That is a type of appeal from a Magistrates' Court to a part of the High Court known as the Divisional Court. The Mags are required to prepare a document for the Div Court. That is referred to as stating a case. The Div Court then gives its ruling on the case, but the term "stated case" isn't used to describe the decision.
This is, of course, a discussion about nothing at all, but I like teasing Derek when he comes out with old fashioned copper-speak.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th April 09:54
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff