Flashed by speed camera, pleaded not guilty and WON
Discussion
Nice one OP!
You should go to Daily Wail, and/or Daily Express! Failing that I'm sure a local newspaper in Hemel would run a story - after all it seems totally wrong that many have probably taken speed awareness courses or had points when the signage, etc. was non-compliant in the first place!
You should go to Daily Wail, and/or Daily Express! Failing that I'm sure a local newspaper in Hemel would run a story - after all it seems totally wrong that many have probably taken speed awareness courses or had points when the signage, etc. was non-compliant in the first place!
Slight update. I emailed Herts Safety Camera people under FOI asking how many have been caught by this camera in the last few years, and to include whether the offences were during the day or at night.
Surprise suprise, they duly responded!
3,037 in total since 1st July 2012. (Latest I know signs were not correct)
Of which 1,831 caught at night.
So bit surprised it was not more, but that's at least £180,000 in fines just for the night time offences from one camera!
I've emailed a couple of broadsheets and a tabloid but no biting yet.
Surprise suprise, they duly responded!
3,037 in total since 1st July 2012. (Latest I know signs were not correct)
Of which 1,831 caught at night.
So bit surprised it was not more, but that's at least £180,000 in fines just for the night time offences from one camera!
I've emailed a couple of broadsheets and a tabloid but no biting yet.
Danielson73 said:
Slight update. I emailed Herts Safety Camera people under FOI asking how many have been caught by this camera in the last few years, and to include whether the offences were during the day or at night.
Surprise suprise, they duly responded!
3,037 in total since 1st July 2012. (Latest I know signs were not correct)
Of which 1,831 caught at night.
So bit surprised it was not more, but that's at least £180,000 in fines just for the night time offences from one camera!
I've emailed a couple of broadsheets and a tabloid but no biting yet.
Have they offered refunds?Surprise suprise, they duly responded!
3,037 in total since 1st July 2012. (Latest I know signs were not correct)
Of which 1,831 caught at night.
So bit surprised it was not more, but that's at least £180,000 in fines just for the night time offences from one camera!
I've emailed a couple of broadsheets and a tabloid but no biting yet.
Boosted LS1 said:
Danielson73 said:
Slight update. I emailed Herts Safety Camera people under FOI asking how many have been caught by this camera in the last few years, and to include whether the offences were during the day or at night.
Surprise suprise, they duly responded!
3,037 in total since 1st July 2012. (Latest I know signs were not correct)
Of which 1,831 caught at night.
So bit surprised it was not more, but that's at least £180,000 in fines just for the night time offences from one camera!
I've emailed a couple of broadsheets and a tabloid but no biting yet.
Have they offered refunds?Surprise suprise, they duly responded!
3,037 in total since 1st July 2012. (Latest I know signs were not correct)
Of which 1,831 caught at night.
So bit surprised it was not more, but that's at least £180,000 in fines just for the night time offences from one camera!
I've emailed a couple of broadsheets and a tabloid but no biting yet.
Boosted LS1 said:
Danielson73 said:
Slight update. I emailed Herts Safety Camera people under FOI asking how many have been caught by this camera in the last few years, and to include whether the offences were during the day or at night.
Surprise suprise, they duly responded!
3,037 in total since 1st July 2012. (Latest I know signs were not correct)
Of which 1,831 caught at night.
So bit surprised it was not more, but that's at least £180,000 in fines just for the night time offences from one camera!
I've emailed a couple of broadsheets and a tabloid but no biting yet.
Have they offered refunds?Surprise suprise, they duly responded!
3,037 in total since 1st July 2012. (Latest I know signs were not correct)
Of which 1,831 caught at night.
So bit surprised it was not more, but that's at least £180,000 in fines just for the night time offences from one camera!
I've emailed a couple of broadsheets and a tabloid but no biting yet.
telecat said:
Trabi601 said:
Depending on where it was on Maylands Avenue, I'd have thought the presence of street lighting would be enough to indicate a 30mph limit.
Unless I'm mistaken the photo evidence from the prosecution showed the road to be pitch black. If the lights don't work does the limit apply?If the CPS had bothered to turn up, properly prepared, I strongly suspect they'd have won.
On a similar note we had a situation where a large number of drivers (including me) were caught exceeding a 30mph speed limit up a quite steep hill. The local paper ran a story on it and under a FOI request found out the number of people caught. Local pressure got the speed limit increased to 40mph with no other road alternations. This is the only time I know of a speed limit increase, all the others near me have gone from NSL to 50.
The road I'm referring to is the south bound carriage of A404 at the bottom of Marlow Hill in High Wycombe.
The road I'm referring to is the south bound carriage of A404 at the bottom of Marlow Hill in High Wycombe.
TooMany2cvs said:
telecat said:
Trabi601 said:
Depending on where it was on Maylands Avenue, I'd have thought the presence of street lighting would be enough to indicate a 30mph limit.
Unless I'm mistaken the photo evidence from the prosecution showed the road to be pitch black. If the lights don't work does the limit apply?If the CPS had bothered to turn up, properly prepared, I strongly suspect they'd have won.
CaptainSlow said:
On a similar note we had a situation where a large number of drivers (including me) were caught exceeding a 30mph speed limit up a quite steep hill. The local paper ran a story on it and under a FOI request found out the number of people caught. Local pressure got the speed limit increased to 40mph with no other road alternations. This is the only time I know of a speed limit increase, all the others near me have gone from NSL to 50.
The road I'm referring to is the south bound carriage of A404 at the bottom of Marlow Hill in High Wycombe.
Wow, that was over 9 years ago! - http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/1181905.Marlo...The road I'm referring to is the south bound carriage of A404 at the bottom of Marlow Hill in High Wycombe.
Red Devil said:
Wow, that was over 9 years ago! - http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/1181905.Marlo...
Time flies, I got my ticket in May 2004. Not that I hold a grudge.CaptainSlow said:
On a similar note we had a situation where a large number of drivers (including me) were caught exceeding a 30mph speed limit up a quite steep hill. The local paper ran a story on it and under a FOI request found out the number of people caught. Local pressure got the speed limit increased to 40mph with no other road alternations. This is the only time I know of a speed limit increase, all the others near me have gone from NSL to 50.
The road I'm referring to is the south bound carriage of A404 at the bottom of Marlow Hill in High Wycombe.
The A259 between Peacehaven and Newhaven used to be 30mph all the way, everyone and I mean everyone including police, bus drivers, Honda Jazz drivers would sit at 40. They put a few of those speed measuring strips in for a while and then upped the speed limit to fit with what people were all doing perfectly safely. The road I'm referring to is the south bound carriage of A404 at the bottom of Marlow Hill in High Wycombe.
Round here in hants they resurfaced a terrible NSL so it was actually safe to do 60 and then lowered the limit to 50, baffling.
Since my court appearance in July, the 30mph sign has miraculously been fixed! (I reported it last November).
I suppose the whole point of me going to court was to demonstrate that highway authorities are not maintaining signs properly and the Police are clueless in the matter.
Due to the technicalities of the sign regulations, in particular what the regs say with regards to principal roads, there was a clear breach. If this was a quiet residential street, then fair enough I would not have contested it. As it happens, the A4147 is a shambles through Hemel as far as speed limit signing goes, with other terminal signs for 40mph and 50mph not conforming, and speed cameras close by. So, there were a whole host of other problems with the signing in general which I would have presented had I felt the need. I could have gone to town on the highway authority on this road; sight lines, visibility, sign condition....
My barrister mentioned in his deliberations with the prosecution that it can never have been the intention for street lights to be an indicator of a speed limit in the regs.
This whole argument is too technical for most, and on the balance of probability the element of doubt was far too heavily in my favour given the facts on the road in question. I'm not sure what the CPS could have said to counter it, evidently they agreed.
I suppose the whole point of me going to court was to demonstrate that highway authorities are not maintaining signs properly and the Police are clueless in the matter.
Due to the technicalities of the sign regulations, in particular what the regs say with regards to principal roads, there was a clear breach. If this was a quiet residential street, then fair enough I would not have contested it. As it happens, the A4147 is a shambles through Hemel as far as speed limit signing goes, with other terminal signs for 40mph and 50mph not conforming, and speed cameras close by. So, there were a whole host of other problems with the signing in general which I would have presented had I felt the need. I could have gone to town on the highway authority on this road; sight lines, visibility, sign condition....
My barrister mentioned in his deliberations with the prosecution that it can never have been the intention for street lights to be an indicator of a speed limit in the regs.
This whole argument is too technical for most, and on the balance of probability the element of doubt was far too heavily in my favour given the facts on the road in question. I'm not sure what the CPS could have said to counter it, evidently they agreed.
Danielson73 said:
Since my court appearance in July, the 30mph sign has miraculously been fixed! (I reported it last November).
I suppose the whole point of me going to court was to demonstrate that highway authorities are not maintaining signs properly and the Police are clueless in the matter.
Due to the technicalities of the sign regulations, in particular what the regs say with regards to principal roads, there was a clear breach. If this was a quiet residential street, then fair enough I would not have contested it. As it happens, the A4147 is a shambles through Hemel as far as speed limit signing goes, with other terminal signs for 40mph and 50mph not conforming, and speed cameras close by. So, there were a whole host of other problems with the signing in general which I would have presented had I felt the need. I could have gone to town on the highway authority on this road; sight lines, visibility, sign condition....
My barrister mentioned in his deliberations with the prosecution that it can never have been the intention for street lights to be an indicator of a speed limit in the regs.
This whole argument is too technical for most, and on the balance of probability the element of doubt was far too heavily in my favour given the facts on the road in question. I'm not sure what the CPS could have said to counter it, evidently they agreed.
Are you sure he was a barrister?I suppose the whole point of me going to court was to demonstrate that highway authorities are not maintaining signs properly and the Police are clueless in the matter.
Due to the technicalities of the sign regulations, in particular what the regs say with regards to principal roads, there was a clear breach. If this was a quiet residential street, then fair enough I would not have contested it. As it happens, the A4147 is a shambles through Hemel as far as speed limit signing goes, with other terminal signs for 40mph and 50mph not conforming, and speed cameras close by. So, there were a whole host of other problems with the signing in general which I would have presented had I felt the need. I could have gone to town on the highway authority on this road; sight lines, visibility, sign condition....
My barrister mentioned in his deliberations with the prosecution that it can never have been the intention for street lights to be an indicator of a speed limit in the regs.
This whole argument is too technical for most, and on the balance of probability the element of doubt was far too heavily in my favour given the facts on the road in question. I'm not sure what the CPS could have said to counter it, evidently they agreed.
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
81 restricted roads.
(1)It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.
(2)The Ministers acting jointly may by order made by statutory instrument and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament increase or reduce the rate of speed fixed by subsection (1) above, either as originally enacted or as varied under this subsection.
82 What roads are restricted roads.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 84(3) of this Act, a road is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of this Act
(a)in England and Wales, there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart;
(b)in Scotland, there is provided on it a system of carriageway lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 185 metres apart and the road is of a classification or type specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State
It would seem the words in the Act make the intention very clear and unambiguous.
You never got to trial, the court made no decision.
tapereel said:
Are you sure he was a barrister?
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
81 restricted roads.
(1)It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.
(2)The Ministers acting jointly may by order made by statutory instrument and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament increase or reduce the rate of speed fixed by subsection (1) above, either as originally enacted or as varied under this subsection.
82 What roads are restricted roads.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 84(3) of this Act, a road is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of this Act
(a)in England and Wales, there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart;
(b)in Scotland, there is provided on it a system of carriageway lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 185 metres apart and the road is of a classification or type specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State
It would seem the words in the Act make the intention very clear and unambiguous.
You never got to trial, the court made no decision.
I think there are two separate issues.Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
81 restricted roads.
(1)It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.
(2)The Ministers acting jointly may by order made by statutory instrument and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament increase or reduce the rate of speed fixed by subsection (1) above, either as originally enacted or as varied under this subsection.
82 What roads are restricted roads.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 84(3) of this Act, a road is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of this Act
(a)in England and Wales, there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart;
(b)in Scotland, there is provided on it a system of carriageway lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 185 metres apart and the road is of a classification or type specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State
It would seem the words in the Act make the intention very clear and unambiguous.
You never got to trial, the court made no decision.
1) Whether or not there is a 30 limit on the stretch of road in question, which as you say is unambiguous.
2) How the limit needs to be indicated in order to be enforceable.
What seems to have happened here is that there was a 30 limit, but the signs weren't to spec so it wasn't enforceable. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if the OP had been doing 80MPH. If he had been done for exceeding NSL then there wasn't a 30 limit there. If the 30 limit was there but unenforceable there is an argument that he couldn't be done for speeding irrespective of his speed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff