Discussion
Edt said:Nice stretch of safe road through the countryside...
Last night drove back via Henley.. mobile trap there through Shiplake esses.. nice little warning sign around the corner.
I've seen a boy racer almost come acropper there because he was following someone sticking to the ludicrous 30 limit and tried to overtake.
Also saw the aftermath of a motorcylce accident that wasn't helped by the 30 limit.
Oxon council swear blind its reducing accidents...
Edt said:
Last night drove back via Henley.. mobile trap there through Shiplake esses..
Where do they hide there, and was it a van, or plod+hairdryer ?
It's rare that I've ever gone through that piece of road at 30mph, as the limit just seems completely ridiculous (for the edification of the TVSRP, this is because I always drive at 29, you see).
outnumbered said:
Where do they hide there, and was it a van, or plod+hairdryer ?
Heading towards Henley.. past Shiplake College.. down the slope.. then the esses before the garden centre etc. Little camera sign was on LHS at start of s bend.. only gave say 50 yds warning (but better than zero effing warning!!!) van parked LHS as road straightened.
Ed
I believe the location on the NIP has to be fairly accurate. Seem to remember a case that went to court and the NIP was either thrown out because it was too vague, or disregarded and a new one issued which would then be over the 14 day time limit for serving and could be safely ignored.
I did similar with Blunderside police. They got the location wrong. About 1/5 mile wrong. They were also not visible as it was an unmarked van.
Suspended the file until they investigated.
Got a letter back, complete with new NIP with new location on. The letter basically said 'we understand you concerns about the NIP being wrong but we're doing you anyway'
Solicitor said let it go. The location can be classed as a 'slip error' and the unmarked van means diddly squat. It does go against the rules governing being part of a SCP, but they don't give a t**s.
I did however, get my £60 s worth out of the b*****ds.
Snow them under with correspondence, and make sure it's all registered post.
You'll feel much better, but I doubt you'll get off.
Suspended the file until they investigated.
Got a letter back, complete with new NIP with new location on. The letter basically said 'we understand you concerns about the NIP being wrong but we're doing you anyway'
Solicitor said let it go. The location can be classed as a 'slip error' and the unmarked van means diddly squat. It does go against the rules governing being part of a SCP, but they don't give a t**s.
I did however, get my £60 s worth out of the b*****ds.
Snow them under with correspondence, and make sure it's all registered post.
You'll feel much better, but I doubt you'll get off.
outnumbered said:Or reading it another way - it allows them to make administrative cockups and still recover the money via hypothecization (sp?)
They don't have to publicise 15% of the mobile sites they use (or is it 15% of the total enforcement time?), in order to allow them to make more money.
jasandjules said:
...Strangely, the one behind a tree is about 50 yards from a 30mph limit sign, also wonderfully hidden by trees.. No idea why the council haven't pruned those.......
Of course if the sign is obscured by foliage, then the limit may not stand if not properly signed (although if it is a restricted road, then legally they do not need to display the limit at all!)
Nice to have *you* asking *me* Q's, DVD ... 
As I understand it from the ACT*, there is only a statutory defence for poor signing for roads without a system of street lighting.
Whilst TSRGD mandates (I believe, and I don't have time this am to look up) 30 signs at the start of restricted roads, the ACT does not provide a defence in law for speeding on them if TSRGD is ignored. Unlike all other roads, where failure of the SOS (Trunk), LA (nonTrunk) to erect and maintain is a defence. Maintenance, including removal of obscuring foliage is mentioned in TSRGD - recommending as often as fortnightly in growing season.
If there is a statutory defence for the restricted roads, I may have missed it (and in which case there are a *lot* of unsafe prosecutions in Bourne End where I had to physically move a bush** to satisfy my curiousity as to whether there was a 30 sign at the end of a pole I spotted**)
*ok ok, I looked it up finally. RTRA 1984.
** Fnar.
As I understand it from the ACT*, there is only a statutory defence for poor signing for roads without a system of street lighting.
Whilst TSRGD mandates (I believe, and I don't have time this am to look up) 30 signs at the start of restricted roads, the ACT does not provide a defence in law for speeding on them if TSRGD is ignored. Unlike all other roads, where failure of the SOS (Trunk), LA (nonTrunk) to erect and maintain is a defence. Maintenance, including removal of obscuring foliage is mentioned in TSRGD - recommending as often as fortnightly in growing season.
If there is a statutory defence for the restricted roads, I may have missed it (and in which case there are a *lot* of unsafe prosecutions in Bourne End where I had to physically move a bush** to satisfy my curiousity as to whether there was a 30 sign at the end of a pole I spotted**)
*ok ok, I looked it up finally. RTRA 1984.
** Fnar.
Oh
a mere 4 months later a letter has arrived from Thames Valley Police..
"...signs will be placed in areas where it is deemed safe to do so, although health & safety issues mean that this is not always possible, and the absence of such signg does not negate any offences detected..."
oh well worth a try.
a mere 4 months later a letter has arrived from Thames Valley Police..
"...signs will be placed in areas where it is deemed safe to do so, although health & safety issues mean that this is not always possible, and the absence of such signg does not negate any offences detected..."
oh well worth a try.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff