Getting a speeding ticket overturned due to error
Discussion
Anyone know the legal status if you get a ticket these date back to 2015.
Avon and Somerset police proscuted many people until last year a motorist and their legal team noticed the Traffic Regulaution order reducing the speed from 40 to 30 has the wrong road name on it.
The police have dropped any current cases but are refusing to overturn and past cases?
Do the police not have a duty of care to check a limit change?
Avon and Somerset police proscuted many people until last year a motorist and their legal team noticed the Traffic Regulaution order reducing the speed from 40 to 30 has the wrong road name on it.
The police have dropped any current cases but are refusing to overturn and past cases?
Do the police not have a duty of care to check a limit change?
I'm normally on the side of common sense.
i.e. if you ask 10 people what the speed limit is on a road, and they all read the sign that says 50 and say 50, then the speed limit is 50, not whatever it was before because the documentation to change it was wrong.
Many years ago, i remember a case where a lorry driver knocked someone over on a Zebra crossing and was successful in his arguement that it was NOT a Zebra crossing because the ZIG-ZAG lines went ZAG-ZIG and were not as per the specification, so technically there was nothing there. Ever since then I have gone with the common sense rule.
P.S. I know I am wrong from a legal perspective, but if I was in charge...
i.e. if you ask 10 people what the speed limit is on a road, and they all read the sign that says 50 and say 50, then the speed limit is 50, not whatever it was before because the documentation to change it was wrong.
Many years ago, i remember a case where a lorry driver knocked someone over on a Zebra crossing and was successful in his arguement that it was NOT a Zebra crossing because the ZIG-ZAG lines went ZAG-ZIG and were not as per the specification, so technically there was nothing there. Ever since then I have gone with the common sense rule.
P.S. I know I am wrong from a legal perspective, but if I was in charge...
surveyor_101 said:
Anyone know the legal status if you get a ticket these date back to 2015.
Avon and Somerset police proscuted many people until last year a motorist and their legal team noticed the Traffic Regulaution order reducing the speed from 40 to 30 has the wrong road name on it.
The police have dropped any current cases but are refusing to overturn and past cases?
Do the police not have a duty of care to check a limit change?
SLO checked, road name makes no difference, all is well.Avon and Somerset police proscuted many people until last year a motorist and their legal team noticed the Traffic Regulaution order reducing the speed from 40 to 30 has the wrong road name on it.
The police have dropped any current cases but are refusing to overturn and past cases?
Do the police not have a duty of care to check a limit change?
Why are you panicking?
No the police don’t have a duty of care to check the order, they rely on the council setting it. They do check the signs though.
http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/161945...
It's a lottery, depending on which constbulary area the error occurs in..
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/9260771.motorists...
A&S should follow their example.
It comes as no surprise that their refusal (so far) to do so is based on the word of someone from RSS.
It needs a specialist motoring lawyer (or two) to get their teeth into this.
The PCC should be asking some pointed questions as well.
LAs frequently make mistakes with TROs and it only comes to light when someone does their homework.
Meanwhile hundreds, sometimes thousands, who didn't pay the price.
It's a lottery, depending on which constbulary area the error occurs in..
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/9260771.motorists...
A&S should follow their example.
It comes as no surprise that their refusal (so far) to do so is based on the word of someone from RSS.
It needs a specialist motoring lawyer (or two) to get their teeth into this.
The PCC should be asking some pointed questions as well.
LAs frequently make mistakes with TROs and it only comes to light when someone does their homework.
Meanwhile hundreds, sometimes thousands, who didn't pay the price.
surveyor_101 said:
Am I correct in assuming that anyone how paid and took the fine and point or course, they have admitted guilt and that's that.
Locally there is a bit of debate on whether they should overturn all the issued tickets.
I never got one by the way.
Someone saw that one road had been given a name on the SLO and on the map there was no name so called foul.Locally there is a bit of debate on whether they should overturn all the issued tickets.
I never got one by the way.
The locals know the road by 3 different names, they don't refer to it as "the road with no name" strangely enough.
You can use the SLO (speed limit order) to plot the speed limit from its description and from the map in the SLO. There are no issues about where the limit was intended to go and the speed limit signs are exactly where they were intended.
So in summary the "road with no name" that has 3 local names, one of which is not "the road with no name", is clearly defined in space and within the speed limit order so the speed limit is lawful and has been since its inception.
The police must have taken precautions by stopping enforcement when it was called into question, that is exactly right. They don't have to refund anything as they don't receive the funds and in any case the limit is lawful it woudld seem. Suspension of enforcement is a reasonable precaution NOT an indication that the limit is indeed faulty.
So while there is "local debate" those debating should get someone in the debate who understands the issue. Try the county council and parish council rather than Mr or Mrs Chancer who are pissed-off about their speeding fine.
Edited by ghe13rte on Tuesday 1st May 22:51
BertBert said:
How can an admission of guilt stand if someone didn't break a law even if they think they did?
They accepted a FP as an alterenative to prosecution, job over and done with.Now, if they have gone to court with a NG plea and been found guilty it might be a different story.
Maybe AGT can throw some light.
overunder12g said:
Looking at your posting history, seems as if you should employ a personal lawyer.
Maybe time for a career switch?
Glad I'm not the only to have noted that the OP seems to have problems with just about everything in life!Maybe time for a career switch?
I come from a pretty large family, and I'd have to say that we seem to get through life with 1/1000th of the aggravation that the OP and his family seem to!
ghe13rte said:
The difference between the Dorset case and the Somerset case is that in Dorset the error was significant to the definition of the limit, in Somerset it is not.
In what way, specifically?ghe13rte said:
Someone saw that one road had been given a name on the SLO and on the map there was no name so called foul.
The locals know the road by 3 different names, they don't refer to it as "the road with no name" strangely enough.
If there are any dwelllings/businesses which front on it there may be a road name in the RM database.The locals know the road by 3 different names, they don't refer to it as "the road with no name" strangely enough.
The locals can call it whatever they want but that doesn't make it official.
Either it has a name on a definitive map (in which case that will be RM's source) or it doesn't.
ghe13rte said:
You can use the SLO (speed limit order) to plot the speed limit from its description and from the map in the SLO. There are no issues about where the limit was intended to go and the speed limit signs are exactly where they were intended.
So in summary the "road with no name" that has 3 local names, one of which is not "the road with no name", is clearly defined in space and within the speed limit order so the speed limit is lawful and has been since its inception.
The police must have taken precautions by stopping enforcement when it was called into question, that is exactly right. They don't have to refund anything as they don't receive the funds and in any case the limit is lawful it woudld seem. Suspension of enforcement is a reasonable precaution NOT an indication that the limit is indeed faulty.
So while there is "local debate" those debating should get someone in the debate who understands the issue. Try the county council and parish council rather than Mr or Mrs Chancer who are pissed-off about their speeding fine.
So are you saying that that in the Chideock case it was more than the road name they got wrong? It certainly sounds like it.So in summary the "road with no name" that has 3 local names, one of which is not "the road with no name", is clearly defined in space and within the speed limit order so the speed limit is lawful and has been since its inception.
The police must have taken precautions by stopping enforcement when it was called into question, that is exactly right. They don't have to refund anything as they don't receive the funds and in any case the limit is lawful it woudld seem. Suspension of enforcement is a reasonable precaution NOT an indication that the limit is indeed faulty.
So while there is "local debate" those debating should get someone in the debate who understands the issue. Try the county council and parish council rather than Mr or Mrs Chancer who are pissed-off about their speeding fine.
You wouldn't by any chance have a prior association with RSS would you? If so, you'll have to forgive me if I take your comments with a tub of Saxa.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff