RE: He fought the law and won
Tuesday 30th May 2006
Yellow background illegal?A retired computer engineer took on the authorities whom he argued had created a road packed with baffling and distracting speed limit signs -- and won.
He fought the law and won
Alleged speeder forces police climbdown
Yellow background illegal?
Trevor Faulkner was stopped by laser gun-equipped police for speeding on the A58 Wetherby Road. He was travelling at 43mph in a stretch he was convinced should be a 50mph -- although West Yorks Police argued that it was a 30mph zone.
He pleaded not guilty and argued that the three-mile stretch of highway near Scarcroft confused road users as to what the speed limit is, and was scattered with unsafe, distracting information. Additionally, he argued, using the pictures in the Highway Code as a basis, that some of the signs used were illegal because they had a yellow background.
Buttressing his case with photos taken along the offending stretch of highway, his case was won when he appeared in front of magistrates and the police failed to provide evidence in support of its case.
What incensed him was that he saw one of the police officers grinning when he passed their car. He told the Yorkshire Evening Post: "I assume that they regarded the exercise as a game or as a joke, rather than as evidence of a serious offence. One of the officers said that they never catch local drivers, who are aware of the speed trap. This behaviour appears to me to come close to entrapment."
The police said that the speed limit sign didn't meet legal requirements, which was why the force failed to take further action. Faulkner is now asking for an apology from Chief Constable Colin Cramphorn.
There's a lesson for us all: do your research.
Discussion
If the signs weren't legal, shouldn't they rescind every other penalty issued? Especially as it's obviously a regular site!
It's unclear from the story whether or not the guy actually put his case to the magistrates. When the CPS offered "no evidence" in my case, the case was simply dropped and the magistrates didn't get to hear my defence. Judging from the fact that the quote was made to the local newspaper, it sounds like the same happened here. I gather the CPS do this so it doesn't create a precedent, or lead them to having charges awarded against them. Does anyone with more knowledge know differently?
It's unclear from the story whether or not the guy actually put his case to the magistrates. When the CPS offered "no evidence" in my case, the case was simply dropped and the magistrates didn't get to hear my defence. Judging from the fact that the quote was made to the local newspaper, it sounds like the same happened here. I gather the CPS do this so it doesn't create a precedent, or lead them to having charges awarded against them. Does anyone with more knowledge know differently?
There are a few places around my local town of Taunton where I suddenly have to ask myself - 'What the hell is the speed limit?'.
Problem is they put in a new bridge to replace a railway crossing. This road was 40mph and it is more than safe to do this speed.
After using it 5 times I put a PostIt note on my dash reminding me to check for speed limit signs. Turns out there are a set of 30 signs but they are so close to the exit of a roundabout you don't have the chance to see them (shoulder/mirror checks etc).
Also speed limits (50 & 40) are now used to 'buffer' traffic from NSL down to 30mph sometimes in less than 200 metres. What's the point?
Problem is they put in a new bridge to replace a railway crossing. This road was 40mph and it is more than safe to do this speed.
After using it 5 times I put a PostIt note on my dash reminding me to check for speed limit signs. Turns out there are a set of 30 signs but they are so close to the exit of a roundabout you don't have the chance to see them (shoulder/mirror checks etc).
Also speed limits (50 & 40) are now used to 'buffer' traffic from NSL down to 30mph sometimes in less than 200 metres. What's the point?
"What incensed him was that he saw one of the police officers grinning when he passed their car. He told the Yorkshire Evening Post: "I assume that they regarded the exercise as a game or as a joke, rather than as evidence of a serious offence"
That can't be true, Vonhosen says hardly any police are involved in entrapment, er I mean speeding offences
That can't be true, Vonhosen says hardly any police are involved in entrapment, er I mean speeding offences
ollyollyolly said:
On this subject did anyone watch Fifth Gear this week? I missed it but they had that "solicitor to the stars" guy that gets them off on technicalities. Can anyone provide a summary for all of us?!
I only caught the end of it, but it is definately worth keeping his number in your wallet. Basically he knows the law inside out and uses it to his advantage when the BIB might not see the loop holes. One thing he did was ask a policeman in court if he was chewing gum to which the officer replied "NO", but he was. The officer then said it was for medicenal purposes but it was Airwaves and not prescription, basically shot him down in flames and being an un-creditable witness, hence anything else he said the jury were not interest. The guy who was up in court got off.
DamienCBR said:
On this subject did anyone watch Fifth Gear this week? I missed it but they had that "solicitor to the stars" guy that gets them off on technicalities. Can anyone provide a summary for all of us?!
I only caught the end of it, but it is definately worth keeping his number in your wallet. Basically he knows the law inside out and uses it to his advantage when the BIB might not see the loop holes. One thing he did was ask a policeman in court if he was chewing gum to which the officer replied "NO", but he was. The officer then said it was for medicenal purposes but it was Airwaves and not prescription, basically shot him down in flames and being an un-creditable witness, hence anything else he said the jury were not interest. The guy who was up in court got off.
Hmm, not only keep his number but you'll also need the £4k per day that he charges!
Smartie said:
On this subject did anyone watch Fifth Gear this week? I missed it but they had that "solicitor to the stars" guy that gets them off on technicalities. Can anyone provide a summary for all of us?!
I only caught the end of it, but it is definately worth keeping his number in your wallet. Basically he knows the law inside out and uses it to his advantage when the BIB might not see the loop holes. One thing he did was ask a policeman in court if he was chewing gum to which the officer replied "NO", but he was. The officer then said it was for medicenal purposes but it was Airwaves and not prescription, basically shot him down in flames and being an un-creditable witness, hence anything else he said the jury were not interest. The guy who was up in court got off.
Hmm, not only keep his number but you'll also need the £4k per day that he charges!
mmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhhhhhhh six months inside or £4k down the tube , i know which one i would rather have. Obviously dependant on offence, just an exmaple.
>> Edited by DamienCBR on Tuesday 30th May 13:12
ollyollyolly said:
On this subject did anyone watch Fifth Gear this week? I missed it but they had that "solicitor to the stars" guy that gets them off on technicalities. Can anyone provide a summary for all of us?!
The guy is called Nick Freeman if it's the same guy I am thinking of... very good but very expensive defense solicitor.
DamienCBR said:
On this subject did anyone watch Fifth Gear this week? I missed it but they had that "solicitor to the stars" guy that gets them off on technicalities. Can anyone provide a summary for all of us?!
I only caught the end of it, but it is definately worth keeping his number in your wallet. Basically he knows the law inside out and uses it to his advantage when the BIB might not see the loop holes. One thing he did was ask a policeman in court if he was chewing gum to which the officer replied "NO", but he was. The officer then said it was for medicenal purposes but it was Airwaves and not prescription, basically shot him down in flames and being an un-creditable witness, hence anything else he said the jury were not interest. The guy who was up in court got off.
Hmm, not only keep his number but you'll also need the £4k per day that he charges!
mmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhhhhhhh six months inside or £4k down the tube , i know which one i would rather have. Obviously dependant on offence, just an exmaple.
Mote like £4000 an hour, innit....?
apache said:
"What incensed him was that he saw one of the police officers grinning when he passed their car. He told the Yorkshire Evening Post: "I assume that they regarded the exercise as a game or as a joke, rather than as evidence of a serious offence"
That can't be true, Vonhosen says hardly any police are involved in entrapment, er I mean speeding offences
Vonhosen is correct. However, it would appear that there are very few Police involved in anything, as manpower goes for diversity squads.
Am I missing something but Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 Reg 41/42 state:
(5) The front of any backing board for a sign mounted otherwise than as described in paragraph (1)(a) (Nothing to do with speed limit signs) shall be coloured either grey or yellow.
(6) A yellow backing board for a sign (except one for the sign shown in diagram 2402.1) shall be rectangular in shape.
Circular Roads 02/2003 confirms and also states that backing boards are not permitted to have a border.
Is that a border on the sign shown?
dvd
(5) The front of any backing board for a sign mounted otherwise than as described in paragraph (1)(a) (Nothing to do with speed limit signs) shall be coloured either grey or yellow.
(6) A yellow backing board for a sign (except one for the sign shown in diagram 2402.1) shall be rectangular in shape.
Circular Roads 02/2003 confirms and also states that backing boards are not permitted to have a border.
Is that a border on the sign shown?
dvd
hallmark said:
If the signs weren't legal, shouldn't they rescind every other penalty issued? Especially as it's obviously a regular site!
It's unclear from the story whether or not the guy actually put his case to the magistrates. When the CPS offered "no evidence" in my case, the case was simply dropped and the magistrates didn't get to hear my defence. Judging from the fact that the quote was made to the local newspaper, it sounds like the same happened here. I gather the CPS do this so it doesn't create a precedent, or lead them to having charges awarded against them. Does anyone with more knowledge know differently?
You will have noticed that the case wasn't dropped before it went to court only once it got to court did the cps pull out,obviously hoping that the driver would bottle it
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff