RE: Speeding conviction overturned
Monday 23rd May 2005
The offending Truvelo, AnwickDrivers in Lincolnshire caught by a speed camera could be on the road towards having their fines refunded. It follows the successful appeal by motorist Phil Walker who won a speeding conviction case last week at Spalding Magistrates Court.
Speeding conviction overturned
Authorities could lose thousands to drivers' appeals
The offending Truvelo, Anwick
He was flashed by the camera in Anwick and accused of travelling at 40mph in a 30mph limit. He disputed the charged and claims not to have been travelling that fast.
Walker successfully argued that the camera in question, on the A153, was dangerous and not functioning correctly because it flashed in his face, temporarily blinding him. More importantly, it was also sited in a de facto national speed limit because of incorrect signage. He proved that Lincolnshire Council had not signed the road correctly, because streetlights the police argued were indicative of a 30mph limit were in fact only there to illuminate the footpath, a fact corroborated by the town council. There are also no 30mph limit signs.
Those caught by the camera in question could well have grounds for appealing against their speeding convictions as a result, potentially costing Lincolnshire Council and the local speed camera partnership thousands in lost fines.
Discussion
Will we see the Scameraship holding their hands up and contacting all people ticketed by this illegal camera to hand back their £60 and take the three points off their license? Or how about compensation for increased insurance costs or loss of livelyhood?
Or will we just see them, yet again, admit that they illegally prosecuted people but not do anything about rectifying the situation?
Or will we just see them, yet again, admit that they illegally prosecuted people but not do anything about rectifying the situation?
I live very close to this camera and also pass it on a regular cycle route that I use.
I have always thought of the road as a 30 limit because its in a village. The actual piece of road it is on is right next to the turn off for a big poultry processing factory, and the road is a bit of a mess. I thought they would spend some money repairing the road!!!
What is odd about this camera is the place it is sited. If you approach the village of anwick from the way the photo is facing you drive through a notorious accident black spot, followed by some blind bend corners. I thought that if a camera was going to be sited it would have been put up nearer the blackspot (called Speedway corner incidentally, it used to be a junction on a fast swooping bend but is now a small roundabout that apparently had a crash on it a few weeks ago).
Odd logic, but then again it is currently placed not far after the 30mph sign kicks in.
One thing about this story though, how come I have thought that this is a 30mph zone for ages and always done 30mph? Also, I get passed by cars when cycling past the camera and they only ever seem to be doing around 30mph. The speed limit is signposted as you go in, so its an odd one!!
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 23 May 12:34
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 23 May 12:35
I have always thought of the road as a 30 limit because its in a village. The actual piece of road it is on is right next to the turn off for a big poultry processing factory, and the road is a bit of a mess. I thought they would spend some money repairing the road!!!
What is odd about this camera is the place it is sited. If you approach the village of anwick from the way the photo is facing you drive through a notorious accident black spot, followed by some blind bend corners. I thought that if a camera was going to be sited it would have been put up nearer the blackspot (called Speedway corner incidentally, it used to be a junction on a fast swooping bend but is now a small roundabout that apparently had a crash on it a few weeks ago).
Odd logic, but then again it is currently placed not far after the 30mph sign kicks in.
One thing about this story though, how come I have thought that this is a 30mph zone for ages and always done 30mph? Also, I get passed by cars when cycling past the camera and they only ever seem to be doing around 30mph. The speed limit is signposted as you go in, so its an odd one!!
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 23 May 12:34
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 23 May 12:35
Funkyrobot,
See: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=180855&f=10&h=0 (4th post in thread).
See: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=180855&f=10&h=0 (4th post in thread).
jeffreyarcher said:
Funkyrobot,
See: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=180855&f=10&h=0 (4th post in thread).
Interesting one, isn't it.
Not up to date on my signage laws so this is an interesting one.
So does this mean that a 30mph limit in a village can only be enforced as a 30 if it has certain street lights? Regardless of the fact that it is a village after all? Can you clear this up for me Jeffrey?
Anwick is a small village that gets a lot of heavy traffic through it. It has some nice corners in the middle of it. Is this not enough to warrant a 30mph zone?? I thought that good drivers would only do about 30 through it due to the nature of the road.
funkyrobot said:
I live very close to this camera and also pass it on a regular cycle route that I use.
I have always thought of the road as a 30 limit because its in a village. The actual piece of road it is on is right next to the turn off for a big poultry processing factory, and the road is a bit of a mess. I thought they would spend some money repairing the road!!!
What is odd about this camera is the place it is sited. If you approach the village of anwick from the way the photo is facing you drive through a notorious accident black spot, followed by some blind bend corners. I thought that if a camera was going to be sited it would have been put up nearer the blackspot (called Speedway corner incidentally, it used to be a junction on a fast swooping bend but is now a small roundabout that apparently had a crash on it a few weeks ago).
Odd logic, but then again it is currently placed not far after the 30mph sign kicks in.
Ach Liebchen - you have in nuttiest shell here..
You can almost hear the conversation in the scam JHQ.
A:"There ist spot where ist a few accidents...!"
B: "but to stop the accident we will have to repair zi road It will cost us"
A: "Nein. Have better idea...ist simple - und we can jsutify it because it will still have accident because of that pot -hole... Ist like taking "candy floss" from baby
We place Truve£££o in area und we do not bother fixing road und we place it in safest spot where they will not realise ist there...till too late... 
" Ist simplest philosophy - nicht?
WildCat said:
I live very close to this camera and also pass it on a regular cycle route that I use.
I have always thought of the road as a 30 limit because its in a village. The actual piece of road it is on is right next to the turn off for a big poultry processing factory, and the road is a bit of a mess. I thought they would spend some money repairing the road!!!
What is odd about this camera is the place it is sited. If you approach the village of anwick from the way the photo is facing you drive through a notorious accident black spot, followed by some blind bend corners. I thought that if a camera was going to be sited it would have been put up nearer the blackspot (called Speedway corner incidentally, it used to be a junction on a fast swooping bend but is now a small roundabout that apparently had a crash on it a few weeks ago).
Odd logic, but then again it is currently placed not far after the 30mph sign kicks in.
Ach Liebchen - you have in nuttiest shell here..
You can almost hear the conversation in the scam JHQ.
A:"There ist spot where ist a few accidents...!"
B: "but to stop the accident we will have to repair zi road It will cost us"
A: "Nein. Have better idea...ist simple - und we can jsutify it because it will still have accident because of that pot -hole... Ist like taking "candy floss" from baby
Ist simplest philosophy - nicht?
It is blatantly positioned in a silly spot, what with the factory junction next to it, and the blackspot actually down the road.
However, in all fairness, it is within a village that does have a 30mph limit signposted as you enter it. The village road is also twisty with quite a few junctions on.
The roads leading up to it can be taken at speed, taking into obvious account the blackspot. So some people aren't slowing down enough on entry to the village and are being snapped.
If you were a sensible driver I couldn't see you wanting to take the road at much more than 30mph anyway due to its nature.
funkyrobot said:
funkyrobot said:
I live very close to this camera and also pass it on a regular cycle route that I use.
I have always thought of the road as a 30 limit because its in a village. The actual piece of road it is on is right next to the turn off for a big poultry processing factory, and the road is a bit of a mess. I thought they would spend some money repairing the road!!!
What is odd about this camera is the place it is sited. If you approach the village of anwick from the way the photo is facing you drive through a notorious accident black spot, followed by some blind bend corners. I thought that if a camera was going to be sited it would have been put up nearer the blackspot (called Speedway corner incidentally, it used to be a junction on a fast swooping bend but is now a small roundabout that apparently had a crash on it a few weeks ago).
Odd logic, but then again it is currently placed not far after the 30mph sign kicks in.
Ach Liebchen - you have in nuttiest shell here..
You can almost hear the conversation in the scam JHQ.
A:"There ist spot where ist a few accidents...!"
B: "but to stop the accident we will have to repair zi road It will cost us"
A: "Nein. Have better idea...ist simple - und we can jsutify it because it will still have accident because of that pot -hole... Ist like taking "candy floss" from baby
Ist simplest philosophy - nicht?
It is blatantly positioned in a silly spot, what with the factory junction next to it, and the blackspot actually down the road.
However, in all fairness, it is within a village that does have a 30mph limit signposted as you enter it. The village road is also twisty with quite a few junctions on.
The roads leading up to it can be taken at speed, taking into obvious account the blackspot. So some people aren't slowing down enough on entry to the village and are being snapped.
If you were a sensible driver I couldn't see you wanting to take the road at much more than 30mph anyway due to its nature.
Ja... I drive according to the condition und usually slow speed in the villages here.. but we have so many tourists .. ist sometimes like driving through crowd leaving football match.
But it sounds like scam ist close to speed limit changes as you enter village?
Ja - und we have Ings... Ernest is still hammering this one to our Steviebabes (who goes all sulky boy und pouty over it
Und he will tick me off again over this ...the accidents he ist using occurred outside 40 mph limit according to those asked in village itself...und were reported as prime cause being heart attack und a fall asleep at wheel....in local paper. But be carefuls... these are digital doo-dahs und the 40 mph stretch they enforce ist very short.... really they should increase the 40 mph a little more each way to give adequate deceleration time into the village A591 stretch.
Seem to remember that for an implied 30mph it needs to have streetlights. Without signs this is assumed to be a 30mph. If it varies then it must have a sign and repeaters.
The case seems to be that the streetlights that where present were not actual street lights. The must also be spaced correctley. Hence the 30mph cannot apply. So then it would be national speed limit. Unless specific sign's are displayed.
So unless you where doing 60 + 10% +2pmh you would be fine
The case seems to be that the streetlights that where present were not actual street lights. The must also be spaced correctley. Hence the 30mph cannot apply. So then it would be national speed limit. Unless specific sign's are displayed.
So unless you where doing 60 + 10% +2pmh you would be fine
I still can't understand why there isn't a speed limit reminder with each camera.
Many a time I have been looking for somewhere that could have been in either a 30 or 40 zone, and on seeing a camera have slammed down to 30 just in case I had missed a 30 sign.
One has the distinct impression that "they" really do want to catch drivers speeding, and that all other considerations are secondary.
Many a time I have been looking for somewhere that could have been in either a 30 or 40 zone, and on seeing a camera have slammed down to 30 just in case I had missed a 30 sign.
One has the distinct impression that "they" really do want to catch drivers speeding, and that all other considerations are secondary.
Hi, new here, but since Im the reason for this conversation I thought I'd clear up a couple of points.
As you enter the village there is a 30mph sign and I dont believe I contrevened that despite what the camera says.
However.
There is a speed limit order on this road for 30mph which says that because there is no street lighting its is imposing a speed limit. I.E. when the order was raised it didnt qualify as a restricted road. The lights were not to standard. The order has never been recinded.
The village complained a few years ago about the lighting and the district council asked the highways at county to upgrade the lights. (only the county can own carriage way lights and foot the bill for them). County refused to upgrade saying that the footway lights were sufficient because there is no history of night time accidents in the village. This is a fact the prosecution kept under their hat until the day before the trial twhen he district council aware that it had not been disclosed let my solicitor know. This brought the trial to an immediate halt when the prosecution angily offered no evidence.
The expert on the day Richard Bently pointed out that with the order not being recinded and the lights only being footway lights, then the road required repeater signs. No only that but all the side roads, not covered by the order and with the same lamps, were therefore NSL. Each of these required the correct signing as it joined the main road through Anwick covered by the order.
Lincs seem to think that if they fail to obey the law its just an ovesite. They wont admit it but it means that no criminal offence is committed unless you were over 60mph.
Those already fined for being over 30mph on this road have therefore committed no offence. Simply believing they had and paying up is not an argument for not repaying them. You can not be guilty of committing and offence simply because you beleive you did.
Because they offered no evidence it needs a recent case to elect to go to court, with the same expert who will present his case again, hopefully this time to the magistrates. Richard furmly beleives that this case is solid and may even get the courts to finally decide on footway lamps.
If you know of any one with a recent NIP from this camera please let me know.
As you enter the village there is a 30mph sign and I dont believe I contrevened that despite what the camera says.
However.
There is a speed limit order on this road for 30mph which says that because there is no street lighting its is imposing a speed limit. I.E. when the order was raised it didnt qualify as a restricted road. The lights were not to standard. The order has never been recinded.
The village complained a few years ago about the lighting and the district council asked the highways at county to upgrade the lights. (only the county can own carriage way lights and foot the bill for them). County refused to upgrade saying that the footway lights were sufficient because there is no history of night time accidents in the village. This is a fact the prosecution kept under their hat until the day before the trial twhen he district council aware that it had not been disclosed let my solicitor know. This brought the trial to an immediate halt when the prosecution angily offered no evidence.
The expert on the day Richard Bently pointed out that with the order not being recinded and the lights only being footway lights, then the road required repeater signs. No only that but all the side roads, not covered by the order and with the same lamps, were therefore NSL. Each of these required the correct signing as it joined the main road through Anwick covered by the order.
Lincs seem to think that if they fail to obey the law its just an ovesite. They wont admit it but it means that no criminal offence is committed unless you were over 60mph.
Those already fined for being over 30mph on this road have therefore committed no offence. Simply believing they had and paying up is not an argument for not repaying them. You can not be guilty of committing and offence simply because you beleive you did.
Because they offered no evidence it needs a recent case to elect to go to court, with the same expert who will present his case again, hopefully this time to the magistrates. Richard furmly beleives that this case is solid and may even get the courts to finally decide on footway lamps.
If you know of any one with a recent NIP from this camera please let me know.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff