Is this a valid defence against an NIP?

[zcacogp]

Chaps,

I have recently posted a thread here about being flashed on a speed camera. To date, no NIP has appeared, but I am "Getting my ducks in a line" should it do so. (To everyone who has replied to this thread - very many thanks.)

I have discovered the following paragraph on the DFT website (and I quote):

"Signing: Camera warning and speed limit reminder signs must be placed in advance of fixed or mobile speed enforcement taking place. Ideally these should be placed within 1 km of fixed camera housings and at the beginning of a targeted route for mobile enforcement sites. Signs must only be placed in areas where camera housings are present or along routes where mobile enforcement will be targeted."

In the case of the camera I was caught on, there were no such limit reminder signs within 1km of the camera site.

My question is, is this a valid defence? If I was to challenge it, and take it to court, would this stand up, or would I be up for a bigger fine a more points?

Any help would be welcome.


Oli.

P.S. Another question. How long does it generally take for the BiB to get their NIP's out after a scamera snaps you? A quick couple of days, or are they usually towards the end of the 14-day time period?

[puggit]

They are just DfT guidelines - which allow the authorities to claw back the money from the fines.

There is no defence to speeding based on these signs - but there are other defences.

Check out the signage section at www.abd.org.uk

[bluepolarbear]

puggit said:

They are just DfT guidelines - which allow the authorities to claw back the money from the fines.

As stated merely guidelines and worthless spin to halt the tide of anger againist them. However, its worse because what they don't publish is only 85% of camera's need to be covered by the guidelines. The rest can be buried in a cats eye without a warnding sign if they like

[Dwight VanDriver]

Think of it this way zcacogp:

The offence (if committed) is exceeding a speed limit which has to be lawfully signed to a set schedule.

The camera is just a means of enforcement and there is no regulatory/mandatory requirements as to its signing under speed legislation. As stated Guidance only re advanced signs as to presence. It also states that the boxes should be conspicous - how many have you seen that are still grey?

DVD

[wanty1974]

How about a scamera that can be proved to be on a road without any serious accidents in the last five years?

[cptsideways]

If it's a safe road then report it, they have just set up a system (dunno where though) to highlight the Cash Cams & have them removed at last. Well that was in last weeks news anyway. So you might want to wait a few years till it's gone.

Otherwise go down the unsigned NIP route as per other posts.

[zcacogp]

OK, clutching at straws with this one. I would ask what the point of the guidance is if it doesn't have to be adhered to, but I guess it is just as it says - guidance - and the guys pulling the strings can follow it or not as they choose.

Does the unsigned NIP trick actually work? I have read much stuff on this and other sites about it, but it seems to me to be a large amount of fuss with no garuntee of getting away with it in the end. And if you don't get away with it, you are handed a larger fine and court costs. It sounds to me like a gamble rather than a copper-bottomed get-out-route. Or am I wrong?

Still no NIP. Fingers well and truly crossed.


Oli.

[Dwight VanDriver]

>>Does the unsigned NIP trick actually work?<<

There is a way but it is extremely complex and requires an in-depth knowledge of various Acts of Law and Case Law to almost Solicitor level and I would submit one is needed to tread the minefield and thereby an expensive exercise. BUT at the end of the day it is as you say A GAMBLE. Nothing is certain.

Have we in Society dropped so low that we cannot admit our mistakes?. What is so wrong that if you were speeding why not admit it?

Time ago it was the spirit of the law that prevailed. Now corpulent Barristers/Solicitor go for the letter of the law and as result society does not benefit.

DVD

[d-man]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Time ago it was the spirit of the law that prevailed.

Exactly the point, time ago a policeman would use their judgement to apply the spirit of the law when dealing with a speeding motorist.

Now a camera applies the letter of the law and said motorist uses the letter of the law to avoid getting convicted. Fight fire with fire as it were.

[zcacogp]

d-man said:

Dwight VanDriver said: Time ago it was the spirit of the law that prevailed. Exactly the point, time ago a policeman would use their judgement to apply the spirit of the law when dealing with a speeding motorist. Now a camera applies the letter of the law and said motorist uses the letter of the law to avoid getting convicted. Fight fire with fire as it were.

Dwight - yes, I made a mistake, I did 40 in a 30 limit, and I fully put my hands up to it. I'm not denying it.

But I object to the following;

1. It was poorly signed as a 30 limit. I genuinely thought it was a 30 (and was genuinely wrong.) They did not comply with the stated guidelines about posting speed limit signs within 1km of the camera, and although it is a streetlit road, the streetlights are not clear in daylight. I did 40 because I thought it was a 40 limit. I therefore had no intention of breaking the law.

2. There was no copper there to apply any discretion. I believe that my speed was reasonable for the conditions, I was within the speed limit and was not being dangerous. As has been mentioned, I would hope that a flesh-and-blood human would be reasonable and see this defence. I understand that cameras are a bit more black-and-white about these things, and I didn't bother trying to talk the Gatso into letting me off. (I didn't think it would do much good, to be honest.)

I broke the law. I don't deny it. But I believe that the law should be reasonable and understandable, not draconian. Does that excuse me trying to get away with it? Probably not - fair point.


Oli.