8 speeding cases won in fareham hampshire
Discussion
Ok here goes short report
8-nil to barry culshaw on signing of side roads
envelope argument won
, rest on thursday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
breif report
the court heard from the copper that he drove the site both ways and checked the terminal and repeater signs.
under questioning he admitted he did not check al the side roads.
he also said that he had raised issues of signing with Dr Marion Sinclair of the safety camera partnership and she took no action.
He did not raise the errors with hampshire county council (for what ever reason) he mentioned it to the HCC rep that attended partnership meetings.
Expert Graham Carter from HCC tried to convince the court that TSRGD was guidlines on road signing.
Barry culshaw wrapped him up to conceed that section8 &9 of the road traffic act states that terminal signs must be in place from a side road to a faster road UNLESS there were repeaters in BOTH directions within 100m. (advised by Richard Bentley, expert)
section 85.1 of the rta act states cannot be convicted of speeding unless adiquate system of signs in place.
District Judge Gillimore ruled that
1. section 82.5 of the 1984 rta act stated there was a duty on HCC to erect and maintain a system of signs for the secretary of state for transport.
2. section 8&9 of tsrgd 2002 had NOT bee complied with (due to missing signs)
3, section 8 & 9 are mandatory
4, he was bound by section 85.4 of the rta act 1984 (which says if the signs are not there you cannot be prosicuted.)
that the envelope argument is correct as the regulatuins clearly define the situation for side roads.
lead case for mr colman won.
Full case
October 8th 2007
These notes were made from the public gallery at court room 7.
People present
District JudgeGillibrand (dj)
Prosecuting solicitor (name unknown) (pros)
Lead Defending solicitor: Barry Culshaw (Blake lapthorn) (bc)
Expert signing witness Richard Bentley (assisted Barry Culshaw but did not speak to the court)
Solicitor Mr Hodson (sol)
Hcc expert witness Graham Carter (gc)
Police witness PC Harrison (pc)
Non speaking
5 defendants
Mr wells of the safety camera unit
2 other police officers
My self and court staff
Solicitor asked for Mr Allen to be allowed to leave
The prosecution laid out the case.
They read out the charge that Mr Colman was alleged to have travelled at 56 in a 40 on Southampton rd Titchfield on ??/??/2005
It was established that Mr Colman’s case was a test case and the others would hinge on the result as they were detected by a camera van parked at the same location at different dates.
They presented a long coloured map of the sites with 40 limits in yellow and 30 limits in blue.
She stated the issues to be faced and identified that the defence would claim that if one sign was defective then the whole site would be incorrect and un-enforceable.
The crown view was that that thee was no “case law” and the broad interpretation was that 85.4 of the RTA ACT (ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1984) no speed limit signs=shall not be convicted. A lack of such signs cannot be streaked to signs that drivers have not passed? I say signs comply with TSRGD 2002
(www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20023113.htm
Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002)
Section 1 states that on major roads the secretary of state is responsible to erect signs
Section 2 states size, colour, type and design
You will see the lengthy map all on A27. Part 1 we will focus on Titchfield.
She asks the bench: the defence plans to refer to Mr Lyus and his opinion in their defence, He is not present today he has not seen the signs and “it would be inadmissible hearsay” I plan to present pc Harrison & Mr carter of HCC.
The Pc took the stand somewhat over dressed to impose with stab vest loaded with goodies like phones, radio etc he had fully loaded tool belt with pouches including hand cuffs.
The DJ invited him to refer to his notebook of notes made on the day and established that they were made on the day. Pc answered yes.
Pros. Can you explain what you did on the day?
Pc from the start of duty including pre checks or on site?
Pros from pre checks
Pc I started at the station when I did fixed distance check measured by (trading standards?)
BC interrupted: We have accepted the measured speed in all these cases we really want to move on to the signing evidence.
(bc was trying to save the court time and money as all the disputed speed cases had been split off into another trial)
DJ agreed:
pc I go to the sight and check all the signage is in place, I drive the route and turn around and check the other way
BC : How many signs?
Pc: terminal and repeater signs? He then went on to list a mental list of the signs and repeaters along the route , turning round, another list and then parking in his police van bay.
BC How can you be sure
Pc if either of them, any of them are not present then I would abandon and go to another site.
BC can I confirm you go west to east A27 turn and go east to west then to lay-by?
Pc yes
BC Terminal signs, repeater signs and change of limit?
Pc Yes
BC Do you check side roads
Pc only on a weekly cycle (indicated approximately), Gosport road, not every time
(note: there are lots of side roads 25+)
BC Ranvilles lane 30 junction. Do you inspect that junction?
Pc I drive past it
Bc Do you check that junction?
Pc I do not drive into it
Bc shared some books of photos round the court
He then referred to photo 17
Is that a photo of the junction we are talking about?
Photo 18 is that the exit from ranvilles lane
Do you see a 40 sign there?
Pc no
Pc exiting from a30 to a 40 terminal signs are not required if repeater signs within 40m (might have said 100m, I wrote 40m)
Bc pc Harrison is correct in hi understanding of the law terminal signs are not required if there are repeaters within 100m in both directions
Bc what repeater signs are present? Do you know the distance?
Pc no
Bc If I told you the repeater sign was 256m west would you accept that
Pc I have not measured it
Bc are there any signs east?
Pc No, there is a 30 sign
Bc legal requirements are not met
Pc accepted
Bc what signs should have been in place?
Pc I am not a signing expert
Bc we shall move on to photo 25
Exiting the gyratory system
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=454310&...
photo 25
can you explain the limit change, 30 limit photo 26?
Pc only one sign.bc surprised?
Pc not particularly.
Bc photo 27 only one sign
Bc do you visit titchfield village
Pc yes
Photo 28 back of signs
Bc are there any 40 signs
Pc there are repeater signs, I would suggest they are within 100m
Bc to the other direction ? are there any signs east
Bc suggests there are not
Pc (struggles)
Bc clarifies route, no repeaters
Pc suggests “central verge”
Pc Possibly none?
Bc photo 36, view of Southampton hill to Southampton rd, how far east of the junction
Pc 150-200m
Bc Cars can turn east or west, what would be on the back of the 30 sign? & the lorry restriction signs
Pc end of weight limit sign
Bc photo 39 repeater sign and camera sign side on to motorist aimed at motorists on the a27
Bc no change to signing?
Pc yes, they have changed signing to co-locate camera and speed signs
(it was established that they were installed after these cases but not relevant, just meting rule changes brought in after these cases)
Bc, thank you officer.
Pros when were signs changed?
Pc in 2006, after 2005
Pros checking side roads, why only once a week?
Pc it would take along time (might have said “forever”
Pc the main a27 is signed
Pros referred to picture 38 You drove into that road
Pc seniors said “sign not required”
BC you asked if it should have paired terminal signs?
Pc I questioned the manager of the partnership
Bc who
Pc Marion Sinclair
Bc Dr Marion Sinclair
Bc you did not think to ask the county council
I asked HCC employee who attended on a visit as liaison
(HCC are part of the camera partnership and attend steering committee meetings)
Sol asked pc about lorry limit end sign that was so faded that the lorry was not visible leaving 5 thin diagonal stripes looking like a national speed limit sign from a distance.
Pc allowed to leave, available within 1 hour.
Hcc signing expert Graham Carter
Into: Group manager for traffic Hcc
Pros checks, How did you comply with the regulations
Gc HCC follows the regulations as far as possible
Pros how strict are they
Gc picked up tsrgd illustrated that they were 2” thick said they were guidance not regulatory
Pros as far as you are able
Gc gave an example that where requirement for lighting of terminal signs within 50m of a street light they weren’t always able to complete the lighting due to the slow delivery of the electricity supply.
Dj we are dealing with the issue of traffic emerging from side roads
Bc we have conceded terminal sign illumination is not an issue as it was day time.
Pros “advisory”?
GC it has been a 40 limit a long time since 1981 and an older traffic order going back to the 1960’s
Dj not the issue
Gc regulations require the terminal and repeater signs and tsrgd give advice and guidance
Pros statutes encouraged to follow
Gc guidance would be ideal to following ideal situation
Pros by who?
Gc Department for transport (dft)
Gc we follow regulations based on guidance and advice
Pros you said signage compliant, refers back to photo 30 , view along a27 west direction, Why compliant?
(missed reply…possibly about section 9……
Bc one area of agreement is that if not complied with then section 8 needs to be 100% complied with.
Pros Where is the terminal sign that this repeats
Gc past highlands rd
Photo 15
“Camera warning signs + externally illuminated 40 signs”
Pros between the terminal sign and the gyratory, are there any 30 limits
Gc it is 40 all along
(one of the defendants stressed to bc it was not, bc indicated he would deal with that issue later)
Bc asked gc if he was colleagues with Mr Lyus at the department for transport?
Gc yes
Bc Who is lyus?
Gc “Expert on signing at the department for transport, guru”
Bc my very word Guru
If we can go to a set of PowerPoint slides produced by lyus
Photo 17&18 ranvilles lane in and out
Bc lets be aware of section 8
They are directions
Directions from the dft to highways agencies
Bc what does the directions ask you to do here?
gc a pair of 40 signs or repeater signs at a maximum 100m
bc this guidance is a direction
gc it has flexibility
bc what flexibility? (snapped)
leaflet produced on spacing of repeaters
bc not section 8 or 9?
Gc yes
Bc has not complied with section 8?
Gc silence
Bc has not complied with section 8?
Gc silence
Bc can we visit section 8
Bc page 415 of Wilkinson’s 8.1
List of diagram signs
8.3. What is the secretary of state for transport directing Hampshire county council to do with that direction?
Gc place terminal signs
Bc paired terminal signs (statement not question)
Gc No guidance states lower to higher, not required, repeater within 100m
Bc that is section 9 not guidance it is law
Gc yes
Bc if it does not comply with section 8 it must comply with section 9
Bc tried to refer to lyus diagrams
Pros objected. Mr lyus was not there to give his commentary that accompanied the slide and did not necessarily know they were being used.
After consideration dj accepted they would be accepted to help him understand the issues but would not bee seen as evidence only illustrations of how a junction could be signed from the “guru” as to how section 8&9 apply.
Bc continued: I am looking for understanding section 8 & 9.
Bc do you accept that diagram
Gc yes
Next diagram, do you accept that diagram
Gc yes, with the proviso 20 m is not always possible
Sometimes there are electric cables in the way
( he was referring to a sign that must be placed within 20m of a junction)
Bc it is not there any way
Bc Higher limit on other road
Bc that is ranvilles rd (diagram that represents the ranville rd layout)
Gc except you cant turn right from ranvilles rd
Bc that is section 8,
Gc section 9 95b
Bc dosent say “may” says “have been placed”
Gc mr lyus has needed to clarify then it may need interpretation
Gc repeaters would be nonsensical in that location as you cannot turn right
Bc is there a sign to the left within 100m
Gc not sure what was theree in 2005
Bc mr Bentley has measured it
Bc has it complied with section 9?
Gc yes
Bc has it?
Gc no
(brief delay to get dj up to speed on the location of this verbal exchange)
Dj no 40 sign until you enter thegyratory?
Bc what terminal signs
Gc no terminal signs
(big grin moment from defendants)
Lets move to titchfeild photo 25
Bc no terminal signs visable
Gc that is not the motorists view
Bc what is the distance
Gc 20m
Bc the 40 limit is terminated by 30, how far is the sign
No reply
Bc 65m
Gc depends where you measure from
Bc photo 28,29 is there any signs 30 to 40
Gc no
Bc do you see a repeater
Gc there is no east sign , it is the gyratory (big one way roundabout)
Bc if you cannot comply with section 9 then what must you do?
Gc you can apply to the secretay of state but it would be nonsense
Bc you could erect twin signs
Gc don’t agree with interpretation, I think it complies sufficiently, as there is no right turn
Bc if you cant comply with section 9 then you must comply with section 8
You haven’t complied with section 95b then you are thrown back to section 8
The signing is not lawfull
Gc sufficient to comply
Bc under what discression?
Gc cant turn right
Bc where does it say that in section 9
Gc it dosent
Bc section 8 not been done
Gc no
Dj so a stranger driving through Titchfield would not know what the limit was until the 30 limit
Gc thinks they would because of the repeaters
Bc motorists would not know of 40 limit until the 30 limit
Gc no
Photos 37 &38
Bc what speed limit signing
Gc none within Southampton hill, 40 repeater left a more or less opposite
Bc not visable to motorists turning right, they are side on to motorists. Pc Harrison was concerned about 2 junctions
Gc not my day to day responsibilities on signing
Bc I want to now go to your report “meets the requirements of trsgd” fails section 8 and 9 Are you saying the law is complied with?
Gc meets adequate signing, 3 repeaters
Bc it was not adequately started?
Silence
Bc has it?
Silence
Has it?
Gc squerms
Bc has the speed limit been started under section 8 or section 9
Gc no
Bc are you aware of section 85 regulations
Gc in general terms
Bc read out section 85.2
Secretary of state direction to erect signs and give motorist adequate guidance
Bc have there been any steps to rectify missing signs
Gc no
Sol photo 18
Sol no 40 terminal sign + repeater at 240 m
Sol see the give way sign next to that a white sign it is supposed to be sign 622.2 only it is very faded (622.2 is the end of the lorry weight limit)
Gc matter for interpretation
Sol the black diagonal lines on grey, the lorry’s faded it can be mistaken for a national speed limit sign?
Gc I don’t think so
Sol no further questions.
Pros does the motorist have to pass a terminal sign to be advised?
Gc yes
Pros are there signs that initiate the limit
Gc on the a27 yes
Break for 5 min
Bc the starting point (for legislation)
Section 85 of the road traffic act 1984
85.1 Adequate guidance
It is the duty of the secretary of state for roads under his authority, trunk roads& motorways
85.2 any other roads are the duty of highways authority (hcc) to alter or remove signs
This is enshrined in tsrgd
Section 8 &9 terminal signing. Page 10 defines signs
8.1 refers to 670 sign
8.3 refers to single carriageway roads how to terminate and start limits
It is not guidance it is direction.
It is the law.
The only variance to section 8 is section 9.
If the limit is not lawfully signed a repeater cannot repeat an unsigned limit
Section 85.4 (of the rta act) states that if there is no such system of signing then a motorist shall not be convicted
85.4 Binds you to acquit
Sol I adopt that argument.
Pros 85.4 states “the road” not “any road”
“The road”….. The road you were travelling on
Thee is no evidence to indicate route
Bc does not meet “means rea” (note: prosecutions’ job to prove route not defendants to prove route not travelled)
Dj that’s right
Adjourned to wait for judges decision
Decision
R v Coleman 8/10/07
Four steps to the decision
1. s.85(2) imposes duty on Hampshire County Council to erect and maintain etc traffic signs which comply with directions of Secretary of State for Transport.
2. I am satisfied that Directions 8 and 9 of TSRAGD 2002 have not been
complied with at Southampton Hill, Titchfield gyratory system and Ranvilles Lane, all side roads off A27.
3. I am equally satisfied that Directions 8 and 9 are mandatory, not advisory.
4. 1 am dealing with submission of no case to answer. I regard myself as bound by s.85(4) RTRA 1984. I regard that section as having a natural and obvious meaning. I propose to give it that obvious and natural meaning and not some strange reflection on when a speed limit rather artificially starts and ends or how a particular m/v arrives on the relevant road, being A27. 1 take that view because Regulations make it absolutely clear that the requirements in relation to traffic signs, whether terminal or repeater, relate specifically to side roads and as a consequence 1 find that so far as Mr Coleman is concerned, there is no case to answer.
As an aside I am persuaded that the envelope argument is correct. I say as an aside because it strikes me that my decision supports that contention because that is what the law says.
When Mr Carter was being cross-examined I thought it a significant answer to the question, which was that signing of speed limit, was not lawfully started, when he conceded that that was the case.
8-nil to barry culshaw on signing of side roads
envelope argument won
, rest on thursday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
breif report
the court heard from the copper that he drove the site both ways and checked the terminal and repeater signs.
under questioning he admitted he did not check al the side roads.
he also said that he had raised issues of signing with Dr Marion Sinclair of the safety camera partnership and she took no action.
He did not raise the errors with hampshire county council (for what ever reason) he mentioned it to the HCC rep that attended partnership meetings.
Expert Graham Carter from HCC tried to convince the court that TSRGD was guidlines on road signing.
Barry culshaw wrapped him up to conceed that section8 &9 of the road traffic act states that terminal signs must be in place from a side road to a faster road UNLESS there were repeaters in BOTH directions within 100m. (advised by Richard Bentley, expert)
section 85.1 of the rta act states cannot be convicted of speeding unless adiquate system of signs in place.
District Judge Gillimore ruled that
1. section 82.5 of the 1984 rta act stated there was a duty on HCC to erect and maintain a system of signs for the secretary of state for transport.
2. section 8&9 of tsrgd 2002 had NOT bee complied with (due to missing signs)
3, section 8 & 9 are mandatory
4, he was bound by section 85.4 of the rta act 1984 (which says if the signs are not there you cannot be prosicuted.)
that the envelope argument is correct as the regulatuins clearly define the situation for side roads.
lead case for mr colman won.
Full case
October 8th 2007
These notes were made from the public gallery at court room 7.
People present
District JudgeGillibrand (dj)
Prosecuting solicitor (name unknown) (pros)
Lead Defending solicitor: Barry Culshaw (Blake lapthorn) (bc)
Expert signing witness Richard Bentley (assisted Barry Culshaw but did not speak to the court)
Solicitor Mr Hodson (sol)
Hcc expert witness Graham Carter (gc)
Police witness PC Harrison (pc)
Non speaking
5 defendants
Mr wells of the safety camera unit
2 other police officers
My self and court staff
Solicitor asked for Mr Allen to be allowed to leave
The prosecution laid out the case.
They read out the charge that Mr Colman was alleged to have travelled at 56 in a 40 on Southampton rd Titchfield on ??/??/2005
It was established that Mr Colman’s case was a test case and the others would hinge on the result as they were detected by a camera van parked at the same location at different dates.
They presented a long coloured map of the sites with 40 limits in yellow and 30 limits in blue.
She stated the issues to be faced and identified that the defence would claim that if one sign was defective then the whole site would be incorrect and un-enforceable.
The crown view was that that thee was no “case law” and the broad interpretation was that 85.4 of the RTA ACT (ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1984) no speed limit signs=shall not be convicted. A lack of such signs cannot be streaked to signs that drivers have not passed? I say signs comply with TSRGD 2002
(www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20023113.htm
Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002)
Section 1 states that on major roads the secretary of state is responsible to erect signs
Section 2 states size, colour, type and design
You will see the lengthy map all on A27. Part 1 we will focus on Titchfield.
She asks the bench: the defence plans to refer to Mr Lyus and his opinion in their defence, He is not present today he has not seen the signs and “it would be inadmissible hearsay” I plan to present pc Harrison & Mr carter of HCC.
The Pc took the stand somewhat over dressed to impose with stab vest loaded with goodies like phones, radio etc he had fully loaded tool belt with pouches including hand cuffs.
The DJ invited him to refer to his notebook of notes made on the day and established that they were made on the day. Pc answered yes.
Pros. Can you explain what you did on the day?
Pc from the start of duty including pre checks or on site?
Pros from pre checks
Pc I started at the station when I did fixed distance check measured by (trading standards?)
BC interrupted: We have accepted the measured speed in all these cases we really want to move on to the signing evidence.
(bc was trying to save the court time and money as all the disputed speed cases had been split off into another trial)
DJ agreed:
pc I go to the sight and check all the signage is in place, I drive the route and turn around and check the other way
BC : How many signs?
Pc: terminal and repeater signs? He then went on to list a mental list of the signs and repeaters along the route , turning round, another list and then parking in his police van bay.
BC How can you be sure
Pc if either of them, any of them are not present then I would abandon and go to another site.
BC can I confirm you go west to east A27 turn and go east to west then to lay-by?
Pc yes
BC Terminal signs, repeater signs and change of limit?
Pc Yes
BC Do you check side roads
Pc only on a weekly cycle (indicated approximately), Gosport road, not every time
(note: there are lots of side roads 25+)
BC Ranvilles lane 30 junction. Do you inspect that junction?
Pc I drive past it
Bc Do you check that junction?
Pc I do not drive into it
Bc shared some books of photos round the court
He then referred to photo 17
Is that a photo of the junction we are talking about?
Photo 18 is that the exit from ranvilles lane
Do you see a 40 sign there?
Pc no
Pc exiting from a30 to a 40 terminal signs are not required if repeater signs within 40m (might have said 100m, I wrote 40m)
Bc pc Harrison is correct in hi understanding of the law terminal signs are not required if there are repeaters within 100m in both directions
Bc what repeater signs are present? Do you know the distance?
Pc no
Bc If I told you the repeater sign was 256m west would you accept that
Pc I have not measured it
Bc are there any signs east?
Pc No, there is a 30 sign
Bc legal requirements are not met
Pc accepted
Bc what signs should have been in place?
Pc I am not a signing expert
Bc we shall move on to photo 25
Exiting the gyratory system
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=454310&...
photo 25
can you explain the limit change, 30 limit photo 26?
Pc only one sign.bc surprised?
Pc not particularly.
Bc photo 27 only one sign
Bc do you visit titchfield village
Pc yes
Photo 28 back of signs
Bc are there any 40 signs
Pc there are repeater signs, I would suggest they are within 100m
Bc to the other direction ? are there any signs east
Bc suggests there are not
Pc (struggles)
Bc clarifies route, no repeaters
Pc suggests “central verge”
Pc Possibly none?
Bc photo 36, view of Southampton hill to Southampton rd, how far east of the junction
Pc 150-200m
Bc Cars can turn east or west, what would be on the back of the 30 sign? & the lorry restriction signs
Pc end of weight limit sign
Bc photo 39 repeater sign and camera sign side on to motorist aimed at motorists on the a27
Bc no change to signing?
Pc yes, they have changed signing to co-locate camera and speed signs
(it was established that they were installed after these cases but not relevant, just meting rule changes brought in after these cases)
Bc, thank you officer.
Pros when were signs changed?
Pc in 2006, after 2005
Pros checking side roads, why only once a week?
Pc it would take along time (might have said “forever”
Pc the main a27 is signed
Pros referred to picture 38 You drove into that road
Pc seniors said “sign not required”
BC you asked if it should have paired terminal signs?
Pc I questioned the manager of the partnership
Bc who
Pc Marion Sinclair
Bc Dr Marion Sinclair
Bc you did not think to ask the county council
I asked HCC employee who attended on a visit as liaison
(HCC are part of the camera partnership and attend steering committee meetings)
Sol asked pc about lorry limit end sign that was so faded that the lorry was not visible leaving 5 thin diagonal stripes looking like a national speed limit sign from a distance.
Pc allowed to leave, available within 1 hour.
Hcc signing expert Graham Carter
Into: Group manager for traffic Hcc
Pros checks, How did you comply with the regulations
Gc HCC follows the regulations as far as possible
Pros how strict are they
Gc picked up tsrgd illustrated that they were 2” thick said they were guidance not regulatory
Pros as far as you are able
Gc gave an example that where requirement for lighting of terminal signs within 50m of a street light they weren’t always able to complete the lighting due to the slow delivery of the electricity supply.
Dj we are dealing with the issue of traffic emerging from side roads
Bc we have conceded terminal sign illumination is not an issue as it was day time.
Pros “advisory”?
GC it has been a 40 limit a long time since 1981 and an older traffic order going back to the 1960’s
Dj not the issue
Gc regulations require the terminal and repeater signs and tsrgd give advice and guidance
Pros statutes encouraged to follow
Gc guidance would be ideal to following ideal situation
Pros by who?
Gc Department for transport (dft)
Gc we follow regulations based on guidance and advice
Pros you said signage compliant, refers back to photo 30 , view along a27 west direction, Why compliant?
(missed reply…possibly about section 9……
Bc one area of agreement is that if not complied with then section 8 needs to be 100% complied with.
Pros Where is the terminal sign that this repeats
Gc past highlands rd
Photo 15
“Camera warning signs + externally illuminated 40 signs”
Pros between the terminal sign and the gyratory, are there any 30 limits
Gc it is 40 all along
(one of the defendants stressed to bc it was not, bc indicated he would deal with that issue later)
Bc asked gc if he was colleagues with Mr Lyus at the department for transport?
Gc yes
Bc Who is lyus?
Gc “Expert on signing at the department for transport, guru”
Bc my very word Guru
If we can go to a set of PowerPoint slides produced by lyus
Photo 17&18 ranvilles lane in and out
Bc lets be aware of section 8
They are directions
Directions from the dft to highways agencies
Bc what does the directions ask you to do here?
gc a pair of 40 signs or repeater signs at a maximum 100m
bc this guidance is a direction
gc it has flexibility
bc what flexibility? (snapped)
leaflet produced on spacing of repeaters
bc not section 8 or 9?
Gc yes
Bc has not complied with section 8?
Gc silence
Bc has not complied with section 8?
Gc silence
Bc can we visit section 8
Bc page 415 of Wilkinson’s 8.1
List of diagram signs
8.3. What is the secretary of state for transport directing Hampshire county council to do with that direction?
Gc place terminal signs
Bc paired terminal signs (statement not question)
Gc No guidance states lower to higher, not required, repeater within 100m
Bc that is section 9 not guidance it is law
Gc yes
Bc if it does not comply with section 8 it must comply with section 9
Bc tried to refer to lyus diagrams
Pros objected. Mr lyus was not there to give his commentary that accompanied the slide and did not necessarily know they were being used.
After consideration dj accepted they would be accepted to help him understand the issues but would not bee seen as evidence only illustrations of how a junction could be signed from the “guru” as to how section 8&9 apply.
Bc continued: I am looking for understanding section 8 & 9.
Bc do you accept that diagram
Gc yes
Next diagram, do you accept that diagram
Gc yes, with the proviso 20 m is not always possible
Sometimes there are electric cables in the way
( he was referring to a sign that must be placed within 20m of a junction)
Bc it is not there any way
Bc Higher limit on other road
Bc that is ranvilles rd (diagram that represents the ranville rd layout)
Gc except you cant turn right from ranvilles rd
Bc that is section 8,
Gc section 9 95b
Bc dosent say “may” says “have been placed”
Gc mr lyus has needed to clarify then it may need interpretation
Gc repeaters would be nonsensical in that location as you cannot turn right
Bc is there a sign to the left within 100m
Gc not sure what was theree in 2005
Bc mr Bentley has measured it
Bc has it complied with section 9?
Gc yes
Bc has it?
Gc no
(brief delay to get dj up to speed on the location of this verbal exchange)
Dj no 40 sign until you enter thegyratory?
Bc what terminal signs
Gc no terminal signs
(big grin moment from defendants)
Lets move to titchfeild photo 25
Bc no terminal signs visable
Gc that is not the motorists view
Bc what is the distance
Gc 20m
Bc the 40 limit is terminated by 30, how far is the sign
No reply
Bc 65m
Gc depends where you measure from
Bc photo 28,29 is there any signs 30 to 40
Gc no
Bc do you see a repeater
Gc there is no east sign , it is the gyratory (big one way roundabout)
Bc if you cannot comply with section 9 then what must you do?
Gc you can apply to the secretay of state but it would be nonsense
Bc you could erect twin signs
Gc don’t agree with interpretation, I think it complies sufficiently, as there is no right turn
Bc if you cant comply with section 9 then you must comply with section 8
You haven’t complied with section 95b then you are thrown back to section 8
The signing is not lawfull
Gc sufficient to comply
Bc under what discression?
Gc cant turn right
Bc where does it say that in section 9
Gc it dosent
Bc section 8 not been done
Gc no
Dj so a stranger driving through Titchfield would not know what the limit was until the 30 limit
Gc thinks they would because of the repeaters
Bc motorists would not know of 40 limit until the 30 limit
Gc no
Photos 37 &38
Bc what speed limit signing
Gc none within Southampton hill, 40 repeater left a more or less opposite
Bc not visable to motorists turning right, they are side on to motorists. Pc Harrison was concerned about 2 junctions
Gc not my day to day responsibilities on signing
Bc I want to now go to your report “meets the requirements of trsgd” fails section 8 and 9 Are you saying the law is complied with?
Gc meets adequate signing, 3 repeaters
Bc it was not adequately started?
Silence
Bc has it?
Silence
Has it?
Gc squerms
Bc has the speed limit been started under section 8 or section 9
Gc no
Bc are you aware of section 85 regulations
Gc in general terms
Bc read out section 85.2
Secretary of state direction to erect signs and give motorist adequate guidance
Bc have there been any steps to rectify missing signs
Gc no
Sol photo 18
Sol no 40 terminal sign + repeater at 240 m
Sol see the give way sign next to that a white sign it is supposed to be sign 622.2 only it is very faded (622.2 is the end of the lorry weight limit)
Gc matter for interpretation
Sol the black diagonal lines on grey, the lorry’s faded it can be mistaken for a national speed limit sign?
Gc I don’t think so
Sol no further questions.
Pros does the motorist have to pass a terminal sign to be advised?
Gc yes
Pros are there signs that initiate the limit
Gc on the a27 yes
Break for 5 min
Bc the starting point (for legislation)
Section 85 of the road traffic act 1984
85.1 Adequate guidance
It is the duty of the secretary of state for roads under his authority, trunk roads& motorways
85.2 any other roads are the duty of highways authority (hcc) to alter or remove signs
This is enshrined in tsrgd
Section 8 &9 terminal signing. Page 10 defines signs
8.1 refers to 670 sign
8.3 refers to single carriageway roads how to terminate and start limits
It is not guidance it is direction.
It is the law.
The only variance to section 8 is section 9.
If the limit is not lawfully signed a repeater cannot repeat an unsigned limit
Section 85.4 (of the rta act) states that if there is no such system of signing then a motorist shall not be convicted
85.4 Binds you to acquit
Sol I adopt that argument.
Pros 85.4 states “the road” not “any road”
“The road”….. The road you were travelling on
Thee is no evidence to indicate route
Bc does not meet “means rea” (note: prosecutions’ job to prove route not defendants to prove route not travelled)
Dj that’s right
Adjourned to wait for judges decision
Decision
R v Coleman 8/10/07
Four steps to the decision
1. s.85(2) imposes duty on Hampshire County Council to erect and maintain etc traffic signs which comply with directions of Secretary of State for Transport.
2. I am satisfied that Directions 8 and 9 of TSRAGD 2002 have not been
complied with at Southampton Hill, Titchfield gyratory system and Ranvilles Lane, all side roads off A27.
3. I am equally satisfied that Directions 8 and 9 are mandatory, not advisory.
4. 1 am dealing with submission of no case to answer. I regard myself as bound by s.85(4) RTRA 1984. I regard that section as having a natural and obvious meaning. I propose to give it that obvious and natural meaning and not some strange reflection on when a speed limit rather artificially starts and ends or how a particular m/v arrives on the relevant road, being A27. 1 take that view because Regulations make it absolutely clear that the requirements in relation to traffic signs, whether terminal or repeater, relate specifically to side roads and as a consequence 1 find that so far as Mr Coleman is concerned, there is no case to answer.
As an aside I am persuaded that the envelope argument is correct. I say as an aside because it strikes me that my decision supports that contention because that is what the law says.
When Mr Carter was being cross-examined I thought it a significant answer to the question, which was that signing of speed limit, was not lawfully started, when he conceded that that was the case.
This is not the CPSs fault.
This is actually due to the pettiness of our law enforcement.
It is an example of why almost no-one has respect for the law.
Look at it this way...
We have very strictly adhered to petty laws, prosecuted very firmly, to ensure there is as little possible 'get out' we have thousands of these signs everywhere on the roads, these signs are in themselves dangerous obstructions often.
So to ensure a good income from the scameras the council have to sign up the area very correctly.
The council assures the Cops and the Scameraships that all is well, the cops take this as read and just do the quick check and get then get on with taxing us for their masters.
But in this instance a couple of signs are missing, the guys are almost certainly guilty but because we have these laws that are so petty and carried out in order to make the money/figures required they found a failing and exploited it... that very action is testimony to the contempt in which so many hold these petty laws.
The winners are:-
the Solicitors...
the guys.
The losers are:-
the cops [found again to appear lazy functionaries]...
the law [found again to be petty and carried out thoughtlessly]...
the taxpayer [found again having to stump up for the uselessness of it serveants]...
the common good [found in need of support, not petty challenges to petty rules].
This case amply supports my premise that unless a camera is on a red light junction it simply should not be there!
Put cameras where they are needed, not where they make money, I yearn for the day when this happens and the cops get back some of their due respect, a respect that is in tatters at the moment.
I want to get back to there being respect for the law, but to do that the law must first fully respect its people... and by Christ we are a long way from that today.
This is actually due to the pettiness of our law enforcement.
It is an example of why almost no-one has respect for the law.
Look at it this way...
We have very strictly adhered to petty laws, prosecuted very firmly, to ensure there is as little possible 'get out' we have thousands of these signs everywhere on the roads, these signs are in themselves dangerous obstructions often.
So to ensure a good income from the scameras the council have to sign up the area very correctly.
The council assures the Cops and the Scameraships that all is well, the cops take this as read and just do the quick check and get then get on with taxing us for their masters.
But in this instance a couple of signs are missing, the guys are almost certainly guilty but because we have these laws that are so petty and carried out in order to make the money/figures required they found a failing and exploited it... that very action is testimony to the contempt in which so many hold these petty laws.
The winners are:-
the Solicitors...
the guys.
The losers are:-
the cops [found again to appear lazy functionaries]...
the law [found again to be petty and carried out thoughtlessly]...
the taxpayer [found again having to stump up for the uselessness of it serveants]...
the common good [found in need of support, not petty challenges to petty rules].
This case amply supports my premise that unless a camera is on a red light junction it simply should not be there!
Put cameras where they are needed, not where they make money, I yearn for the day when this happens and the cops get back some of their due respect, a respect that is in tatters at the moment.
I want to get back to there being respect for the law, but to do that the law must first fully respect its people... and by Christ we are a long way from that today.
This was not the cps stuffing up, it was a safetey camera partnership creating a 5 mile set of sites and never checking the signing of the side roads over 3+ years. When it was rased the boss and the highways authority (part of the partnership failed to put it right...
from another website
Quote:
Pc Harrison stated that he was not a signing expert, however it is a BIG issue that he raised the signing errors at two locations and Dr Marion Sinclair seniors said "terminal signs not required at those locations" when asked who Seniors were stated Dr Sinclair.
When asked why he did not go to HCC he said he asked HCC employee who attended as liaison with camera partnership.
I would like to call for Dr Marion Sinclair's (check spelling?) resignation as head of Hampshire Safety Camera Partnership as the evidence revealed that she was informed of signing errors and ignored them. allowing innocent motorists to be wrongly prosecuted in their greedy hunt for £60 fixed penalties. She failed to ensure accurate prosicutions.
It is quite clear that hundreds of innocent motorists have been caught up in their sloppy setting up of a money grabbing speed camera route.
District judge Gillibrand dismissed the cases as the offence never occurred as the limit did not start. Therefore repeater signs could not repeat the limit.
The safetey camera partnership have continued to enforce an limit that is improperly signed despite being told by thier own police officers and receiving a detailed defence report 11 months ago. They have convicted motorists that were not guilty knowingly.
from another website
Quote:
Pc Harrison stated that he was not a signing expert, however it is a BIG issue that he raised the signing errors at two locations and Dr Marion Sinclair seniors said "terminal signs not required at those locations" when asked who Seniors were stated Dr Sinclair.
When asked why he did not go to HCC he said he asked HCC employee who attended as liaison with camera partnership.
I would like to call for Dr Marion Sinclair's (check spelling?) resignation as head of Hampshire Safety Camera Partnership as the evidence revealed that she was informed of signing errors and ignored them. allowing innocent motorists to be wrongly prosecuted in their greedy hunt for £60 fixed penalties. She failed to ensure accurate prosicutions.
It is quite clear that hundreds of innocent motorists have been caught up in their sloppy setting up of a money grabbing speed camera route.
District judge Gillibrand dismissed the cases as the offence never occurred as the limit did not start. Therefore repeater signs could not repeat the limit.
The safetey camera partnership have continued to enforce an limit that is improperly signed despite being told by thier own police officers and receiving a detailed defence report 11 months ago. They have convicted motorists that were not guilty knowingly.
I have some sympathy for BM's view on this. 
Notwithstanding the need for the signing to be legal...
...if the general motoring public can see some correlation between the enforcement strategies adopted and a tangible improvement in road safety or road etiquette, then they would be in favour of enforcing the spirit of the law, even to the point of criticising someone for taking the above stance in court.
Because it is difficult to see any of these benefits, believe me I've looked, there is an anarchic groundswell (I believe some might call it 'waking the sleeping tiger') which could swamp any current refereeing efforts (both good and bad) and rob us of the driving standards we like to think we deserve.
Notwithstanding the need for the signing to be legal...
...if the general motoring public can see some correlation between the enforcement strategies adopted and a tangible improvement in road safety or road etiquette, then they would be in favour of enforcing the spirit of the law, even to the point of criticising someone for taking the above stance in court.
Because it is difficult to see any of these benefits, believe me I've looked, there is an anarchic groundswell (I believe some might call it 'waking the sleeping tiger') which could swamp any current refereeing efforts (both good and bad) and rob us of the driving standards we like to think we deserve.
tony13579 said:
The Pc took the stand somewhat over dressed to impose with stab vest loaded with goodies like phones, radio etc he had fully loaded tool belt with pouches including hand cuffs.
Minor point but needs correcting; uniform officers wear their full kit to court as per force policy. If an incident occurred at court, as does happen, then the officer would be expected to act, hence the full kit. 
tony13579 said:
it is strange that only the pc giving evidence wore all this kit, the others did not
Possibly those that didn't weren't frontline, if anything kicked off at court they could be left looking a little red faced. I gave evidence in court this morning and wore my full uniform as it is part of my duty day and standard procedure. Sheriff JWPepper said:
tony13579 said:
it is strange that only the pc giving evidence wore all this kit, the others did not
Possibly those that didn't weren't frontline, if anything kicked off at court they could be left looking a little red faced. I gave evidence in court this morning and wore my full uniform as it is part of my duty day and standard procedure. http://community.iexplore.com/photos/journal_photo...
Sheriff JWPepper said:
tony13579 said:
it is strange that only the pc giving evidence wore all this kit, the others did not
Possibly those that didn't weren't frontline, if anything kicked off at court they could be left looking a little red faced. I gave evidence in court this morning and wore my full uniform as it is part of my duty day and standard procedure. Sort of the police equivalent of having a shave and wearing a suit!
Not a dig, as I wore a suit and had a shave myself...!
Very good read, I know this stretch of road very well, which makes it doubly interesting. Where the camera van sits half way up the hill is rightly a 40 limit, further on towards segensworth they've dropped the 60 limits down to 40 which is a pain. Out of interest what speeds were the 8 clocked at 
.
.Brother Mycroft said:
I want to get back to there being respect for the law, but to do that the law must first fully respect its people... and by Christ we are a long way from that today.
We need to lose a vast raft of petty law and prioritise enforcement on those that matter, not those that are convenient.
We need to lose all the arbitrary laws, because they can only be unjust.
We need to lose all the nasty thought crime laws which are more dangerous and unpleasant than any thought they seek to outlaw.
Then, and only then, will the law be worthy of respect.
tony13579 said:
I would like to call for Dr Marion Sinclair's (check spelling?) resignation as head of Hampshire Safety Camera Partnership as the evidence revealed that she was informed of signing errors and ignored them. allowing innocent motorists to be wrongly prosecuted in their greedy hunt for £60 fixed penalties. She failed to ensure accurate prosicutions.
It is quite clear that hundreds of innocent motorists have been caught up in their sloppy setting up of a money grabbing speed camera route.
I would like to see her, at least, jailed for racketeering.It is quite clear that hundreds of innocent motorists have been caught up in their sloppy setting up of a money grabbing speed camera route.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff