39 in a 30. Non camera signed road...

[MarkGolf]

I came home to a letter from the MET Police kindly informing me that I've been caught speeding. The alleged offence of excess speed (39 in a 30 zone) at 8:58am on a road which joins to the road I live on. I don't deny that I was probably speeding and will gladly take the points or go on the speeding awareness course but my issue is that there are NO speed cameras on this road so it must have been a mobile van. I am normally quite observant and would spot a marked van from a mile away but I don't recall ever seeing such a thing at such an early time.

My question is, are there not meant to be speed camera signs within a certain distance of a 'speed trap'?

I know this road and there is most definetly not a single speed camera sign along it... I'm not sure if vans are an exception to the rule but if someone knows any info that could clear things up, it would be appreciated

Thanks and Road Angels clearly don't detect lasers!

Oh yeah, Im also going to ask for photographic evidence just so I can see where this 'van' was and to get my money's worth!

[MarkGolf]

Just for a quick sanity check, I just took a drive down the road I was caught on and there is not a single camera sign (as mention previously, black and white old camera thing) on either side of the road. The only signs which are not 'legally' counted are those paper signs which say 'This is a 30 zone, kill your speed not a child' or something similar... Most of those are quite hard to make out now due to age.

I found this document (PDF) on the DirectGov website

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/idcplg?Idc...

And here's the paragraph I was looking for

41. The Department has published an aide-memoire (DfT2006a) that provides guidance on speed limit and safety camera signing and is designed to ensure correct and consistent signing across the country. It does not replace or update the legal requiremenrs of TSRGD but should be considered as best practise. In summary:

(3rd bullet point down) For mobile enforcement, co-located camer and speed limit reminder signs should continue to be placed in advance of the point of entry to the site or route (including or excluding side roads at the discretion of the road safety partnership) in the direction being enforced. Camera signs should also continue to be placed thereafter at intervals of around 1 km throughout the length being enforced.

It says this a bit further on in bold font..

This camera signing, visibility and conspicuity guidance has no bearing on the enforcement of offences. Non-compliance with this guidance does not provide any mitigation of, or defence for, an alleged offence commited under current UK law.



This is the road in question

It's quite hard to show but the bend in the road is very blind, the road is populated with many cars and my suspition is that if they had a van out, it would have been set to capture cars as they came out from the bend (Probably where you can see a bus, white retangle) and by the time the driver had relaised, it would be too late..

I think I'm going to have to push forward with the lack of camera warning signs but I'm sure i'll be fed some bullst of the operating van had a sign on it. If anyone can help clear things up using the PDF, again, would be much appreciated in helping get one over this scammera tax

[vonhosen]

MarkGolf said:

I came home to a letter from the MET Police kindly informing me that I've been caught speeding. The alleged offence of excess speed (39 in a 30 zone) at 8:58am on a road which joins to the road I live on. I don't deny that I was probably speeding and will gladly take the points or go on the speeding awareness course but my issue is that there are NO speed cameras on this road so it must have been a mobile van. I am normally quite observant and would spot a marked van from a mile away but I don't recall ever seeing such a thing at such an early time.

My question is, are there not meant to be speed camera signs within a certain distance of a 'speed trap'?

I know this road and there is most definetly not a single speed camera sign along it... I'm not sure if vans are an exception to the rule but if someone knows any info that could clear things up, it would be appreciated

Thanks and Road Angels clearly don't detect lasers!

Oh yeah, Im also going to ask for photographic evidence just so I can see where this 'van' was and to get my money's worth!

No, signs are not a requirement in order to prosecute.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 20th February 21:20

[MarkGolf]

Thanks, just needed clarification. I had heard of people using this against a fine and getting away with it.

I guess I'll bend over and take the scammera tax.

Bloody sneaky talivan bas@#&ds

[vonhosen]

MarkGolf said:

Thanks, just needed clarification. I had heard of people using this against a fine and getting away with it.

I guess I'll bend over and take the scammera tax.

Bloody sneaky talivan bas@#&ds

They used to be a requirement in order for SCP's to qualify for netting off, but that all changed last year.

[Ordinary Bloke]

Unlucky. Mine was parked behind a high-sided van, very deliberately hidden, I saw it as I drove past (at 37 in a 30). Theoretically I could have gone back and taken a photo, but I expect people who point out discrepancies in local policing methods get nicked every time they leave their house.

First in 17 years, so I guess I've been lucky. It still stings when you it was illegal, though...

[MarkGolf]

Damn, suppose we just have to accept it like Brits and carry on..

A family solicitor commented under coughing that I could put forward the details of someone who has passed away... lol

[vonhosen]

MarkGolf said:

Damn, suppose we just have to accept it like Brits and carry on..

A family solicitor commented under coughing that I could put forward the details of someone who has passed away... lol

Perhaps they were drumming up work for a PtCoJ trial.

[vonhosen]

MarkGolf said:

Damn, suppose we just have to accept it like Brits and carry on..

A family solicitor commented under coughing that I could put forward the details of someone who has passed away... lol

Perhaps they were drumming up work for a PtCoJ trial.

[Hooli]

vonhosen said:

MarkGolf said:

Damn, suppose we just have to accept it like Brits and carry on..

A family solicitor commented under coughing that I could put forward the details of someone who has passed away... lol

Perhaps they were drumming up work for a PtCoJ trial.

pervert the course of justice?

[DIW35]

There's a story in today's papers about an old boy who did just that to avoid a drink driving ban. He's just started a prison sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[MarkGolf]

lol

I'll look on the brightside and accept that I've been ripped off for a rolling shot taken from a horrible angle.. Will be a treat if it's colour

[jondude]

Good link above Mark but as it uses the words 'guide to best practise ' then, considering I was going to get done for 34 in 30 ( under the guidelines ) it is all a bit loose and cofusing.

There seems to be a slow but sure drive towards making speeding as anti-social as drinking and driving, although it seems to have passed our politicians by that the public do not like the very wooden way this is done ( speed cameras which do nothing to ensure dangerous - even drunk and dangerous - drivers are caught, and in many, many cases are fining people at no help to road safety ).

So simply, I doubt if trying to argue the police broke guidelines would wash at all with any court.

Or maybe....my case timed out 6 or so weeks ago, so I do wonder if a superior officer took another look before fining me and made the decision to keep to the guidelines.

Not sure - if they had written saying on reflection it seemed petty to do me for 1mph either side of guidelines, but hoped I would learn from this and keep my speed down, I would indeed have learnt not only that, but more respect for the police. I'm sure many other drivers would improve their manners if the police did this more.

Not contacting me either way is still unprofessional and childish.