M4 e/bound roadworks, near M4/M5 Almondsbury jct.
Discussion
Apologies if this has been posted before 
,
www.epost.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=104499&command=displayContent&sourceNode=104498&contentPK=8881399
-----------------------------------------------------
SPEED LIMIT SIGNS WERE BLOWN OVER
BY CHRIS ALLEN
11:00 - 18 February 2004
A Driver believes a temporary speed camera on the M4 could have clocked scores of motorists illegally after warning signs were knocked over in high winds. Rob Walker has been sent a notice of intended prosecution by the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, despite police saying the case should have been dropped.
The 56-year-old IT manager, from Southville, was snapped driving at 65mph past the camera, which is positioned on the M4 eastbound carriageway close to the M4/M5 Almondsbury interchange.
While roadworks are being carried out, a temporary speed limit of 50mph is currently in place.
But because the 50mph speed limit signs had been blown down, Mr Walker says he was unaware of the temporary limit and says dozens of other motorists could be in the same position, without even realising it.
Since being put in place 21 days ago, the same camera that photographed Mr Walker's car has captured 4,321 motorists driving faster than 50mph.
It will net the Safety Camera Partnership nearly £260,000 if each driver pays the minimum £60 fine with three penalty points on their licence.
The same camera caught more than 1,000 drivers on January 27, the first day it went up. Mr Walker is accused of speeding on Saturday, January 31.
He was on his way home from Wales at about 7.30pm when he saw the camera flash in his rear-view mirror.
On arriving home, he phoned the police to complain that he had not seen any warning signs telling him the speed limit was 50 mph.
Two hours later an officer phoned him back to say he would not be prosecuted because a police patrol car had just radioed in to say the signs had been blown over.
Mr Walker, who has written a letter asking for the prosecution to be dropped, said: "I was surprised when I received the notice through the post. I just want to alert other motorists.
"All those drivers caught on January 31 can surely argue they were caught illegally.
"I wasn't going over the legal 70mph limit and yet the Safety Camera Partnership has still sent me a notice of intended prosecution."
By law, cameras can only be put in place if sufficient warning signs are put along the road leading up to the camera site.
Cameras can only be put up on motorways as a temporary measure during roadworks, as a way of protecting workers. They are normally only placed at accident blackspots.
Police spokeswoman Liz Kirkham said: "If drivers can't see the sign, for whatever reason, then they can't be prosecuted."
Safety Camera Partnership spokesman Dave Gollicker said: "I find it hard to believe that every sign was blown down, although it could be the case."
------------------------------------------------------
If this does apply to anyone, you should note that the quote from the scammer at the end is a lie. Only sufficient signs have to be down to render the signs non-presribed; e.g. one start sign being down would be sufficient.
, www.epost.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=104499&command=displayContent&sourceNode=104498&contentPK=8881399
-----------------------------------------------------
SPEED LIMIT SIGNS WERE BLOWN OVER
BY CHRIS ALLEN
11:00 - 18 February 2004
A Driver believes a temporary speed camera on the M4 could have clocked scores of motorists illegally after warning signs were knocked over in high winds. Rob Walker has been sent a notice of intended prosecution by the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, despite police saying the case should have been dropped.
The 56-year-old IT manager, from Southville, was snapped driving at 65mph past the camera, which is positioned on the M4 eastbound carriageway close to the M4/M5 Almondsbury interchange.
While roadworks are being carried out, a temporary speed limit of 50mph is currently in place.
But because the 50mph speed limit signs had been blown down, Mr Walker says he was unaware of the temporary limit and says dozens of other motorists could be in the same position, without even realising it.
Since being put in place 21 days ago, the same camera that photographed Mr Walker's car has captured 4,321 motorists driving faster than 50mph.
It will net the Safety Camera Partnership nearly £260,000 if each driver pays the minimum £60 fine with three penalty points on their licence.
The same camera caught more than 1,000 drivers on January 27, the first day it went up. Mr Walker is accused of speeding on Saturday, January 31.
He was on his way home from Wales at about 7.30pm when he saw the camera flash in his rear-view mirror.
On arriving home, he phoned the police to complain that he had not seen any warning signs telling him the speed limit was 50 mph.
Two hours later an officer phoned him back to say he would not be prosecuted because a police patrol car had just radioed in to say the signs had been blown over.
Mr Walker, who has written a letter asking for the prosecution to be dropped, said: "I was surprised when I received the notice through the post. I just want to alert other motorists.
"All those drivers caught on January 31 can surely argue they were caught illegally.
"I wasn't going over the legal 70mph limit and yet the Safety Camera Partnership has still sent me a notice of intended prosecution."
By law, cameras can only be put in place if sufficient warning signs are put along the road leading up to the camera site.
Cameras can only be put up on motorways as a temporary measure during roadworks, as a way of protecting workers. They are normally only placed at accident blackspots.
Police spokeswoman Liz Kirkham said: "If drivers can't see the sign, for whatever reason, then they can't be prosecuted."
Safety Camera Partnership spokesman Dave Gollicker said: "I find it hard to believe that every sign was blown down, although it could be the case."
------------------------------------------------------
If this does apply to anyone, you should note that the quote from the scammer at the end is a lie. Only sufficient signs have to be down to render the signs non-presribed; e.g. one start sign being down would be sufficient.
jeffreyarcher said:
He was on his way home from Wales at about 7.30pm when he saw the camera flash in his rear-view mirror.On arriving home, he phoned the police to complain that he had not seen any warning signs telling him the speed limit was 50 mph.
fair play,the guy was worried for his license so he called to advise the cops that he had seen no speed limit signs near the scamera......nothing wrong with that.
jeffreyarcher said:
Two hours later an officer phoned him back to say he would not be prosecuted because a police patrol car had just radioed in to say the signs had been blown over.
the trafpol acnowledged the problem with the fallen signs was correct......verification of the highest order so-to-speak.
jeffreyarcher said:
Safety Camera Partnership spokesman Dave Gollicker said: "I find it hard to believe that every sign was blown down, although it could be the case."
even after seeing the facts this c**t STILL believes the scameras are 'all-telling' and 'all-knowing' and then basicly calling the guy who reported the problem with the signs as a liar......the f*****g contempt they show for the public is truly remarkable, i have no time for these f**kheads,their job description should be 'government sponsered ars**oles with no independant thought'.....they are the festering pile of excretion from a deceased warthog......and i dont think much of them at-all.....may the fleas of a thousand camels infest their pubic hair and may their offspring have very small dicks....(and that includes the girls!)
>> Edited by cortinaman on Saturday 21st February 22:07
cortinaman said:
Safety Camera Partnership spokesman Dave Gollicker said: "I find it hard to believe that every sign was blown down, although it could be the case."
even after seeing the facts this c**t STILL believes the scameras are 'all-telling' and 'all-knowing' and then basicly calling the guy who reported the problem with the signs as a liar......the f*****g contempt they show for the public is truly remarkable,
Of more concern is their contempt for the law. IMO, that statement is carefully worded and for one reason; to protect their fraudulently obtained revenue by reducing the number of people who complain by making them think that all the signs have to be down for the signs to be illegal. The chances of all the signs being down is probably next to zero, unless it is a very short stretch, as there would be repeaters.
These scammers really are out of control. The police say to drop it and they still issue a NIP.
Avon & Somerset and South Wales are obviously vying for the Dick Turpin of the year award. Or perhaps Avon & Somerset having been taking lessons from South Wales.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff