PDA

View Full Version : Speeding - photo evidence



Blackbird
28-08-2005, 09:03 PM
Received my first NIP for doing 40 in a 30 limit, in over 14years of having a clean licence. Now during the week of the incident my dad and I were sharing my car and we honestly cannot remember who was driving. I'm fine saying it was me if the evidence is there however I've asked for photographic evidence and been told that it will only be brought up in a court hearing and that if I wanted to I could go to the safety camera dept. in Hertford to view the evidence. Is there no way that this can be sent to my home instead of me having to go there to view it? If not am I allowed to keep a copy of the evidence? Can I ask for it to be sent to me again?
Thanks,
BB

firefly
29-08-2005, 06:06 PM
The question of going to view photographs all hinges (in my opinion) on whether or not it is reasonable for you so to do.

If you live within relatively close proximity to the camera office, and it is not too much of a hardship for you to go in, then I suggest you do so. If, however, you live relatively far away from the camera office, and it would not be reasonably practicable for you to view the photographs at first hand, then you should explain this in a letter and press the camera office for copies.

I have to say, if you live fairly far away then I don't see any credible reason why they can't send the photographs out. They're under no legal obligation to do so, but why not send them out? Post back here if you want a hand drafting up a letter to explain your circumstances.

Blackbird
01-09-2005, 01:36 PM
The question of going to view photographs all hinges (in my opinion) on whether or not it is reasonable for you so to do.

If you live within relatively close proximity to the camera office, and it is not too much of a hardship for you to go in, then I suggest you do so. If, however, you live relatively far away from the camera office, and it would not be reasonably practicable for you to view the photographs at first hand, then you should explain this in a letter and press the camera office for copies.

I have to say, if you live fairly far away then I don't see any credible reason why they can't send the photographs out. They're under no legal obligation to do so, but why not send them out? Post back here if you want a hand drafting up a letter to explain your circumstances.

Cheers Firefly. If you can help I'd very much appreciate it!!!

MoneyMart
02-09-2005, 08:56 AM
I believe some (or at least one) camera offices upload the photo's onto a secure web-site, and send you the link and password to view them in their standard "love letter" (NIP)...

G-Rich
02-09-2005, 09:10 AM
If this is true, it is probably the most sensible way of carrying out the duty... I hope all forces follow suit.


Are we finally entering the age of modern technology?! :eek:

MoneyMart
02-09-2005, 09:14 AM
It's shocking how slick, efficient and high tech the process is when it comes to prosecuting motorists.....

.....just a shame the government can't apply the same enthusiasm to other processes (transfer of cherished registration marks springs to mind, amongst others!)

oldcodger
02-09-2005, 09:48 AM
It's shocking how slick, efficient and high tech the process is when it comes to prosecuting motorists.....
Could you tell me which country you live in?
If my experience is anything to go by it can't be the UK:)

MoneyMart
14-09-2005, 12:35 PM
I believe some (or at least one) camera offices upload the photo's onto a secure web-site, and send you the link and password to view them in their standard "love letter" (NIP)...

Here is the URL :

http://secure.safetycameraswiltshire.co.uk/optimalview/wrd/run/portal.show

Blackbird
15-09-2005, 02:47 PM
Ok, I have now been to see the photo evidence and unfortunately it is pretty clear that it was myself driving. Now the NIP 28 days runs out today and unfortunately (it can only get worse can't it) I've lost it after putting it in such a safe place I can't find it any more. I spoke to the CTO and they agreed they would send me out a new one along with a conditional offer.

OldCodger, will I receive a summons immediately after the 28 days is up or will they give me some leeway? I've seen its me, I've decided to swallow my pride and get the points/fine (even after 15 yrs of having a safe clean licence) however I don't want to get an automatic summons for failing to fill in and send back the requested NIP. I understand that most units send a 'reminder' but surely within the 28 days not after?

The CTO has said they will send me a copy however I was due to receive it yesterday and still I haven't and I am panicking a bit. Any help/suggestions would be very appreciated!

wazza
15-09-2005, 02:53 PM
I would get it fill it in and iether post it or deliver it by hand asap... I am sure they will give you some credit if it arrives late.. put a covering letter with it explaining why it was late, i am sure they are human in that office

Blackbird
15-09-2005, 03:00 PM
Can one just send in licence, payment and cover note without the NIP?

wazza
15-09-2005, 03:39 PM
No not really, but I am sure you will get it in the post tomorrow, have confidence

oldcodger
15-09-2005, 04:21 PM
OldCodger, will I receive a summons immediately after the 28 days is up or will they give me some leeway? I've seen its me, I've decided to swallow my pride and get the points/fine (even after 15 yrs of having a safe clean licence) however I don't want to get an automatic summons for failing to fill in and send back the requested NIP.This sort of stuff all happens outside of the court system so the feds will know more about this than me.

The occasional one does get to court, often in the sort of circumstances you describe and we normally impose the same as a FP.

Your driving over the last 15 years is not at question here - just your driving at the time the camera went off. For many people its the incentive they need to sign up for the IAM or ROSPA training. At the very least I would suggest an hour with a driving instructor who will point out any bad habits you have. I do this every year - its cheaper than speeding tickets.

Blackbird
15-09-2005, 05:58 PM
This sort of stuff all happens outside of the court system so the feds will know more about this than me.

The occasional one does get to court, often in the sort of circumstances you describe and we normally impose the same as a FP.

Your driving over the last 15 years is not at question here - just your driving at the time the camera went off. For many people its the incentive they need to sign up for the IAM or ROSPA training. At the very least I would suggest an hour with a driving instructor who will point out any bad habits you have. I do this every year - its cheaper than speeding tickets.

Sure. But the same goes for a person's history when committing a crime. If the evidence is there and the court asks me for a defence one of the things which may get me off a lighter sentence/fine is that for the last 15 years I have had a completely clean driving licence which generally should reflect on the type of day to day driving that I do. I may be lucky but then I know that probably 90% of people get a speeding ticket once in their lives. If I had 9 points on my licence this may go against me however I believe that this would not be brought up in a court...doing so may be prejudicial.

RS3100
15-09-2005, 06:18 PM
Sure. But the same goes for a person's history when committing a crime. If the evidence is there and the court asks me for a defence one of the things which may get me off a lighter sentence/fine is that for the last 15 years I have had a completely clean driving licence which generally should reflect on the type of day to day driving that I do. I may be lucky but then I know that probably 90% of people get a speeding ticket once in their lives. If I had 9 points on my licence this may go against me however I believe that this would not be brought up in a court...doing so may be prejudicial.

If the matter were to go to court, you could put that before the court as mitigation, either by letter or appearing in person. Any points already on your licence would also be taken into consideration as you say.

If you accept a fixed penalty, it does exactly what it says on the tin, and your driving record, whether otherwise excellent or abysmal, is not taken into consideration.

oldcodger
15-09-2005, 07:20 PM
What I meant was that having a clean licence doesn't mean that you are incapable of speeding. Having re-read the post I can see that it wasn't very clear.

A fixed penalty is a bargain (in judicial terms) for those who are guilty of the offence AND who are willing to accept the consequences of their actions. So the previous record - good or bad - is not taken into account unless you are already on 9 points.

When cases do go to court the previous record is only mentioned when a guilty plea or verdict has been recorded. In those cases a bad record will usually increase the sentence, because of failure to respond to previous penalties.

Trax
17-09-2005, 12:41 PM
I would get it fill it in and iether post it or deliver it by hand asap... I am sure they will give you some credit if it arrives late.. put a covering letter with it explaining why it was late, i am sure they are human in that office


Human? He is talking about the 'safety' partnership office, surely even you dont think they are human? :D


Joking aside, they wont be bothered if the nip is returned late, they usually send another one out anyway if not received anything, they dont like pushing for court straight away, as then they cannot keep the fine money to fund their own wages, and they dont like that, no they dont like it up em (sorry just watched an episode of Dad's Army)


On another note, on other popular sites, people do say that we should always take the offer of court appearance, at the very least we should wait to see the evidence, and on judging that, plead guilty / not guilty then. If, on the CPS providing the evidence within 7 days before court appearence (which they seem not to like doing), you then decide to plead guilty, i.e. before going to court, can you still get a straight forward fine and points? Or are you likely to get silly points and fine for the cheek of wanting to see the evidence?

oldcodger
17-09-2005, 04:23 PM
A fixed penalty is a bargain (in judicial terms). Its a lot less than the standard penalty for the offence and is the least hassle. If you know you are guilty and are willing to accept the consequences of your actions, then its the best offer you will get.

If you are not sure you were guilty you should plead not guilty and have a look at the evidence. You can always change your mind right up to the last minute.

If it gets to court before you plead guilty the bench will judge each case on the individual circumstances. We often impose the equivalent of a FP (ie £60 +3 points) if we feel there was good reason why the defendant couldn't plead guilty at an earlier time.

If there isn't clear reason for a late change of plea you will get costs added - for a guilty plea to a simple offence that would add about £35.

If it seems to the court that guilt was obvious and that there is no good reason (or indeed any reason at all) to turn down a FP then they will impose the standard penalty.

Sadly, there is no mechanism to impose extra points or higher fines on people who muck us about for the fun of it.:(

Trax
17-09-2005, 06:38 PM
I think what you say sounds fair, I would always like to dispute the fact, and would like to see evidence, as should be the right when anyone is charged with an offence, and the extra £35 pounds for the court time that may be wasted, sounds like a bargain.

This way, at least the vile partnerships have to work for their money, oh yes, and not even recieve it in the end, and £35 pounds for that is the bargain of the year.

The fact that these vile 'safety' partnerships do not make this clear, and give unclear misleading facts (Lie), to stop people doing this, shows what they are all about.

Sorry about the rant, but the amount of effort that is expended on petty crimes that money can be rasied from, opposed to crimes that affect peoples lifes, but cost money to pursue, does get me going. More police to catch motering offences and less cameras, lets make the roads safer.

oldcodger
17-09-2005, 07:13 PM
The fact that these vile 'safety' partnerships do not make this clear, and give unclear misleading facts (Lie), to stop people doing this, shows what they are all about.I would be very interested in seeing some of these lies, because I can raise the point with people who are high enough up the system to order changes to be made. Can you point me in the right direction?


but the amount of effort that is expended on petty crimes that money can be rasied from, opposed to crimes that affect peoples lifesMoney raised by cameras comes from people who are either :-
incapable of staying within a posted limit even though they would like to
or
people who think their driving is so good that the law should not apply to them.

Surely bad drivers need to be reminded (as often as necessary) that they are lacking in basic skills ie observation and/or car control?

As far as the other group is concerned, I wouldn't like to imagine what it would be like to live in country where a relatively small group of people can overrule parliament.

Trax
19-09-2005, 05:57 PM
As far as lies are concerned, the 'safety' partnerships lie in all their advertising for a start. Whilst most people will not classify misleading the general public by massaging statistics to say whatever you want is a lie, it isn't really telling the truth.

Take 'Arrive Allive' claims that they have reduced KSI's by 68%. Now as you can imagine, there is no data that could ever prove this in reality, they word the release to be meaningless, especially that when that if you look at their raw data, accidents and deaths have increased. Now they are not lying, as they have played with stats, how they record them on different years etc, to try and prove that they should still be in a job, but it isnt truthfull.

As far as the process of sending NIP's out to the general public, most of whom are general law abiding public, they will bully, mislead, and in the end blackmail you into signing a confession. Now you may say this is how the law and rules are written, and of course they are going to take advantage of that. But it's not generally being truthfull, in how they go about it.

Take not knowing who was driving at the time of the accident. They will bully you and blackmail you into naming someone, anyone. Threatening large fines if you dont, when really they should be saying what you should do if you carnt remember, how to go about it. You may say that its up to the criminal to know how to fight the system, but we are not talking about real criminals here, so they dont, and just name whoever has the least points on their license.

To be honest, no one should take the FPN, but wait for full evidence disclosure seven days before trial, to see if they are guilty or not. The whole system is built on the lie, (ever sat in a traffic car when the policeman says you could pay thousands if you want to contest? Maybe not a lie but bullying into accepting), that you must accept the FPN, without investigating the alleged offence. That way the partnerships get no money, and people will not be pleading guilty to an alleged offence without ever seeing any evidence at all. The whole idea of FPN and NIPS is criminal to the public. £35 extra, like I said, is a bargain, we should use the law just like the criminals do.

oldcodger
19-09-2005, 07:34 PM
As far as the process of sending NIP's out to the general public, most of whom are general law abiding publicuntil they exceed the posted speed limit at which point they are law breakers


they will bully, misleadWould you prefer that they don't explain the possible consequences of ignoring the law?


and in the end blackmail you into signing a confession
Blackmail is of course illegal. Simply take the evidence you have to your nearest police station, sit back and watch the guilty people go to jail for a long time.


Take not knowing who was driving at the time of the accident. They will bully you and blackmail you into naming someone, anyone. No they won't. They will give you lots of chances to remember, with warnings of what is possible if you don't give the matter the serious consideration it deserves. Eventually if you cant remember then it goes to court. At court an independent tribunal will decide if your story stands up to scrutiny. In my experience the majority do.

The main reason it has to go to court is the significant number of websites "suggesting" that if you can't remember that you did 100+ on the motorway you will get 3 points and not 6(or a ban). To combat this the points for failure to supply information will be going up to 6 in the near future.


To be honest, no one should take the FPN, but wait for full evidence disclosure seven days before trial, to see if they are guilty or not.If you really don't know whether you are guilty or not this is the sensible thing to do.


The whole system is built on the lie, (ever sat in a traffic car when the policeman says you could pay thousands if you want to contest?Which could happen if you earn a lot. Feds are not in a position to give an accurate estimate of fines, so they quote the maximum. Would you prefer they quoted a fine of £50 only to find that the court imposes £250?

Even with my training and regular court experience I can't quote specific fines because so much depends on individual circumstances. It never ceases to amaze me that lots of websites are willing to state what a fine will be without having a clue what the person earns.

firefly
19-09-2005, 08:00 PM
I would be very interested in seeing some of these lies, because I can raise the point with people who are high enough up the system to order changes to be made. Can you point me in the right direction? <...>

Your wish is my command. The biggest problem is where to start...

West Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership

Lie 1 - http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/faq.asp#11 (http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/faq.asp#11) :
Q If I wasn't the driver but I know who was, aren't I incriminating them in breach of their human rights?

A The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law does not affect the admissibility of safety camera evidence. The Law Lords in Privy Council have ruledó'It is the duty of the registered keeper to know who is the driver at any time.'

The Privy Council ruling said nothing of the kind. This is so far wrong it's criminal. I've written to them to tell them this. I have also included the relevant judgment (Brown v Stott), but it falls on deaf ears. This is pure scaremongering to make people 'fess up. Shocking


Lie 2 - http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/faq.asp#13
Q I didn't know the speed limit of the road because there were no signsócan I plead not guilty?

A Magistrates' Courts will not accept this as an excuse. Motorists are expected to know/find out/familiarise themselves with the speed limits of the road they're on. If there are no signs but you're in a built-up area where there are street lights, it usually means you're in a 30mph area. If in doubt, travel at no more than 30mph. For more information see the [Highway Code (http://www.dft.gov.uk/)].

So even if there are no signs, you're doomed! What utter ******. I've written to them regarding this, quoting the relevant legislation. Guess what? Yup, no change.

Lie 3 - http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/faq.asp#25

Q What happens if I plead not guilty?

A You have the right to challenge the offence in court. If you are found guilty, the magistrates will decide upon any fine and penalty points to be awarded. Although they are not empowered to lessen the fixed penalty, they can increase it if they think the offence merits it, having heard all the evidence. So, if you go to court and are found guilty, you might end up paying more than the fixed penalty £60 (maximum penalty is £2,000 fine and six penalty points) AND you might have to pay court costs as well.

This one really gets my goat. Talk about putting the frighteners on someone. The MAXIMUM that someone can be fined is £1000. West Yorkshire have decided that isn't enough, and have doubled it. Throw in some good old fashioned scaremongering and you're looking at a horror story for the accused.

Lie 4 - http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/faq.asp#27
Q Where does the money raised from speeding fines go to?

A The purpose of cameras is not to raise money. <...>

Ahem.

Now...that's just ONE partnership. Browse other sites and you'll see the lies, scaremongering and general disinformation that is peddled. I, and others, have submitted lots of letters to umpteen partnerships. Nothing changes. There can be only two conclusions:

1) They know they are lying, but are unconcerned
2) They don't believe their own eyes

Which is it?

oldcodger, now that you have just a few of the lies, can we assume you'll take it up with the partnerships or their superiors? I can forward all the relevant case law that you need.

Thanks in advance.

oldcodger
19-09-2005, 09:38 PM
oldcodger, now that you have just a few of the lies, can we assume you'll take it up with the partnerships or their superiors? I can forward all the relevant case law that you need.I will raise most of the points you list at the next Judicial Issues Group I attend.
I will not be raising point 4 because you are mistaken. I do accept that, owing to there being so many drivers who are unable or unwilling to drive within the limits, cameras do raise a lot of cash. Which doesn't alter the fact that the primary purpose of cameras is to reduce speeding. Or the fact that the quickest way to get rid of cameras is for drivers to stop breaking the law.

Thanks for your offer to provide case law. I am sure you won't be offended when I say that I would prefer to get case law references from people who have some training in the law.

Incidentally, why do you assume that malice is behind every SCP statement?
Isn't there any room for mistakes?

firefly
19-09-2005, 10:19 PM
<...>

Incidentally, why do you assume that malice is behind every SCP statement?
Isn't there any room for mistakes?
Indeed there is room for mistakes.

I submitted the case law and statute which basically spells out what I've said. The gentleman involved (I can provide his name) wrote back and told me that he wasn't changing the web site, no matter what I wrote.

Mistakes are one thing, but ignoring the facts are quite another. A website for a police department is not "marketing puff", but should spell out the facts. Too many give out the message, "Don't bother trying to fight it, we've got you banged to rights." There are scores of other factual inaccuracies all across the Safety Camera Websites, but I only included the one that is best known to me.

Oh, and I put in number four as a bit of a laugh.

Halski
20-09-2005, 08:16 AM
Lie 2 - http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/faq.asp#13
Q I didn't know the speed limit of the road because there were no signsócan I plead not guilty?

A Magistrates' Courts will not accept this as an excuse. Motorists are expected to know/find out/familiarise themselves with the speed limits of the road they're on. If there are no signs but you're in a built-up area where there are street lights, it usually means you're in a 30mph area. If in doubt, travel at no more than 30mph.
This is apparently at variance with the requirement to have an original limit sign and then repeaters not so?

firefly
20-09-2005, 08:39 AM
Unfortunately, some camera websites (SCP) use good old fashioned scaremongering to -frankly- bully someone into taking the easy option (i.e. naming themselves and taking the points and fine, whether they're guilty or not). The SCPs rely on ignorance of the law by the layman. Imagine if you were to receive a NIP in Derbyshire and you weren't sure who was driving:

"I know, I'll look up their website (http://www.slowitdown.co.uk/faq.asp#q48) and see what they say on the matter"

"If you fail to provide the requested information then you will receive a summons to court for failure to provide the requested information."

Scary, huh? Not as scary as electing to go to court, though:

"If you accept the conditional offer you will have to pay a penalty of £60 and have your licence endorsed. Should you choose to go to court and are convicted, the Magistrates have the power to impose a fine of up to £2,000 and order six penalty points to be placed on your licence. If the offence is extremely serious they could impose a period of disqualification.
If you are convicted you will also be ordered to pay court costs. The Magistrates will fix the level of fine you pay after taking into account factors such as the speed you were travelling and your income. You could be ordered to pay a lesser amount than the fixed penalty if the circumstances justify it. However, the fine is usually substantially greater than £60 and frequently the Courts will order more than three penalty points to be placed on your licence."

Not only is it a load of cobblers, it's downright threatening. Why would they put the thumbscrews on someone like that? Is it because they don't get a brass farthing if it goes to court? You bet your ass it is.

Trax
21-09-2005, 10:41 AM
I will not be raising point 4 because you are mistaken. I do accept that, owing to there being so many drivers who are unable or unwilling to drive within the limits, cameras do raise a lot of cash. Which doesn't alter the fact that the primary purpose of cameras is to reduce speeding. Or the fact that the quickest way to get rid of cameras is for drivers to stop breaking the law.


I do beg to differ on this. As you said, we are criminals if we exceed the posted limit. So traveling at 31mph, means we are criminals, and generaly means we are all criminals in this country, and I am sure that you have boken this law at some point in your life, if not accidently recently.

Now before money came into the equation, someone traveling at 33mph was not deemed important, and would have faced the full brunt of the law and legal system. Now I would agree that traveling at 33mph or even 37mph is not important, and defintley not in the public interest to pursue (I thought public interest was a CPS requirement), so when policemen saw someone travling at above he limits, it would generaly hav been an excuse to give them a pull, check for important criminal activity i.e. no license, tax, drunk etc, and send them on there way.

Now since the aspect of the patnerships, who rely on the money that they raise to perpetuate their existence, we see the law being forced, when its not in the publc interest.

Take a parrallel law, which is a publican is breaking the law if he serves someone who is under the influence of alchohol. The police do not pursue this law, unless in extreem circumstanes, as everone in a pub is under the influence of alchohol after a couple of drinks. Now if we introduced fines for this, and a partnership who could go into pubs could fine the publican, and the partnership relied on te fines to fund itself, then we would have ths law pursued against public interest, just like people going slightly abive the limit.

You also say the partnership is about safety, and reducing speeds. It is obvious that cameras do not do this, just looking at deaths, they have increased in areas that rely on cameras, and decreased in areas that dont have a partnership.

The partnerhips rely on the revene they generate to keep running, this is why they pursue marginal law breakers, who's actions do not harm anyone. Its fine if they concentrated on dangerous speeding, but they would not generate enough cash, so they lower and lower the thresholds, hide vans, target areas of roads that have never had an accident, now target moterways, all in an effort to maximise the revenue they create.

You will say dont break the law, but the law was not created to be used like this, to generat money, it is to protect and keep the public in line. Perhaps the law needs to be changed, but thats not going to happen.

I am all for speed enforcement, and reducing accidents, and making our roads safer, the whole ethos behind the partnerships is not, and never will be.

oldcodger
21-09-2005, 12:05 PM
I really don't have the time or inclination to go on and on responding to the same old arguements.

Feds and JPs are obliged to uphold the law as it is, and not as we or others might like it to be.

5ive-o is primarily a source of information about how the system works and how laws are applied in practice. All those with resident status here do their best to do just that.

You may get replies from other people who post here, if not there are lots of sites where your view will fit right in.

In the end, if you want the law to change you have to convince politicians, because feds and JPs have no power to do so.

AquilaEagle
21-09-2005, 03:06 PM
I really don't have the time or inclination to go on and on responding to the same old arguements.
So why did you?

I find the debate quite interesting, it is one reason i come here and read.

Debate stimulates opinions, and people have different ones :) I think that is a good thing.

7db
21-09-2005, 03:20 PM
I've read this thread with interest.

I hold no truck with the scamera's are evil argument, although I have worked in enough organisations to realise that the actions of a collective are rarely coherent, and do believe that no individual would act as they do.

I am horrified at the advice quoted by Firefly -- in particular with respect to signage etc -- and I am glad that OC says he will raise this in the way he can. This is exactly an example of the small group - OC refers to - of people disregarding parliament's will by suggesting the law is other than it is written.

(Halski - that's not exactly the requirement, but close)

Those of you who know me by now know my personal views on posted speed limits and its relationship to safedriving, so I'll not repeat myself.

oldcodger
21-09-2005, 04:23 PM
I am aware that there are a lot of myths and misunderstandings about courts and court procedures. Responsibilty for this must go, in part, to the justice system which does not make that sort of information easily available.

I post here to help people who are in need of help on those subjects. Unfortunatly all too often a poster states (with apparent authority) something which I know to be false.

Do I leave that sort of thing unchallenged? In which case others visiting here might think them to be true.

On the other hand fitting in adult and youth court duties as well as earning a living already fills a lot of my time.

I have been aware that recently my answers have not been to the standard I would like (in particular one where I made a very basic mistake and said that failing to report an accident was not imprisonable when it is).

That is due in part to the time I take responding to the sort of stuff which already fills other sites where people are only too willing to have their conspiracy theories "confirmed" with yet more erroneous reports.

I am not suggesting that that kind of post should be in any way censored, just that there are more appreciative homes for it and that I won't be responding to so many (if indeed any) of them in future.

7db
21-09-2005, 04:49 PM
A simple "no it isn't" would carry great weight from you. Your more detailed explanations are highly valued by everyone on this forum. Distinct from almost every othe forum I post on, to have someone with a working knowledge of the judicial process is helpful.

oldcodger
21-09-2005, 07:46 PM
:oops::oops::oops::oops:

but thanks for the thought.

7db
22-09-2005, 12:20 AM
And in case we get too fluffy, let me just say that I'm one of those people who think that driving above the posted speed limit is not always completely immoral -- it's driving "too fast" that is immoral.

Flyingscot
22-09-2005, 05:14 PM
Lie 2 - http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/faq.asp#13
Q I didn't know the speed limit of the road because there were no signsócan I plead not guilty?

A Magistrates' Courts will not accept this as an excuse. Motorists are expected to know/find out/familiarise themselves with the speed limits of the road they're on. If there are no signs but you're in a built-up area where there are street lights, it usually means you're in a 30mph area. If in doubt, travel at no more than 30mph. For more information see the [Highway Code (http://www.dft.gov.uk/)].

So even if there are no signs, you're doomed! What utter ******. I've written to them regarding this, quoting the relevant legislation. Guess what? Yup, no change.


Is this not technically true? If there are no signs and street lamps it's 30mph, and if in doubt stay at 30? I thought that was good advice, ccould do with add in that if there are no signs or lamps it's NSL right enough, but other than that I thought it was sound?

7db
22-09-2005, 05:31 PM
Is this not technically true? If there are no signs and street lamps it's 30mph, and if in doubt stay at 30? I thought that was good advice, ccould do with add in that if there are no signs or lamps it's NSL right enough, but other than that I thought it was sound?

Technically, no.

The Road TRaffic Regulation Act(1984) S85 provides a defence if the speed limit is not properly displayed:-

"Where no system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart is provided on a road, but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above"

Subsections (1) and (2) require the prevailing TSRGD to be followed - either by the Secretary of State for trunk roads or Local Authority for non-trunk roads.

There is a complication that not all streetlit roads are restricted roads (do not require speed limits at start, repeaters not allowed) as distinct from unrestricted roads (almost always require speed limits at start, repeaters mandatory). Sections of lit motorway are good examples of this - these are derestricted by Order. Recent rulings further suggest that not all restricted roads are streetlit -- they can be restricted by Order without streetlights, although this is likely to be rare.

Confused yet?

firefly
22-09-2005, 07:04 PM
Is this not technically true?
Err, no.

Why don't we remove all the signs from roads and just "guess" the limit on them. That way, we can all drive about at 30mph and wonder if we're below the legal limit.

I don't think so. Signs are there for a reason. If a road is set at 40mph but is without signage, would you prosecute someone for travelling at 50mph?