Safe Speed Forums

I've received a NIP for doing 37 in a 30 zone. However as far as I'm concerned the camera serves no purpose but to generate money. It is one of 2 which sit both sides of a road that dips, so the cameras are sited on top of the slopes where cars would start going down-hill. Also the road is not residential and is not a known accident black spot. However there is a school a few metres up on the same road and it has no cameras at all, if they were here you couldn't argue their existence. This is a 100% honey trap as far as I'm concerned and I want to take it to court if nessecary. Also I'm not convinced I was doing 37 as I am aware of these cameras. What evidence do I gather (ie; ask people who live on a slip road running alongside further back if they've ever known there be any accidents), and what do I do now? I am sure as hell now paying though. In the blurb on the back they are seemingly trying to wriggle out of giving details as to if this is a blackspot or not, but surely if its a public road then they have to. Do I basically say to them 'see you in court'? Thanks in advance.

Title cunningly edited to fit - S

I think you'll find you are stuffed with respect to challenging the reason the camera is there.
Have you had your speedo checked to make absolutely sure its reading correctly? Best bet is to have a look at www.Pepipoo.com

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

The old 'rulebook' allowed some enforcement effort to be placed in areas which are not accident blackspots (the definition of which is fairly wide ranging anyway) - this is a moot point as the rulebook was thrown out of the window a few months ago.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

How about the 'I'll see you in court bit'. Not a delaying tactic by myself as I firmly believe this camera is not in best intrests of the public regarding safety or anything really. Just the police's pockets. I'm prepared to fight, I could lose my license over it if I get 'scammed' again. Any ideas would be appriciated.

Yes but, "I'll see you in court" with what as your defence?

Sorry to appear flippant, but getting carted away like Sideshow Bob shouting "you'll all pay for this" isn't going to help. You need to have a concrete base from which to mount your defence.
You are the umpteen millionth er, customer, of these bloody things and there have been many, many different angles tried. Your best bet as I said before is to try www.pepipoo.com who are better placed to discuss the legal aspects of your case. One thing I DO know is don't try anything 'clever' which could result in a charge of perverting the course of justice. Thats happened too often as well.
Sorry to appear defeatist, perhaps someone else can help.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Only because I think the whole thing stinks basically. If the camera was any use it'll be further up the road by the school. I'm angry enough to challenge it but not stupid enough to do anything knee-jerk. I agree with anything that stops people driving like *****s, but to prosecute people for going 7 mph over the limit which is too low anyway, is too much. I won;t reply to their letter yet, and I'll contact that site as you suggested.

Deano - I have sent you a PM from work yesterday.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

37 in a 30? Hah! - join the club.

I recently challenged my "37 in a 30" NIP in Magistrates' Court, and I won the case. The reason I won it was because the police and local council did not know the law as well as they thought they did. I had been charged under the wrong section of the 1984 RTRA, and was able to prove to the prosecution that the section of the act which had been used in the summons could not lawfully be used in cases involving roads which DO NOT have a system of street lighting.

I have a few questions, the answers to which could affect the outcome of your case if you were to challenge it in court.

• You've said the road was not residential. Does the road have street lighting with the lamps at intervals not exceeding 200yds (England and Wales) or 185 metres (Scotland)?
• Does the road have speed limit signs with repeaters?
• Was this road "always" a 30 area, or has it recently been changed to 30 from 40 or another higher limit?

As far as I can tell, the prosecution process relies heavily on intimidation. You get your NIP/photos and a letter from the police with the word POLICE in big bold letters along the top alongside the name of the force. You then get given the option to roll over, pay a £60 fine and accept 3 penalty points. Most drivers are so traumatised by the NIP and letter that they choose the "fast-track" option of paying up and avoiding court. The whole deal is redolent of the "nice guy, nasty guy" method of police interrogation used by some forces around the world.

Don't be intimidated. The court option is nowhere near as cruel as many people believe. I was very well treated and have no complaints at all. Mind you, I dressed smartly in a suit and silver silk tie - it might have been different if I'd shown up in a pair of jeans and an Iron Maiden T-shirt.

Answer the questions I have asked above, and then we can take it further. In my case, the road did indeed have signs, and my original case was to show that because of being a rural road, the signs had become obscured by foliage. But then when the summons was brought, I was charged under S81(1) of RTRA(1984), which makes it an offence to exceed 30 on a "restricted road". My defence was a test case that I found in a press release on ABD: http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/385.htm The allegation that I had "exceeded 30 on a restricted road" was false - not because I did not exceed 30, but because I wasn't on a restricted road.

Hopefully all those who post stating that you can't win, that the courts always accept the CPS version of the case and that courts bully people who dare to plead not guilty will read this.

And because it wasn't posted by me might actually believe it.