Safe Speed Forums

http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/pressr.asp

Message


Hello,


I have just recieved a notice of intended prosecution, notice number xxxxx.


It states that at 10.xxhrs on the xx/xx/2005 that a Motor Vehicle was doing 36mph on the Axxx xxxxxxx road Birkenshaw, Bradford.


I have a few Questions


1. your web site states that the sighting of moblie camera unit will have signs showing the possibility of cameras and also will show the speed limit !!! Having just been to the loction xxxxx roundabout at Birkenshaw and followed the road thru to the juncyion with the xxxx I was able to photograph 4 signs warning of a camera but not a one showing the speed limit?


should you not be showing both???


- **The Highway Code says that 30mph reminder signs are not permitted, though there are 30mph signs to show that you have entered the 30mph area. The Highway Code also states that where there are no speed limit signs to the contrary, in a built up area the presence of streetlights denotes a 30mph area. The law puts the emphasis on the driver to know the speed limit of the road they are travelling. “I didn’t see any signs” or “I didn’t realise the speed limit of the road” are no excuses in law for exceeding the speed limit.



2. on the return journey xxxx to xxxxxxxx roundabout

I did notice some very useful signs saying "remember the Speed limit" which has had the limit sign covered.


Why Has this been done ????


one is at East Bierley and also at Birkenshaw


- **Unable to help you with this one as the signs are nothing to do with us. Highways signage is the responsibility of the local highways authority



3. Surley if you want people to obey the speed limit you should at first make sure the limit is posted and second that you do not hide the limit that has been posted


- **It’s not about getting people to obey the speed limit, that’s the job of the police. Our job is to try and prevent needless death and injury on the roads. We do that by identifying the worst casualty/fatal crash “black spots” and installing cameras at them, in order to encourage motorists to watch their driver behaviour – particularly their speed. Why speed? Because the fatalities and casualties at these “black spots” have mostly been caused by drivers travelling at excess speed for the conditions. Why cameras? Because they are proven to be the most effective, high visibility deterrent to speeding behaviour. More info is attached that we hope you will find useful and relevant



thank you for your time i would love to hear your comments


May I also ask for you to forward the photograpic and/or video evidence (Your Words)


- **Speeding is a summary offence, so the rules about ’disclosure of evidence’ do not apply. However, a copy of the photograph may be obtained from West Yorkshire Police if a request is made in writing upon receiving the Notice of Intended Prosecution. You may be required to pay the costs of this service, which would be in addition to any fines imposed. (Website words)



thank you again


Peter Knaggs

personal and alleged offence details removed

_________________
My Other car is a FH12 Globetrotter!

14wheels, I would edit your post and remove the reference number to your NIP. That’s if you don’t want the wrong people to know who you are.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I would remove the time and location as well. Date would be relevant for any advice.

In fact I would suggest reposting under a different ID at Pepipoo with more vague details. Pepipoo have a list of deatals they require, give those and nothing more.

The partnerships visit both sites and more than one person has had their case undone because the other side has had knowledge of their plan.

For anyone who doesn't know the road it is the kind of main arterial route you would expect to be a 40 limit.

I don't often use it myself but I might have a little detour later.

You’re right Homer sorry, I was a bit to hasty. As soon as I notice the NIP Ref No. I posted.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Quite apart from the obvious "It’s not about getting people to obey the speed limit clanger, the final paragraph makes very interesting reading...


Oh yes they do! Any evidence they wish to present in a court of law MUST previously be disclosed to you. End of story.


Fine? Surely they mean "penalty"? I thought the 1689 Bill of Rights made it clear that they can't "fine" you without giving you a court hearing first?

This latter point is, I believe, very much up for debate at the moment. You might wish to go and raise it on PePiPoo, but either way I'd be looking to lodge some form of formal complaint about his remark regarding evidence disclosure, as this seems to me to be deliberately and wholly inaccurate, solely in order to coerce the recipient into bowing to their request for money. If you or I tried that it would be fraud!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

They do talk a load of rubbish! This sign is permitted as a 30mph repeater...

They DO NOT have to have excessive speed as a contributory factor to install their cameras at a random cluster of crashes ^H^H^H^H^H^H accident black spot.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yes, that's true but perversely only for fixed cameras, not for mobile cameras
14 wheels doesn't state whether it's a fixed or mobile camera.

Contrary to the statement above, it does not state in the Highway Code that repeaters are not permitted on a restricted road - but it does say this in law (TSGDR 2002). In fact, the Highway Code is wrong in this respect.

The highway code states in rule 103:




Note that the key word here is "usually" (My bold/italic). As it is prohibited to put repeater signs up, the word that should be used is "always". I have had written confirmation from the DfT that the Highway Code is in error on this point, and they have stated that the next edition of the Highway Code will clarify this. However, they refused to tell me what the new wording will be.

Essentially this would form part of the basis of an appeal against my speeding prosecution. However, I neither have the time, energy or money to appeal. Since it would set a precedent in an appeal court, and the partnerships/authorities could stand to lose big style, I very much doubt that I would get a fair hearing anyway.

For more details of my case see here.

Actually, apart for the discrepancy in my previous post, this is misinformation. If the signs do not meet the legal requirements and there are no street lamps, the law specifically states that you cannot be found guilty of a speeding offence. In my case, the magistrates clearly believed that the 30 mph signs on entering a 30 mph limit were not even required, and the presence of street lamps were sufficient. It still makes my blood boil

Actually I don't think the HC is wrong. If the street lights were spaced too far apart then it would be possible for their to be street lights with no repeaters yet no 30 limit. Bearing this in mind the wording of "usually" seems about spot on to me.

Interesting point about the combined repeater / camera signs and mobile cameras. Can anyone point me at a statute for this, as IIRC there are several in Kendal which only ever has mobile enforcement by CSCP.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I had a run along the road in Question this lunchtime.

It is a 30 in that you pass a 30 "gate" and there are streetlamps.

I would have to go back with a measuring device to make a proper judgement because along some sections of the road the steetlamps are somewhat sporadic.

There is one very short section where 30 is a reasonable limit. I came through at 25 due to parked cars, shops and a pedestrian crossing. The rest of the road I was struggling to keep my speed below 30, a natural speed would be around 40. There are houses fronting onto the road but it is very wide and has a good pavement either side. And it is an A road. I know of lots of similar roads with a 40 limit and suspect this is 30 more out of accident than design.

No fixed camera, and no mobile unit operating today.

On the subject of steetlamps do they have to meet specification on both sides of the road? Is the minimum spacing between lamps on the same side or alternating sides?

NO !!!!
This wording would be OK, if you don't then tell people that the presence of street lights automatically means a 30 limit and that they can be prosecuted for going above this limit. As GUIDANCE ONLY, it would be reasonable, but it's not, i.e. if there were repeaters in a 30 mph limit, then this would be OK, because the 30 repeaters would tell you what the actual speed limit was, and perhaps the street lamps could be put to an alternative use of helping people to see.

I hope that the new version of the HC will say something like:
Street lamps always mean that a 30 mph speed limit applies unless:
(a) There are signs that indicate otherwise, [placed at a distance of not more than 600 yards apart];
(b) The streetlamps are more than 200 yards apart;
(c) The streetlamps are less than 13 ft in height; or
(d) The streetlamps are more than 50 yards apart, and less than 20ft in height

There would still be some confusion, but at least this would make it a bit clearer.



Shhhh! Don't tell them! The more 30 mph speed limit repeater signs that are up, the better. I've seen several 'illegals', and I think they're great !!!!

I also drove through a village just outside of Chesterfield a few weeks back. No street lamps, so 30 mph repeaters every few hundred yards. Guess what - everyone was doing 30 mph or less!!! It was far more effective at getting people to drive at the speed limit than a Gatso or Talivan would have been.

I believe the requirements for repeaters etc. are in the traffic signs regs and general directions, but I'll have to check.

Edit note: Yes, it is in the TSRGD, 2002


Sign 880 is the one under discussion, and you can see there are strict limitations, including that the camera must be installed (i.e. a fixed camera, not mobile).

No - it's not specified in the regs. Just 200 yards apart or less, which could be on both roads or just one.

One thing to check might be the height, though. If they're below a certain height (13ft, or 20ft if they're more than 50 yards apart), then they don't count as street lamps.

Refer to ABD website here

That would be an improvement.

I'm not so sure.

By mis-using the combined repeater signs, our mobile scamerati are in a sense becoming more covert. There are so many signs and so few actual cameras that they don't really indicate whether or not enforcement is going on, which is presumably the whole point of them.

I believe the intention behind the rules is that mobile cameras have signs up when they are operating, which clearly isn't the case here.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I see your point, but it's just that I think that repeaters should be on all roads, so having them combined with a camera sign is better than not having them at all, IMHO. Other camera signs (without the repeater) can legally be installed almost anywhere, anyway (Even if the guidelines say they shouldn't be - legally, how big is an 'area' where enforcement takes place, and how often is 'from time to time'?). So all that would happen would be that the sign would be replaced with one that just showed a speed camera - not exactly a step forward.

(e) The road in question is a special road such as a motorway.

I thought so.



Most are the old concrete type. They are certainly over 13 feet but might be less than 20.



I am certain there are gaps of more than 50 yards. Not all the way along but at a couple of points.



A lot of the street lights were hard to spot.

Does anyone in the West Yorks area have one of those laser distance measuring devices.

I'm sorry, but how the !*"£%()!"£%* is anybody meant to work that out?

"Well those poles are somewhere between 50 and 200 yards apart, now are they 19 or 20 feet tall?"

Wouldn't it be so much simpler to just put the repeaters in and be done with it? That way there can be no possible confusion.

It's not his NIP, look at the link at the top of his post.

Whoops! ah well, no harm done.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.