Safe Speed Forums

South today 20-10.2007
Speed cameras story 18:30



complaint

This story was a damage limitation spin on the story, however I believe you stepped over a number of boundaries



This is the sign behind speed camera fiasco (black and white camera sign shot)

Not true, it was all the round 40 signs that were not there , also the terminal signs that were on them27 link were not in the same place as the traffic order by 53m.



I even met Freddy Rostand with Mr Best and was interviewed showing him missing signs at eastern way and Deans Park Rd as an example.



“They were caught on camera breaking the speed limit”

Not true there was no speed limit there fore they could not break it..



Then you had Mel Kendal from Hants county council claiming that “these arguments don’t hold water”. This is also untrue and is a case of court record and 16 innocent motorists.

You cannot call some one a murder if the court found them not guilty. Why treat motorists any different



Mel Kendal then said that “to move any of the signs to the correct location would have ment they were obscured.” This also was not true. The prosecution witness conceded where it was not possible to meet section 9 then the law fell back to section 8 (place two 40 signs on the exit from 30mph side roads.

This too is a matter of court record



Graham carter (Hants county council) received a written judgement of day 1 of the trial he was present at the judges summing up. I have my own transcript of the court proceedings and the court made an official record





If you (the BBC) attempt to spin the news was help a cover up & prevent innocent motorists claiming refunds and removing criminal records then the offence of perverting the course of justice could be considered.



For Mel Kendal to make those statements with intent could incur “malfeasance in public office.” Both offences carry prison sentences.



I would suggest that you get in contact with the legal departments and try to rectify this mis-representation of the true story.
anton ... mobile no

Bad Sign fines win

Fourteen drivers were cleared of speeding in a ground-breaking test case over bungled road signs.

The group challenged convictions imposed over a 40mph zone on the A27 in Fareham, Hants.

The law says any limit change must be signalled by signs on each side of the road – but signs on the A27 were missing or in the wrong place.

Portsmouth JKs ruled the limit was not enforceable after Hampshire County Council said it thought the Government orders were "guidance"

Now thousands of Britons could appeal against speeding convictions.

does anyone have the actual court references for the a27 eastern way case? i.e. smith v crown (2007) or similar reference?

I am writing a letter and need this information.

Rv Thomas 11/10/07
JUDGEMENT of District Judge Mr Gillibrand
I am dealing with trial of Mr Thomas, though clearly decision on that case impacts on other cases still outstanding. I am dealing with A27 westbound and position is. no dispute here, that Mr Thomas uas driving on spur road at time he was photographed, although enforcement van was located beyond the end of spur road as shown in photo 3, being located at side of what then becomes Eastern Way. It is accepted by the prosecution that traffic leaving Delme roundabout at Fareham travelling in westerly direction and joining the eastern Way A27 have not been law fully warned of the speed limit, as result of which traffic in the background of photo 3 where spur road becomes Eastern Way, could not be prosecuted for speeding, i.e. in contravention of 40 mph limit because it would be virtually impossible, if not impossible, to distinguish between those motorists who reach that point from spur road and those motorists who reach that point from slip road to Delme roundabout. In addition, although it is not conceded, there is nothing to contradict Mr Bentley's evidence that terminal signs 40 mph shown in photo 2 are in fact located in the wrong place; that is, 53 metres further east than they should be. The issue is whether despite the fact that motorists travelling in westerly direction along spur road have passed a lawful terminal sign as shown in photo 2 should be convicted: firstly, because envelope generally is at fault in the sense that I have identified by traffic joining from Delme slip road, and secondly, and I don't think this is put forward as major argument, that 40 pmh speed limit in photo 2 is in the wrong place. From any common sense point of view any motorist that proceeds past 40 mph speed limit with camera sign below in excess of speed limit, as shown in photo 2, is a fool and asking for points to be placed on their licence. One that is continuing to drive at 70 mph or in excess is, in my judgement, on the verge of dangerous driving and certainly careless driving, Any motorist would have to be aware that they could be asked whether you have driven along the road before, did you know the nature of the road ahead. But it strikes me that those are not the determinative issues here, although I have to say at end of day speed limits are there to ensure the safety of all road users and often motorists forget that there are pedestrians - people who put one leg in front of the other in order to make their journeys, such creatures do still exist - as are those who get themselves to work and other functions by bicycle. Speed limits are there to deal with speed differential an issue I find 99 out of 100 motorists have absolutely no concept of and the blunt nerve endings of motorists I observe on the road often beggar belief and I rather suspect, as an aside, that there are some blunt nerve endings in this case. But I am here lo uphold the law and the law is there to prevent chaos. The law is to establish order and, in relation to the specifics of speed limits, it is quite obvious when you read the regulations and directives that They are to be taken on face value and to be strictly observed. I have been referred to District Judge Farmer's remarks with which I entirely agree, that speed limits have to be certain and apply to all motorists. That is persuasive authority but good common sense. But the point I am getting at is that speed limits have to be carried out to the letter so ihat if there is a regulation that crates an envelope the regulation must apply to every road entering a particular envelope. So that whether one is dealing with cvclist or motorist, the occasional user, the stranger or the individual who drives on daily basis through a particular route each is certain where the; stand and if the; speed in that certain environment they have no escape from prosecution, not only from speeding but what is implicit in that speeding is endangering safety of other road users. The law, as I have indicated , must be supportive of order and must be there to prevent chaos. I lake the view that the law would be brought into disrepute (with photo 3 in mind) if it was to be said that the motorist driving up slip road from Delme roundabout eould drive at whatever speed he liked, but those driving up the spur road/with motorway behind thcm)could be penalised. There is a defect in the envelope which, in my judgement, affects the enforceabilitv of the speed limit throughout the envelope. And as a result of that, so far as Mr Thomas the case against him is dismissed,_

Can I appeal against my speeding fine?
By Jon Reeve
Comment | Read Comments (7)
THE defence solicitor whose arguments against speeding penalties enforced on the A27 were backed by a judge believes the door is now open to others who were fined to claim their money back.

Barry Culshaw told the Daily Echo he thinks the points of law established by District Judge Philip Gillibrand's ruling means all penalties issued on the road between Fareham and Titchfield are invalid.

"The judge's finding proves the speed limit was illegal on that stretch of road," said Mr Culshaw, of Blake Lapthorn Tarlo Lyons solicitors, based in Segensworth.

advertisement
"The law therefore says that nobody can be, or should be convicted at that enforcement site."

With expert witness Richard Bentley, Mr Culshaw proved that a lack of proper signage meant the limit was not legally enforceable.

Mr Bentley says there may now be options available to other people caught.

He is now advising anyone convicted by a magistrates court of speeding in these areas to go to a solicitor and ask for the magistrates to re-open your case in light of the new evidence provided by yesterday's ruling.

"The cases can be reheard, and should be dismissed," said Mr Bentley.

"They pay you back your fines, clear your licence and refund all your costs."

For those who the three points meant more serious consequences for their licence, the ruling could have a major impact.

"Those that have been disqualified as a result of a penalty obtained at the site need to be seriously looking at who is responsible for getting it so wrong," added Mr Bentley.

"They might want to take out a civil action against someone for any knock-on effects of having their licence taken away, like losing a job or even having a home repossessed."

Motorists who paid a £60 fixed penalty notice should also ask for their money back and the endorsements taken off their licence.

"It's down to the Safer Roads Partnership to decide if it is going to refund," said Mr Bentley.

"Generally it takes public pressure for that to happen, but it has in the past in cases in Wiltshire, Devon and elsewhere.

"But the act of law prohibits anyone having a conviction for anything relating to an incorrect limit, so you should write to the partnership to demand your money back.

"If that doesn't work, and enough people get together, they can take the authorities to a judicial review.

"It can be expensive, but not where there are lots of people acting together.

"The case law that I am aware of suggests that this money is a debt that they owe you back and should not keep."

Although this only relates to people who have been convicted of offences on the particular stretch of the A27, Mr Bentley believes there are many other roads in Hampshire where speed limits are incorrectly signposted.

"I don't know what is happening in Hampshire - there is a cacophony of errors in the signing all over the county, so there must be many more cases like this out there," he said.


If you think you have been unfairly penalised here are more details of the legal requirements for speed limit signing.

The signs look right, so does it really matter?

Illegal or incorrect signing can and will provide a statutory prohibition against conviction when enforcement relates to certain forms of speed limit.

For example, the sign to the right may look right' but, by government definition, its use was illegal and it was and is; merely an obstruction of the highway.

The Police and Highway Authority insist the limit has been set up correctly and the enforcement is valid, won't that do?

Incorrect Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) invalidate the status of a speed limit.


How can a Traffic Order be invalid?

The Order' can be badly worded, any failure by a Highway Authority to consult or listen to the findings of that consultation process can lead to the Order' being void or voidable in law.

The Police use scientifically proven devices like cameras, surely that means they are always right doesn't it?

Any number of failures can occur, by simply not carrying out a calibration check of the speed detection device at the appropriate time the enforcement will be invalidated

Additionally, laser and radar devices are prone to both operator error and bad practice.

How can I prove that I am innocent?

Whilst it is for the Crown' to prove you guilty beyond reasonable doubt, do not expect the Police or the Partnership to admit their mistakes either to you or the Court.

Do not expect the highway authority to admit their regime is not lawfully created, they will go to the wire to defend defective or illegally signed regimes.

So, your defence will initially be in your hands:

Firstly you must secure your evidence, without evidence, your lifestyle, and your livelihood may be unnecessarily at risk, I suggest that:

1. If you find or believe that you are to be prosecuted for speeding in a permanent speed limit then you should:

a. Photograph all the signing, include the speed limit signing at the start, the end, and those sings present throughout the restriction.

b. Ensure your photographs show the full width of the road.

c. Photograph the limit in both directions.

d. Note and photograph the location of the enforcement site or camera.

e. Ensure that any changes to the signing that occur after your detection are permanently recorded by camera and the dates are noted.

f. Any unusual' or additional signs should be shown both in close- up as well as in wide angle/distance shots.

g. The images should work like a slide show and enable the viewed and the Court to drive' the route on a screen.

h. Use a digital imaging system. Do not alter or enhance the images, burn the images to CD in the first instance and keep it safe.

i. Take enough photographs, you must provide enough detail, you cannot replace what is not there.

2. If you suspect that you have been detected or are to be prosecuted for speeding within a temporary restriction (road works) then:

i. Return to the site as soon as you suspect you have been detected.

ii. Photograph all the signing entering, within, and leaving the works. Include the advanced warning signs on the approach and unrelated signs within the system.

Try to record the signing on the side or slip roads entering and leaving the site.

iii. Follow points a to i above.

iv. If the signing regime changes on an hourly, daily or weekly basis you really must try to record those alterations.

Source: www.rmbconsulting.co.uk

Thursday 11th Oct 2007, Portsmouth Magistrates court 7
Case of Jimmy Thomas A27


Based on points conceded on Monday, agree to concede, no need to call witnesses but need to clarify point.
Defendants present bailey, long… Thomas, Henderson and Best

Pros The terminal sign being enforceable except by illimination but all were daytime cases
BC intercedes we have conceded the illumination point)
Pros All have gone past compliant signs from motorway
The issue is traffic from the Delme Roundabout accessing the A27 Eastern Way after the enforcement van (refers to 3 photos)
(the dj locates the location on the long map)
Pros those signs, All except Henderson pass
Pros photo 3 on the left hand side,
Pros, no enforcement takes place on the slip road, we accept the non compliance of the slip road and the roundabout as direction 8 not complied with. All those coming off the motorway adequate guidance, but not those coming off the Delme roundabout

All have come past compliant speed limit signs complying with rules regs and directions.
Regards cars west to east , there was no other way onto the road other than the quay street roundabout via terminal signs & then repeaters. (The only case west to east was Mr Henderson)

Dj Were all the green dots on the map the actual location of where they were caught
Not exactly, just indication

Pros So sir, having accepted this, the prosecution are asking how far this envelope goes or it doesn’t re- the earlier junction

Dj. Envelopes within envelopes? Do the errors negate all or some of the cases?

Bc beginning and end of the envelope, The crown concede beyond the junction they cannot convict.

Looking at photo 3, (describe points on photo 3 clarify where mr Thomas was detected)
Once mixed with noncompliant traffic
Bc one point needs clarification, is that point is not eastern way and the summons may be wrong. Only Mr Carter can help us with this.
M27 slip?

Mr Carter was sworn in…
HCC Group Manager Traffic.
Bc, From the M27 travelling west
GC, my order, order in 1988 , section 8, relevant traffic regulation order
Hampshire 27 spur 40mpg order 1988 date into force 21 Sept 1988
This predated my time at Hampshire, when the a27 connected to the M27.
Eastern way continuously to Quay Street roundabout and so on. Prior to that, original alignment to cams hill, altered when m27 junction 11 was built, and spur road built over the Delme roundabout..
When junction was installed m27 spur was built
Dj spur is m27 to Delme roundabout?
Cg a27 is cams hill & roundabout & eastern way.
Gc the schedule A27 spur Delme
Pros Can you on the basis of the order identify that point
Gc I don’t think I can
Dj That is a point on cams hill?
Gc I don’t think so
Gc Where the speed limit starts?
Dj have I got my bearings wrong?
Dj In fact it is almost east
Pros Would you be able to suggest where eastern way starts?
Gc eastern way runs through Delme roundabout
& the flyover joins eastern way
Pros So the flyover is not eastern way?
Gc I think it is the spur
(Note most/all of the prosecutions were detected on the flyover)
Bc 381m
Signs should be 328m not 381m
Gc I agree
To the flyover 328m
Gc approximately as shown on the drawing.
Dj eastern way starts?
Gc at the western end of the flyover
Dj slip way is imprecise
Gc yes where the roads come together
Dj the spur road stops where the slip ends then becomes eastern way
Gc plus the slips back to the Delme roundabout
Bc none of this is eastern way
Gc yes


Bc we inspected the terminal signs, they do not have manufacture dates on them , do you know when they were installed
Gc no
Bc in 2005 there was a change in the traffic regulation orders for a 300 limit on quay street roundabout (shows highways plan) looks at map pointing to yellow 30 area. Mr Best was caught in 2004 the plan has a block requesting all repeaters to be replaced in 2005. Why were all the repeaters replaced? Were they (missing faded unclear?)
Gc I understand it was to replace with 450mm repeaters, I am unable to confirm which signs were where
Bc do you know why?
Gc no only speculate
Bc may have been weathered?
Gc may have been, but may have been increased from 300-450
Thank you.
Pros Is there a requirement for dates on signs
Gc no, could be ordered but kept in stock some time then used.
Bc calls Mr Bentley
Oath
bc we attended the site today?
Rb yes
Did you measure the slip to the terminal signs to be 381m using the laser measuring device
Rb yes
And you measured from the hard standing to the terminal signs to be 402m
Rb yes

Bc closing submission
The envelope argument which has been established, the envelope starts on the spur rd, the summonses state eastern way, and ends at quay street roundabout 30 zone
Mr Le-Meastre you offer no evidence to as he went over the narrow quay street flyover the envelope continues to the station roundabout beyond to the 30 limit. The envelope includes the station roundabout back east to Quay Street then reinstates back onto eastern way. They can go down to the Delme roundabout via the eastern way slip round the roundabout down to cams hill. As it is yellow on the hcc map. Mr Bush is still in the envelope. Cams hill signing errors could not be convicted as compromised by signing errors on Delme roundabout.

The terminal signs on the m27 spur are 53m further east than they should be are not adequate guidance. They must be certain.


Result
(my notes)
DJ Gillibrand
A27 wet bound, Thomas was on spur rd when photographed, the van was on eastern way beyond the junction.

It has been accepted by the prosecution that traffic leaving the Delme roundabout was not legally warned of speed limit. As a result traffic in the background of the photo 3 could not be distinguished for prosecution
Nothing to contradict that the terminal signs were53m further east than they should be.

The issue is whether traffic passing the terminal sign should be convicted?
1 because the envelope is generally at fault
2(minor argument) signs in the wrong place

From any common sense point of view, any car that passes the signs at speed is a fool asking for points on their licence. Driving at 70 in a 40 is dangerous/careless driving. A motorist could be asked have you driven the road before?
This is not the issue today. There are other road users, people who use legs.

I am hereto up hold the law; the law is here to prevent chaos. In this case reading the law and the directions on face value, and lord farmers comments, of which I agree Speed limits have to be carried out to the letter, envelopes have to be correct. Motorists, cyclist’s pedestrians must be certain where they stand to maintain the safety of other road users to keep order and prevent chaos.

Delme drivers cannot be allowed to do any speed and those next to them under a limit. There is a defect in the envelope.

The case against Mr Thomas is dismissed
Crown offers no evidence against Cook, Bailey, Henderson Stephen Mongru, and Best

To be noted by all to drive at the right speed,
My brother was killed 10years ago
I hope HCC get signs right as a matter of urgency
This week could have been prevented
The cost to tax payers in the thousands by pros and defence

There could not have been a better officer than Henderson, his warning was ignored by the partnership; they should have listened.
Defendants costs to be paid out of general funds to be taxed in the usual way

A sign at 90 degrees to the motorist cannot be useful.

-~~~- rant -~~~~-

(I Missed a bit as his decision turned into a mild rant) he then asked to be quoted in full (after he had checked the written copy))

a 100 page report of defects you should not have been enforcing that site".... "I am also informed your own officers knew of some of the defects. "

Saturday, October 13, 2007

HAMPSHIRE: Judge's ruling over speeding to be examined by roads supremo
We didn't realise road signs were inaccurate


By Jonjjeeye
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk

ABOVE: Cllr Mel Kendal.
RIGHT: One scene of controversy, Southampton Hill on the A27 at Tltchfleld.
HAMPSHIRE'S road supremo last night defended the county council's failure to deal with problems that could see thousands of speeding fines overturned after a landmark court ruling.
Councillor Mel Kendal told the Daily Echo, the council and other members of the Safer Roads Partnership had not realised the signs were inaccurate.
It comes after a district judge ruled that speed limits along a section of the A27 in and around Fareham were not legally enforceable because they were not correctly signposted, as reported in yesterday's Daily Echo.
That meant 14 speeding prosecutions, including one against a motorist caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone, failed.
Cllr Kendal said: "The whole partnership thought we were actually within the law.
"It is very complicated, but of course, we will now look at it as a matter of urgency once we have received the judge's report.

"One of our PCs has done an assessment throughout Hampshire. In many cases the signs are perfectly understandable, but we wouldn't put speed traps there because there are no accidents on those roads.
"The A27 has an accident record, which is why we put cameras there.
"I'm not prepared to have the road safety compromised. If there is a lesson to be learned from this then perhaps it is that we will go out the day before [setting up a speed trap] and do an inspection [of the signs).
Cllr Kendal also refuted the possibility of the judgment meaning other motorists could demand their fines back and licences cleared.

That is despite the law governing speed limits saying no-one can be punished fiir breaking an incorrectly signed limit, as District Judge Philip Gillibrand ruled those on the A27 are.
Section 85 (•)) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states: "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 (elsewhere in the Act]."

"My advice is that it has no effect on other motorists," said Cllr Kendal.
"The judgement only applies to the people who were appealing against their prosecution, so there's no change for anyone else."
District Judge Gillibrand criticised the "obvious failings" in the signage of the speed limits, and called on Hampshire County Council to urgently resolve the problem. During the case he had heard an experienced officer had told road safety chiefs of fears the signs were not cor rect, but that these concerns had been ignored and he had been advised to continue issuing penalties.

A detailed report from an expert witness commissioned by the defence team, served on the prosecution more than a year ago, also explained exactly why the speed limits were not legally enforceable.
That export, Richard Bentley, believes the same problems with signs exist all over Hampshire, which he branded "a signing disaster zone".
Judge Gillibrand's ruling could open the way for anyone penalised for speeding on the same streach of the A27 to be over turned