Safe Speed Forums

I can catagorically say that I did not tamper with the photographs, or take them from obscure angles - and they were taken on the 18th May 2007 (the following day).

I find it truely disturbing that a police officer who is supposed to be a trusted member of the community can lie in a written statement to the court, in the attempt to get a conviction.

Any suggestions? I will be taking additional photographs of the street lighting this week on the suggestion of DieselMoment (whether this evidence is trusted or not in court). Trial date is 20th November 2007.

Paul

I think it might be worth seeing a solicitor with your evidence. Especially if PC Arsbarstid is going to be using the special police technique of "lying like a hairy egg."

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

The police officer's opinion in no way invalidates your photographs. In my case, I was ready to state, on oath, that no special lenses had been used and that the zoom feature of my camera had not been used in the production of my pictures.

Maybe the police should be called upon to produce their own photographs, showing that the signs are unobscured - just as they have to produce photographic evidence of your car. What we have here is a police officer, expecting the court to believe his story - without evidence of any kind, but based upon his "opinion" that different lenses/angles can be used to distort a motorist's view.

What I CAN tell you is that in my case, the police officer signed a similar declaration, claiming that he had checked the speed limit signs and found them to be OK. If called upon to do so, I would have been able to PROVE two things.

• The statement was false - many of the signs were obscured and one was damaged, making it unreadable, and I took pictures from various angles.
• The police continued to enforce the speed limit on this road, despite the fact that NO remedial effort was ever made to trim the foliage or repair the damaged sign. I have photographs to prove this, including one which shows the damaged sign against a winter landscape. (Date of alleged offence = early August)

In the course of preparing my case, I discussed the speed limit signs and lighting with a highways officer working for the county council which has jurisdiction over the road in question. He himself was a former traffic officer with some 26 years experience. He told me that a combination of speed limit repeater signs AND street lighting is not lawful. Each is mutually exclusive - if there is one, it is not lawful to have the other.

Therefore, if this road has both street lighting at 200yd intervals AND speed limit repeater signs, then it could be argued that this is NOT a lawfully denoted speed limit. This question needs to be asked on Peppipoo. I think it's an angle worth trying.

Don't give in on this one, Beanie. Plead not guilty. You can always change your plea to guilty - right up until the time when you are greeted by the court usher, when you arrive at court for your case to be heard, who will ask you if you want to change your plea.

PS

PS -


- meaning that the fact that they ARE there means that the road is NOT a restricted road. If you are charged under RTRA Section 81(1) this could be your ticket to acquittal.

Hi all

Just to let you all know, this case is now closed - I was found guilty. Three points and £400 fine (inc costs).

Thank you all for your help and advice, it really helped me to talk confidently in court about this - in the end though, the court found that the unobscured sign along with street lighting system was sufficient to enforce the 30mph limit.

I achieved what I wanted to achieve, tested the system - and found that police really will lie under oath just to get a conviction. Never mind, got to play the game, wasted almost an entire day of his and the courts time - more burden on the taxpayers of the UK, sorry!

To anyone who cares, I really did take those pictures the day after the event - oh, and apparently Thames Valley Police Force provide loppers and shears to each unit. Well there you go, learn something new every day - the boys in blue have green fingers!

Paul

What, to cut the vegetation back at the end of the day after they have nicked everyone?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Wouldn't be surprised in the least. If this is the case, you have to hand it to them for their ingenuity!

Unlucky, Beanie...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Or wasted tax payers money?

Did you really not see any indication the limit was a 30 limit at the time?

If you didn't you were right to challenge.

If you did thanks for wasting all that time and money!

...assuming that time and money was wasted; a big assumption...

If Beanie was driving safely, who's responsible for the waste of money?

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

Beanie was making the point that signs have to be visible.. as that's also the law of the land.

Councils have a duty of care to ensure foliage gets cropped back as an Elf and Safety one - especially if they wish to enforce a law.

As for the SLOW paint... These signs appear on all road tarmac of all limits to warn of hazard such as junction/school/curve in road even a concealed entrance. Had it been a painted 30 mph then this would have spelled out the limit if foliage concealed the other essential signs.

My own rule of thumb? Always treat a village as 30 mph unless instructed otherwise. (Talking villages with pub/church/hall and houses - as apart from a cluster of farm houses way out of villages (Ours is one such by the way.)

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

...and missing two great big signs?

Sure, but unless you were driving a left-hand drive car exceptionally close to the verge I suggest that they were perhaps taken from an unrepresentative angle.

_________________
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.

But of course, in Oxfordshire and a growing number of other areas, a thin scattering of buildings that bears no relationship to what a normal person would call a "village" still attracts a 30 mph limit for at least half a mile in every direction.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

That's out of context again. Pack it in. Respond to my points or don't bother.

Anyway millions who were driving perfectly safely have been prosecuted for speeding.

Speeding is under-represented in the crash statistics by at least 10:1.

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

Which has what to do with safety exactly?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Er, because it wasn't very observant?

"Did you see that massive poster of Eva Herzigova in her scanties?"

"Nope, I was concentrating on my driving."

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I didn't see the signs (due to the obstruction and oncoming traffic). The road was wide, and street lights were not obvious. I was stopped doing 40 miles an hour, which is what I believed the limit to be.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you have no idea how it feels to be accused of being a lier in court - while having photographic evidence that was discredited due to a lying police officer.

I was driving safely, that was never in question, I thought the ethos of this site was that "You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour".

Your opinion, not necessarily fact.

Perhaps on this of all days you could leave it for a while, weepej

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed