Safe Speed Forums

Show us otherwise or shut up weepej, your stuck-record has long-since lost it's novelty!

The policeman stated that the sign was not obscured, and Beanie is suggesting he was lying, which of course, is not necessarily the case.

Nothing to say in the "Condolences" thread, weepej? I hope that's just because you can't find the words. Otherwise I'm extremely disappointed. Paul passionately believed in what he did, and was totally genuine in wanting better road safety, and only a madman would disagree, whatever their stance.

Beanie, well done for fighting the case. The scammers rely on people not doing so; if everyone stood up to them like you then the conveyer belt "justice" system would collapse very quickly. I can't say I'm at all surprised that you lost though. It probably felt like the magistrates had made up their minds from the word go, and they probably had (even though everyone else in the court had probably exceeded the speed limit that day). The system is hideously biased against those accused of speeding. No-one can reasonably argue otherwise; the number of fundamentally unfair guilty verdicts is overwhelming.

Cases don't even seem to have to be proven on balance of probablity, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. Just another facet of the obsession with speeding which shows that making things unpleasant for drivers, rather than safety, is the aim. Every time there's a case like this, the huge pile of evidence is added to, and the right-thinking public get that little bit more pissed off. As someone said in another thread, if only we were like the French, we would have nipped such nonsense in the bud years ago. Instead it's "Yes, we're being unfair and telling lies, but what are you going to do about it?"

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

But if Beanie genuinely believes that the sign was obscured, and indeed has photographic evidence to back up his belief, then from Beanie's point of view it is a reasonable conclusion that the policeman was lying.

_________________
"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

As far as I am concerned, I know it to be fact that the photographs were taken the day after the event. I know for a fact that willow trees would not grow that much in less than 24 hours. I have travelled on that road since and know how soon after the bend the signs are situated (around 25 meters). At 60mph, that gives roughly one second to view the signs and make a decision (based on 60mph = 26.8224 meters per second).

What I don't know is how the officer alleges to have checked and trimmed the bush that morning, when my photographs clearly show it hasn't (albiet unverified photographs taken too close to the nearside).

I do understand that the magistrates potentially open the flood-gates every time they make a "tough call". To be fair, the trial did take most of the day, and I do feel that they heard me out - even though the final decision didn't go my way.

Got a letter through this morning confirming breakdown of costs to be paid by me:-

£15 - Speeding - exceed 30 mph on restricted road - mann COSTS
£455 - Speeding - exceed 30 mph on restricted road - mann CROWN PROSECUTION COSTS
£300 - Speeding - exceed 30 mph on restricted road - mann FINE

So there you have it, £770 for 40mph in a 30mph, the price of fighting for what you think is right. Next time I'll bend over and take it like the rest of the public...

Magistrates seem to have a rule whereby they can tell if someone can be trusted or not:

Witness wearing blue uniform= Upholder of the law, teller of truth.
Motorist= petrolhead, speedfreak, liar, liar, pants on fire.

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

Ouch!
You should appeal against the fine and the sentence. However it is your money.
An appeal would be heard infront of a proper judge.
Or you could contact the papers ie : talkback@the-sun.co.uk ; Bob.Roberts@Mirror.Co.Uk and get revenge through embarasing them

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Sorry, slight aside, but you say you know were coming around the corner at a speed that in no way would you have been able to stop had there been something in the road?

You might have a point, except for the sign was not in the road. Assuming the bend was a left-hander, a driver would have been able to see 'something in the road' before the sign was in view.

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

You would see the sign on the right hand side of the road then though. Of course you are probably primarily focussed on looking for hazards on the exit so processing and reacting to a speed sign may take a while.

That's true, but Beanie had said 'oncoming traffic did obscure it at the time. ' - which is a genuine possibility.

True enough, I had forgotten that was mentioned. I was thinking about weepej's point and how it might be possible to approach a limit sign and find yourself unable to slow to obey it in time without necessarily having been driving too fast on the approach.

Sorry its difficult to explain without actually seeing the road - it is national speed limit prior to the 30mph signs, there is a left-hand bend which as you come approach have bushes that fully obscure the sign. A chainsaw would be required to trim back that hedge...

As you come round the bend at the legal limit - you have a matter of seconds to observe the signs and make a judgement, to which I did - adjusting my speed down to 40mph.

The restricted zone is a wide road and starts long before any of the few houses of Sherington appear.

That aside, is it worth appealing against the fines? It seems pretty high considering the offence - I watch Traffic Cops on BBC1, and they seem to get less fines for TWOC or driving whilst disqualified!

They seem extremely excessive to me, I would most definately appeal them

So you did see the sign on the left then, your claim was that you couldn't see it had a in it, rather than a ?

[quote="weepej"

So you did see the sign on the left then, your claim was that you couldn't see it had a in it, rather than a ?[/quote]

he could not determine what it said - sign is therefore obstructed if he could not distinguish whether first number was 3 or 4 . Thinking back to Beanie's bit on the position of the sign



Never struck me before ,but isn't there a set distance for signs to be visible from, as there is for them to be a set size etc.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Sorry to hear you got stitched Beanie...

Just adds weight to the argument about having 300, 200 and 100 yard markers for all 30 / 40 limits on roads like this - they have them dotted about in the Cotswolds and IMO are a great idea.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

That has been the way of the UK for as long as I can remember Beanie.

The same thing happened to a friend of mine back in 2005 in Waterlooville.
The arresting officer made all sorts of allegations against my friend, including that he had been assaulted by my friend while in the custody area of Waterlooville police station.
When the case eventually got to court and the CCTV from the custody area was played back in full, it showed that the only person who had broken any laws was the police officer himself when he decided to assault my friend and break his wrist in the process.

Needless to say the officers conduct was investigated by the IPCC (who, contrary to their name are not independant at all), and at the end of the investigation they decided that there wasn't enough evidence even though it was clear from the CCTV that the police officer was in the wrong.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I never said I didn't see "any" sign - you'd have to be f*cking blind not to see SLOW written on the road, and my pictures clearly show terminal signs - my argument was that it was unclear what the prescribed limit was. I adjusted my speed down to 40mph and have never denied travelling at that speed.

I am now appealing against this judgement.