Safe Speed Forums

I had a courtesy car 2 weeks ago and was on my way to return it going along the A666 out of Bolton, this road is 50 MPH. It has 3 static gatsos along it. This road then turns into the M61. I went past the last gatso and began to speed up to join the motorway. About 20 metres before the motorway actually begins there is a bride over the road and thats where the git was. My question is, is this a legal place to put it, knowing that this is what everyone does to join the motorway. I know it was put there purely as a money making scam, it was on march 31st (last day of the year), they would have caught so many people that day as the bridge cant be seen till the very last second. Surely this is against the safety camera laws as this was creating a dangerous chain of events, as everyone is speeding up they see the camera and then stick on the brakes possibly causing a pile up. Does anyone think i have a case?

Let us have full (except personal) details of things please. Look at the thread started earlier today by Kateliz and provide a similar list please.

You may have a case, but nothing posted so far is it.

Don't do anything with the paperwork until you have investigated your options and in any case if they have given you 28 days it is in your interests to take 27.

Ask over at Pepipoo: http://www.pepipoo.com - they are the specialists.

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

Full Details:

Date (offence): 30/03/2006
Time: 12.33 pm
Speed: 63 in a 50 Zone
Contrary to section : S89 RTRA 1984
Road: A666 St Peters Way
Date on conditional offer of fixed penalty: 20/04/2006

Also forgot to put in first post that the bridge cant be seen till the last minute as it is a blind bend, by the time you see the bridge its too late. I will try and take some pics and post them so you can see.

Hi nnishp,
first thing I'd say is you need to put details like 'date received NIP'
as this could be relevant (they have to send within 14 days of offence)


have you completed the NIP to get the FP offer?

The clock could be ticking a bit now so go straight to Pepipoo.com, lok at the initial FAQ's section, about the general topics and then to the forums.

Questions you need to ask are
1. was the NIP issed within 14 days, (had to fight though)
2. do you even know who was driving at the time, it sounds like you do be just asking as they can't really convict a car they need a drivers name. If you don't know there's a defence.
3. the possition of the camera, hidden or not is not really in the law so basically forget it . The speed signage ect could be incorrect? Tough though use the search option in pepipoo/forum using 'A666 St Peters Way' or variation on the name. If you find someone who has won due to incorrect signage, ect you can use their defence.
4. but lastly if it was a courtesy car then I prosume the NIP will have gone to the garage (or who ever owns it) they've put your name on it, and you've got the NIP now. So if that's right then there could be something in this as your not the reg. keeper. This could be the best line of defence and if you post full details, as described in pepipoo's sticky at the top of the Judical Process forum someone may know of a good course of actions.
5. You could also consider the PACE letter which is championed by pepipoo. A bit complicated but basically you send back NIP blank, but use a letter to give all the details the NIP requires. This means you compliy with the law BUT as the police have not read you your rights (like in the bill -you have the right to remain silent...) they can't use this letter as evidence in court against you. Explain on the forum and works about 50/50. Can you risk it as if it fails it could mean a failure to furnish s172 3pts and £300 fine.

Anyway you really need to do a bit of reading
best of luck.

In future you may want to make your self aware that the speed limit begins at the sign indicating the limit for that section of road there is no 'run in'.
Its quite easy when you get used to it and by obeying this you find you have far less contact with the police and court procces.

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit

You have had an NIP maybe you could explain the circumstances.

Driving out of Nottingham usually drive out at 5pm, crawling all the way on this occasion I came out at 8pm there was no traffic and I thought the road was a 40 mph, it had been changed to a 30 mph so I was caught by the fixed point to fixed point cameras.

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit

I see that you were being very dangerous ignoring the sign and assuming you were safe, that is terrible. I expect that you killed a huge number of people, because speeders do you know, I expect you are very ashamed of yourself I would be, but I've never had any speeding or any other driving offence conviction ever, so I can't be dangerous.

Paul

(Ignores speed limits)

You have just said in another thread:

you'll have to learn to look at the signs as well as just the road in front, in town look out for pedestrians, I know its difficult is'nt it this driving lark.

I know it's difficult, but I'd really - REALLY - appreciate it if instead of point-scoring (TSM vs the longer standing Safespeed cortege) if we could generally open our minds up - and discuss TSM's viewpoint in a civilised manner. And not in the "Help I'm being prosecuted" section either as that has a separate meaning. If I'm a lone voice, preemptive apologies. I'll see if I can find a good thread to hijack or continue in; if I can't, I'll start one.

FWIW, however true TSM's contentions are, in this (and adjacent) threads, they are not helpful in themselves and serve ONLY as hackle-raisers, both to those rising to the bait and the <use whatever word or phrase you like when you read it silently> who has posed a question thanks to a pending prosecution.

what? are you taking the piss?
I think people are being very civilised and my mind is very open thank you very much Rodger (friend of safe speed).

Civility is not in doubt. People are being very restrained - and only a small number are showing any closed minds. However, thanks principally to TSM having "cluster-bombed" his point in several places, there is a lot of point scoring (both ways). I did not intend to offend you Paul - or TSM.

None taken Rodger.
I feel people are just responding as expected to TSM, granted it could be posted elswhere but it's grown were it's grown.
I for one have had enough of him so I won't respond to his threads anymore.

I keep messing that bloody quote thing up!

I fixed it for you

Cheers mate!

For the first time I actually agree with TSM - the law says that the limit is between the start and end posts, and there is no defence through that, although placing traps in very close proximity to either end is deliberately pushing the boundaries of reasonability. Unfortunately the Law threw out reasonable at the same time that it discarded innocent until proven guilty.

What worries me about this however is that there is a bridge which prevented the driver seeing the trap until too late, which would have also prevented sight of stationary traffic on the road ahead, and this presumably is the reason for the limit extending so far. Accelerating into a blind section of road is not a safe thing to do...