Speed Cameras

[Paddy]

The speed camera issue is a mockery. If it was a safely issue then the council would spend money on maintaining the 30 mph limit signs.

I received a fixed penalty notice for speeding though one of the new forward facing cameras. 35 mph in a 30mph dual carriageway. Being rather peeved, I looked up some helpful information on the Net. As a result I went over my route with a camera and photographed the signs. To my amassment some major signs were missing, other obscured some missing. I now drive over the route regularly to keep a record of those signs that are illegal and not maintained according to the road traffic act that clearly states the phrase 'erect and maintain' It is not enough for speed limit signs to be installed correctly in the first place if they then disappear, become damaged or illegible, or are even obscured from view for example by foliage that is not trimmed back. The Road Traffic Act makes it clear that drivers cannot be convicted of speeding if the signing requirements of subsections (1) and (2) are not met. In fact the 30 mph signs are so covered in foliage they can not be seen and they have been like that for months.

I have decided that although the easy option is to pay up, I will challenge this in Court. Further more, the new style camera is not calibrated on site making potentially inaccurate and also there is a case pending in the European Court regarding the compulsory signing of the evidence form.

I the down side is that I don’t rust solicitors and barristers, I have seen them make such a hash of things and they may not be as aggressive as me in cross examining the prosecution. What to you guys, gals and mixed gender think?

[DaveB]

And the CUK award for the most spelling mistakes in one post goes to...

[Andyw]

30mph signs dont have to be shown in urban areas where it is a 30 limit. They only have to have the one at each end of the road then no 'repeaters" as you would with 40mph zones. It's all signalled by the distance between the street lights.

[expat]

...Some major signs were missing, other obscured some missing....I have decided that although the easy option is to pay up, I will challenge this in Court.

Get good evidence. If you go to court alleging that signs were missing or obscured, you may find that is not the case when you come to court.

[AtW]

Most certainly it will not work because you were in 30 mph area - remember unless signs say otherwise you should assume its a 30 mph in an area with lightposts.

A better chance is that if you prove that camera was not calibrated - you have right to request such information however they will most certainly only disclose it if you go to court, and often they give you next to nothing time. By law they must have certificates of calibration, but you will need to decide whether you go for signs route or camera - if you say signs were not seen then you effectively admit you had higher than 35 mph speed.

The good news is that you can always plead guilty first thing in court and you will only get the penalty in fixed penalty, plus 30-40 quid court costs: if so then scameraship won't get the money as they only get the from fixed penalty notices, so by all means take it to court and plead guilty - this will hit them economically.

[Andyw]

if so then scameraship won't get the money as they only get the from fixed penalty notices,


It all ends up in Browns pocket at the end of the day so why bother ?

[AtW]

It all ends up in Browns pocket at the end of the day so why bother ?

Because Brown made scameraships self-funding, so they have to buy cameras using fixed penalty notices - if everyone or even just 10% of people insisted on going to court (which would cost 30-40 quid extra), then the whole system of self-incrimination would have collapsed.

[Andyw]

Because Brown made scameraships self-funding, so they have to buy cameras using fixed penalty notices - if everyone or even just 10% of people insisted on going to court (which would cost 30-40 quid extra), then the whole system of self-incrimination would have collapsed.

And in turn Brown will fund the cameras and raise your taxes to cover it !

[BoredBloke]

I was in a taxi the other week and he told me how he was done for doing 31 in a 30 zone.

[Paddy]

[QUOTE=AtW]Most certainly it will not work because you were in 30 mph area - remember unless signs say otherwise you should assume its a 30 mph in an area with lightposts.
QUOTE]


The interesting point is that before the 30mph restriction it is a 40mph and the repeaters are missing, also the main 30mph sign is hidden and one missing, most of the car drivers presume they are in the 40mph zone. Anyway I was hoping for some advice on if it was worth appointing a solicitor. There have been cases where the prosecution has been dropped and costs awarded to the driver.