Mobile "safety" Camera NIP, Details regarding the NIP, All advice appreciated. |
Mobile "safety" Camera NIP, Details regarding the NIP, All advice appreciated. |
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 15:47
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18 May 2016 Member No.: 84,415 |
Hi everyone thanks for taking the time to read this. So lets start at the beginning shall we Iv been driving since I just turned 17.
I am now at the ripe old age of 30 and this is my first ever NIP in regard to speeding or any other motoring offense. So lets set the scene,I was travelling down a 4 lane road ( 2 single lanes on either side ) which is a 30mph zone. This then changes into a dual carriageway which is a 40 mph zone. The mobile camera van which allegedly caught me speeding was positioned on the central reservation roughly 5-10 mtrs infront of the 40mph speed sign which was positioned near enough directly behind it where the central reservation continues (I will try to upload a few pics to show). Now I admit that on receipt of 2 pictures from the GMP it would appear that I was doing 42mph in the 30mph zone if all the calibration was done correctly and the device is believed to be accurate but I would like to challenge this because of the following points and would greatly appreciate any advice from people more experienced than myself. I am not a local to the area but have experience of driving up this road. Due to this I know that the road changes from a 30mph to a 40mph speed limit, I am aware that the 40mph speed limit does not come into effect until I have passed that signage, but as the 40mph limit is not sign posted on both sides of the carriageway as per the TSM and TSRGD and the only available source of information available to correctly verify the actual speed limit was the one 40mph sign which the camera operator was obstructing. How am I supposed to know at which exact point the 40mph speed limit begins? at the point I was supposedly captured doing 42mph I had already passed signage which indicated the road was now a dual carriageway so without being able to see any further indication of the limit, I assumed I was doing the correct speed. If it were not for the mobile camera van I would have been much more likely to see the 40mph sign and therefore correct my error. Also I believe the van was parked not only causing an obstruction but a distraction to road users due to its unorthodox position on the central reservation, which also caused an obstruction to traffic joining from a side street when joining the carriageway. after reviewing google street view its clear the signage in respect of the 40mph limit has not been enforceable for some time since it does not comply with the law. That's the basic rant over my general point is GMP were clearly not concerned with safety and I believe I can prove this due the way the camera operator acted in the positioning of his vehicle which showed no consideration for the safety of the public and the fact that section of road immediately behind the safety camera has had no enforceable speed limit for atleast 10 months due to the negligence of both GMP and the local authorities. Hopefully someone has had a similar experience and can shed some light on this kind of situation. Thanks in advance. This post has been edited by brenj86: Wed, 18 May 2016 - 18:12 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 15:47
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 16:00
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Your post is quite hard to read - many may give up. I'd recommend separating it into paragraphs.
However, here's the GSV of the location. Can you give the exact location on the NIP? (Actually the output from the NIP wizard could assist) The location of the van/safety angle can be ignored for now as it doesn't present any viable defence. But on first read it appears you were still in the restricted limit when captured - which may render some of the other stuff you mention irrelevant unfortunately. That speed is eligible for an awareness course so do not discount that given the disparity in effort and costs should you decide to challenge at court. I see no reason to doubt the speed measurement? I had already passed signage which indicated the road was now a dual carriageway so without being able to see any further indication of the limit, I assumed I was doing the correct speed. System of street lighting? This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 18 May 2016 - 16:20 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 16:10
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,816 Joined: 20 Dec 2008 Member No.: 24,962 |
First, let us start with sight of full, redacted PCN and a GSV and not an unreadable wall of text (rant) lacking paragraphs and line breaks.
This post has been edited by ford poplar: Wed, 18 May 2016 - 16:12 |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 16:14
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,723 Joined: 3 Apr 2006 From: North Hampshire Member No.: 5,183 |
First, let us start with sight of full, redacted PCN and a GSV and not an unreadable wall of text (rant) lacking paragraphs and line breaks. PCN? We rarely ask for the NIP to be posted, it is preferred that the OP completes the NIP Wizard and post up the output |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 16:22
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
First, let us start with sight of full, redacted PCN and a GSV and not an unreadable wall of text (rant) lacking paragraphs and line breaks. I think he's still in Decrim. Forum... So, just to understand you: The 30 limit in which you were caught doing 42 is an entirely enforceable limit. The 40 limit in which you were not caught speeding, and thus is irrelevant, may, in your opinion, not be enforceable. I'm trying to see a defence here... This post has been edited by peterguk: Wed, 18 May 2016 - 16:23 -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 16:24
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
From what I can gather so far is that the OP was in a restricted limit at the time by virtue of a system of street lighting and hadn't passed the point of the 40mph signs. Although there only appears to be one terminal sign that point had not be reached so doesn't assist but 42 in a 40 doesn't assist much either. (But the latest TSRGD may change matters anyway - see here)
Might be worth asking the council for the relevant TRO to see if anything drops out. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 18:41
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,784 Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Member No.: 18,956 |
If you hadn't passed a sign showing 40, then why assume the limit had changed?
|
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 18:51
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18 May 2016 Member No.: 84,415 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - April 2016 Date of the NIP: - 5 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 10 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A57 MANCHESTER ROAD NEAR TO WILTON GROVE, DENTON, TAMESIDE UNITED KINGDOM Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - How many current points do you have? - 0 Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - SEE ABOVE NIP Wizard Responses These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation: Have you received a NIP? - Yes Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes Were you driving? - Yes Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England NIP Wizard Recommendation Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:44:47 +0000 If you hadn't passed a sign showing 40, then why assume the limit had changed? The road conditions changed as indicated by the sign , dual carriageway ahead, I can see straight ahead there are no speed signs all the way to the roundabout but I know the speed limit increases. This may not have been the case had the van not been obstructing the only speed sign in view. Thanks for the responses and apologies in regard to the layout of the post. I agree it was a slight rant but I was in a rush. I know that is not exactly the correct time to be posting I will try to answer your questions as best I can without ranting @jlc the place stated is A57 Manchester road, near to wilton grove, Denton, Tameside UNITED KINGDOM, I did contact the ticket office regarding this as wilton grove could be used as a reference to the beginning of the 40mph zone so I was unsure whether I had done anything wrong. Why would I be looking at the street lighting I understand what your saying but im looking for the speed sign. I know there is one, but I cant see it because of the van concerning the speed awareness course, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees, I am a good safe driver, my record is my evidence @peterguk in a general round about way its quite simple, how can one say they are concerned in safety if the very site they have chosen Is not safe. Its been the same way for atleast 11 months as can be seen on GSV, and then to show just how concerned the operator is with safety they obstruct the 40mph sign...I mean come on mate @ford the post contains a picture obtained from GSV, if that's not the correct way I apologise but seems im not the only one This post has been edited by brenj86: Wed, 18 May 2016 - 18:58 |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 18:56
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
You have me struggling here.
As I understand it you were travelling at 42mph in a 30mph zone. You seem not to dispute this. Your basis of challenge seems to be that you knew that the limit changed somewhere along the stretch but you could not clearly see where because the camera van (which was in front of you) was obscuring the (insufficient) signage. (Please tell me if I’ve got it wrong). As I hope you probably now realise, there are a number of flaws in your plan. Firstly, you were still in the 30mph zone (something you seem to accept). Secondly, if you don’t see a sign indicating a higher limit, surely you should continue to drive at the lower limit. In short, you were not in the higher limit zone so it makes no difference whether the signage was sufficient, legal or properly visible. Your argument could be valid if you were accused of doing 42 in the 40 zone (though you may still struggle because the allegedly insufficient signage was set to increse the limit, not reduce it). The fact that you could not determine where the higher limit started simply adds to the case against you: you hadn’t seen the sign indicating the higher limit, you had not passed it, yet you increased your speed nonetheless. The other thrust of your challenge (the siting of the camera van) does nothing for your case. Bar any administrative irregularities such as a late NIP (which you have not suggested) you have absolutely no basis to challenge this allegation. Take whatever is offered (probably a Speed Awareness Course). Don’t forget to nominate yourself as driver (if not already done) within 28 days of receipt of the NIP. This post has been edited by NewJudge: Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:00 |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:04
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I think I'd be leaving the straws where they are.
Maybe read the Highway Code and understand the implication of a system of street lighting. Take the course, it sounds like you may benefit. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:24
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Why would I be looking at the street lighting I understand what your saying but im looking for the speed sign. Then this may be the crux of your misunderstanding. Street lighting acts as a speed limit 'sign' in the absence of signs to the contrary. The location on the NIP is clearly in the 30mph limit (just). I know there is one, but I cant see it because of the van Then if you didn't see the signs then you should have maintained your speed. concerning the speed awareness course, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees, I am a good safe driver, my record is my evidence No-one is saying you are not a safe driver. But it appears you committed a strict liability criminal offence and you have the opportunity to dispose of the matter without a prosecution. You're annoyed at getting caught and are looking for ways to 'fight' (for which this forum supports) but only where there is a genuine case to fight. If you are better off accepting a fixed penalty / course we'll say so. Should you want to fight at court then the penalty for failure will be more than 3 points, an income-related fine, surcharge and costs of over £600. At the moment though they are simply requesting the name of the driver - do not fail to do this as the penalty is 6 points. This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:26 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:30
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18 May 2016 Member No.: 84,415 |
You have me struggling here. As I understand it you were travelling at 42mph in a 30mph zone. You seem not to dispute this. Your basis of challenge seems to be that you knew that the limit changed somewhere along the stretch but you could not clearly see where because the camera van (which was in front of you) was obscuring the (insufficient) signage. (Please tell me if I’ve got it wrong). As I hope you probably now realise, there are a number of flaws in your plan. Firstly, you were still in the 30mph zone (something you seem to accept). Secondly, if you don’t see a sign indicating a higher limit, surely you should continue to drive at the lower limit. In short, you were not in the higher limit zone so it makes no difference whether the signage was sufficient, legal or properly visible. Your argument could be valid if you were accused of doing 42 in the 40 zone (though you may still struggle because the allegedly insufficient signage was set to increse the limit, not reduce it). The fact that you could not determine where the higher limit started simply adds to the case against you: you hadn’t seen the sign indicating the higher limit, you had not passed it, yet you increased your speed nonetheless. The other thrust of your challenge (the siting of the camera van) does nothing for your case. Bar any administrative irregularities such as a late NIP (which you have not suggested) you have absolutely no basis to challenge this allegation. Take whatever is offered (probably a Speed Awareness Course). Don’t forget to nominate yourself as driver (if not already done) within 28 days of receipt of the NIP. Thanks for the response, I can see your points and they are duly noted. can I just run this by you please don't laugh Entrapment, It is my belief that the camera operatives actions in regard to obstructing motorists view of the signage, and the failure of GMP and the local authority to ensure the speed limit is clear in a zone where they are highly concerned with road "safety" increased the likelihood that a person would break the limit. Quote from law.com The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the "criminal." For the people saying signs don't matter, could you please explain why we have them then? or why they must conform to certain standards? why not just have multi coloured lampposts?? It must have a bearing somehow. |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:40
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18 May 2016 Member No.: 84,415 |
I think I'd be leaving the straws where they are. Maybe read the Highway Code and understand the implication of a system of street lighting. Take the course, it sounds like you may benefit. Maybe read my posts correctly and you will see I fully understand the implication of street lighting on speed limits. You could have attempted to be helpful and explain what effect street lighting has if there are signs present but obstructed from view by the very person trying to allege an offence but im quite sure you don't know the answer. I will request your help if I need simple information easily obtainable by anyone with sense. |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:41
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Entrapment won't fly in this country.
And even if they were obstructing a higher limit sign then it would actually slow people down wouldn't it? -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:45
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
I think I'd be leaving the straws where they are. Maybe read the Highway Code and understand the implication of a system of street lighting. Take the course, it sounds like you may benefit. Maybe read my posts correctly and you will see I fully understand the implication of street lighting on speed limits. You could have attempted to be helpful and explain what effect street lighting has if there are signs present but obstructed from view by the very person trying to allege an offence but im quite sure you don't know the answer. I will request your help if I need simple information easily obtainable by anyone with sense. Streetlights indicate a 30mph limit. You were exceeding that limit, regardless of what signs are visible/invisble in the distance. The limit changes at the signs, whether visible/invisble. But you hadn't reached those signs. (bangs head) Had the 40mph signs been visible, you were still in the 30 limit. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:04
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18 May 2016 Member No.: 84,415 |
Why would I be looking at the street lighting I understand what your saying but im looking for the speed sign. Then this may be the crux of your misunderstanding. Street lighting acts as a speed limit 'sign' in the absence of signs to the contrary. The location on the NIP is clearly in the 30mph limit (just). I know there is one, but I cant see it because of the van Then if you didn't see the signs then you should have maintained your speed. concerning the speed awareness course, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees, I am a good safe driver, my record is my evidence No-one is saying you are not a safe driver. But it appears you committed a strict liability criminal offence and you have the opportunity to dispose of the matter without a prosecution. You're annoyed at getting caught and are looking for ways to 'fight' (for which this forum supports) but only where there is a genuine case to fight. If you are better off accepting a fixed penalty / course we'll say so. Should you want to fight at court then the penalty for failure will be more than 3 points, an income-related fine, surcharge and costs of over £600. At the moment though they are simply requesting the name of the driver - do not fail to do this as the penalty is 6 points. The fight is regarding the conduct of the operative. I can see quotes relating to the highway code which i accept but the law is what im concerned with and most notably the parts of it which i could use for my defence such as Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (Latin for "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise") which means a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The purpose of traffic signs are to direct, inform, warn and protect road users in the interests of road safety and mobility and are important to all users including cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. These signs are placed under statutory powers granted to the Highway Authority and regulations are in place in relation to the type and positioning of these signs. Could someone advise if they know where i can find any information regarding obstructing signage and if it is an actual offence? If so i believe im on to something even if nobody else does |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:06
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
The operative can park where he likes.
Nothing in any of what you have said so far constitutes any type of defence. Time to GSB. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:14
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18 May 2016 Member No.: 84,415 |
I think I'd be leaving the straws where they are. Maybe read the Highway Code and understand the implication of a system of street lighting. Take the course, it sounds like you may benefit. Maybe read my posts correctly and you will see I fully understand the implication of street lighting on speed limits. You could have attempted to be helpful and explain what effect street lighting has if there are signs present but obstructed from view by the very person trying to allege an offence but im quite sure you don't know the answer. I will request your help if I need simple information easily obtainable by anyone with sense. Streetlights indicate a 30mph limit. You were exceeding that limit, regardless of what signs are visible/invisble in the distance. The limit changes at the signs, whether visible/invisble. But you hadn't reached those signs. (bangs head) Had the 40mph signs been visible, you were still in the 30 limit. Im not saying i wasn't speeding, im saying you cant break the law while claiming im breaking the law. so the question is? Is obstructing road signage an offence if it is i will take that argument to court, for better or for worse. I do not line the pockets of revenue collection agents claiming to be robbing me for my own safety. The operative can park where he likes. Nothing in any of what you have said so far constitutes any type of defence. Time to GSB. That's a ridiculous statement to make. If you stand by it please provide some form of evidence for me to review it would be appreciated. Also I do not require opinions I require facts and information of which any forthcoming will be very appreciated. I understand your opinion on my supposed "defence" but once again your opinion means little , as I can see you have experience with NIP's and your understanding of law in a wider sense may be limited. This post has been edited by brenj86: Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:20 |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:17
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Even if the operative was committing an offence (for which they could be separately liable) it does not present a defence for you.
You could take the matter to court and ask them to consider special reasons not to endorse which means you admit the offence but ask them to consider something 'special' not to award points. But this won't fly here. But it will be an expensive day out but it's your right. Pleading not guilty would appear to be a very costly day out. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:17
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
I think I'd be leaving the straws where they are. Maybe read the Highway Code and understand the implication of a system of street lighting. Take the course, it sounds like you may benefit. Maybe read my posts correctly and you will see I fully understand the implication of street lighting on speed limits. You could have attempted to be helpful and explain what effect street lighting has if there are signs present but obstructed from view by the very person trying to allege an offence but im quite sure you don't know the answer. I will request your help if I need simple information easily obtainable by anyone with sense. Streetlights indicate a 30mph limit. You were exceeding that limit, regardless of what signs are visible/invisble in the distance. The limit changes at the signs, whether visible/invisble. But you hadn't reached those signs. (bangs head) Had the 40mph signs been visible, you were still in the 30 limit. Im not saying i wasn't speeding, im saying you cant break the law while claiming im breaking the law. so the question is? Is obstructing road signage an offence if it is i will take that argument to court, for better or for worse. I do not line the pockets of revenue collection agents claiming to be robbing me for my own safety. The operative can park where he likes. Nothing in any of what you have said so far constitutes any type of defence. Time to GSB. That's a ridiculous statement to make. If you stand by it please provide some form of evidence for me to review it would be appreciated. What part is ridiculous? You admit to exceeding the posted limit. And so far, you've no defence. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:06 |