PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

314 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

Lynnzer
Posted on: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 - 10:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (John U.K. @ Fri, 22 Jul 2022 - 11:34) *
QUOTE
I have no direct contact with the driver


Is the driver the registered keeper?
QUOTE
The way I see it is that by appealing with some sort of pretty well thought out points that there's nothing to lose as the period for paying the discounted charge will be extended if the appeal is turned down.



Remember the stages in the process - first a challenge against the PCN, then a represenation against the NtO, finally appeal to the tribunal.

The clock is ticking if the discount is to be preserved.

I think your best way forward is to post a draft challenge here for comment but do not lose sight of the deadline.

The driver is the keeper. I understand the basics of the process but I still need the answers to my last post to be able to draft up any sort of appeal that I would be confident to submit.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1725053 · Replies: 28 · Views: 1,888

Lynnzer
Posted on: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 - 10:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 18:42) *
Your remaining options are legitimate expectation (which even with plenty of GSV evidence and witness statements is no sure outcome) and anything that we can see on the back of the PCN.

You're refusing to show us the back of the PCN and I'm struggling to understand why?

Back of PCN.
Attached File  IMG20220722105054.pdf ( 73.39K ) Number of downloads: 24


I want to put this to bed by seeking views from all angles. Just for the sake of clarity, I have no direct contsact with the driver except for passing info via my friend who works together. They both have the forum topic to see comments so are in the loop, so to say.
I see no reason to push my view over those of other forum members even though some on here may think otherwise.
The way I see it is that by appealing with some sort of pretty well thought out points that there's nothing to lose as the period for paying the discounted charge will be extended if the appeal is turned down.
It's at that point that a more thought out basis would need to be taken as sending a further appeal to the adjudicator would inevitably mean paying the full amount if that too was dismissed.

Now, to reiterate my original thought of the carriageway being the width of the road between kerb faces could I point you back to the image in the 1st post. That defines the carriaegawy exactly as I thought, and even further on that is that when there isn't a kerb the measurement is still taken on the tarmac area and not onto the grassed verge even when there are bollards. If anyone has a precise definition as the carriageway limits then please let me know of it. If not, then why suggest that the width is greateer than the tarmac road surface between kerbs.

As for verges, this is the result of searches for parking on verges that is common to a lot of council sites.
How is that not related to this case? The car was parked on the verge with a couple of wheels on the kerb and a slight overhang.

  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1725047 · Replies: 28 · Views: 1,888

Lynnzer
Posted on: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 17:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 18:05) *
QUOTE
a regular roadside strip of land

Which is the definition of a verge . . .

Whatever rights and wrongs about the divergence of views on the status of the land, you seem to be ignoring any other options: for example legitimate expectation.

The only earlier GSV (2008) shows pristine green grass. The present view shows vans parked on bare earth. It is fairly obvious that parking on this spot has been going on for a very long time.. You need to try and find some evidence that this has happened, and whether no or very penalties have been incurred.

I know without doubt that the exact spot is regularly used by other vehicles without collecting PCN's. In fact the same driver parked in this location the day after her PCN but with the car not hovering over the kerb, and it didn't get ticketed even though the same warden passed by on his regular rounds. It's an oft used location where drivers place their car when the nearby parking bays are full and only occasionally does a ticket get issued but it seems it's only when there's some sort of overhang.
Proof of acceptance by the warden that he doesn't ticket people for parking there isn't a realistic prospect.

So given that responses seem to indicate that a contravention occurred, be it by a marginal overhang or by being totally alongside DYL's on the verge, what appeal points should be made.
I assume that de minimis for not actually being parked on a road but marginally overhanging the DYL would be the only one worth persuing.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1724882 · Replies: 28 · Views: 1,888

Lynnzer
Posted on: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 15:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 14:27) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 07:21) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 20:43) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 15:55) *
The DYL applies from the centre of the carriageway to the property line. parked on an island as such there is no property line to apply there is a case on this in the file of cases to assist arguments also perhaps a legitimate expectation argument may have legs

I expect the island will be considered as part of the road. We see so many people thinking that yellow lines only apply to the carriageway who get PCNs. In the case here, the council are bound to reject and the PCN recipient would have to go to adjudication where the outcome is very uncertain, (in my view), and, of course, the full PCN amount is in play, the discount option is lost at that point. I would be intrigued to see what arguments were out forward in the past, as suggested by PMB.

It wasn't an island. An island is surrounded by roadway. This is a verge which isn't subject to restrictions.


Call it what you will the DYL applies from the centre of the carriage way to the property line at the edge of the road The argument was accepted that the island was not part of the road so the DYL did not apply effectively ending the restricted area at the edge of the carriageway

Well that's my take on it too.
I'm not saying that my thoughts are any better than anyone else's, it's just that questions remain on the extent of where the carriageway ends. And to say it again - it's not an island but a regular roadside strip of land if you care to GSM it.
Even if it ends at the kerb face it's still potentially a de minimis offence for overhanging from the kerb over the DYL's.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1724856 · Replies: 28 · Views: 1,888

Lynnzer
Posted on: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 10:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 09:25) *
Clearly by the double yellows so looks bang to rights. Not sure why the double yellows end there though.



Well the placement of the car isn't what I thought. I was under the impression that it was on the verge beyond the DYL's.
However I see this as a de minimis case as the car is only very slightly overhanging the kerb onto the roadway, though not with a wheel on the actual tarmac road surface. The designation of "kerb" is still contentious as well due to the fact that if the kerb is not actually a part of the overall road width then de minimis is strengthened further, don't you think?

Taking this point even further let's just say for instance that someone who parked mostly on the actual road but had two wheels on the kerb could potentially be given a PCN for obstructive parking on a pavement. It can't be both after all.


QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 10:09) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 07:21) *
This is a verge which isn't subject to restrictions.

As everyone has told you, it is .

I see many mentions in council notes etc that there are no restrictions to parking on a kerb. I still maintain that the car was parked almost entirely on the verge with a partial parking on the kerb and small overhang being the only thing to considered here. It's the bit of the car that's on and hanging over the kerb that has resulted in the PCN.
I am also told that the same driver parked on the same verge yesterday, but with no wheel on the kerb. The same traffic warden didn't ticket her when he came round as he always does on a daily basis.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1724755 · Replies: 28 · Views: 1,888

Lynnzer
Posted on: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 06:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 20:43) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 15:55) *
The DYL applies from the centre of the carriageway to the property line. parked on an island as such there is no property line to apply there is a case on this in the file of cases to assist arguments also perhaps a legitimate expectation argument may have legs

I expect the island will be considered as part of the road. We see so many people thinking that yellow lines only apply to the carriageway who get PCNs. In the case here, the council are bound to reject and the PCN recipient would have to go to adjudication where the outcome is very uncertain, (in my view), and, of course, the full PCN amount is in play, the discount option is lost at that point. I would be intrigued to see what arguments were out forward in the past, as suggested by PMB.

It wasn't an island. An island is surrounded by roadway. This is a verge which isn't subject to restrictions.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1724726 · Replies: 28 · Views: 1,888

Lynnzer
Posted on: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 - 05:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 23:33) *
Can you give us the PCN number & number plate please?

From the PCN images it looks like KU65 BTY & SX24523896 but this isn't a valid combination.

Also please show us the back of the PCN in full so that we can check the small print. There is limited upload space on here so use an external hosting site like google drive or similar.

SX24523695 is the PCN.
Reg is correct.
The rear of the ticket is fine from my own knowledge of the wording. It also states that if an appeal is made and is unsuccessful it "may in some circumstances be prepared to extend the period during which the discounted payment may still be made", which of itself is as vague as it comes. It certainly doesn't give a clear situation that an owner may take into consideration of the risk attached to making an appeal.
-----------------------------------------------
Traffic island. Not sure if a grassed verge can be classified as an island. It seems not to fit the description of a traffic island from all of the searches I've done.
A verge is not subject to parking restrictions unless a TRO is applied and there have been none from Durham Council for this location, nor will there ever be from the Council's own discussions on verge parking

So here we have a somewhat nondescript offence for parking in a restricted street ........
That must surely be based on the assertion that the car having two tyres on the kerb, but not over it was deemed to be on the highway. It certainly seems to suggest the car was ascertained to be parked on the highway with an overhang onto double yellows by a mere 5 or 6 inches. So we have a vague situation where it could be a de minimis offence for a double yellow overhang. I can't think of any other alleged contravention that would bring a code 01 into play.

Also I'm wondering if the "parked in a restricted street DURING PRESCRIBED HOURS" could lay the foundation that the car was indeed on the road/highway and the sign lays out the restricted hours. If that's the case then the sign is at the very least vague in its meaning and seems to only indicate that the restrictions are placed only on loading and unloading. However, such a preumed offence wouldn't apply anyway as the overriding presence of double yellow lines would be predominant. Anyone agree with this? I can't find any definitive wording for this within the TSRGD.
Is it better to ask for confirmation of what the alleged offence is actually based on before going further with this?
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1724724 · Replies: 28 · Views: 1,888

Lynnzer
Posted on: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 13:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 09:02) *
Please post-up the PCN and also where the vehicle was parked in the GSV view. The double yellow lines apply to the whole road including verges and footways, and need no signs as they apply 24x7


PCN image file attached.
The exact location is exactly where I said in my 1st post with the car's wheels on the kerb not on the roadway.
The PCN is here.

Attached File  pcn_pdf.pdf ( 42.34K ) Number of downloads: 59


Thinking further on this, if the car is supposedly on the highway, if the kerbs are a part of it instead of the carriageway being measured between them, then the offence code could also apply here but if that't the intention there's no sign to say so. The only sign is one that limits loading and unloading. If it's meant to convey that no other parking is allowed outside of the time stated it really doesn't state it clearly. I take it that it only applies to vehicles that are loading or unloading.

If, instead the offence is meant to be for being parked off the highway with an overhang then the contravention of "Parked in a restricted street during precribed hours" must be questionable at the very least. I am of the opinion that parking off the road on verges is not an offence except in exceptional situations.

Let me make it clear: the car was on the grass or mud verge where the white van is but with the tyres on the kerb and potentially with the rear of the car having a marginal overhang onto the double yellows : BUT ONLY IF THE CAR HAD BEEN ON THE HIGHWAY, which I don't think is the case.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1724581 · Replies: 28 · Views: 1,888

Lynnzer
Posted on: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 06:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


This one's for a friend of a friend.
Location, back of Lidl in Houghton le Spring
The woman was parked almost exactly where the white van is on Google Maps. The only difference is that her car had the tyres actually on the kerb, but not on the road. The rest of the car was offroad completely same as the white van. Also the double yellow on the road would extend under the rear of the car by a few inches if she had been on the road.
Signs at the location don't indicate anything that relates to the alleged offence.
The parking spaces beyond this location are all unrestricted and no signs are placed to indicate any sort of restriction.
The location shown on the ticket is Pottery Yard.

I take it myself, that a car isn't on the highway if its tyres are on a kerb. The limit of the road is between kerb to kerb on the actual road surface, and not on top of the kerb as this image seems to indicate.


I can only presume that this is what the ticket is relying on for the offence, ie parked with wheels on a kerb, rather than on the road surface. If there is room for the offence to be correct for parking with the wheels on the kerb, then I also suspect that would be a de minimis offence too. That would be point 1.
Point 2 is that the signs do not set any limits to parking off-road.

All other things on the PCN are fine.
How to proceed? Do we need to request anything from the council first of all, to clarify the PCN as regards location, signs etc before I proceed to do anything else.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1724497 · Replies: 28 · Views: 1,888

Lynnzer
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 - 12:31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (AntonyMMM @ Sat, 18 Jun 2022 - 13:12) *
They won't engage in a "trial by email" ....that letter will just see the case referred to court.

Yeah I know already but how do I make my point otherwise.
I know I'll just have to swallow $hit and take a hit but I would really like them to try to explain why the anomalies exist and to release the video footage as I'm still adamant that something's wrong here despite the laser snaps, or in fact because of the timings on them.
I went through purgatory with the police lying in court many years ago, as the longer serving members will remember. Can't afford to, nor do I want to get strung out to dry by them again. Barstewards. It's only a matter of time before all vehicles will be tracked as soon as they drive away and every offence will result in fines. God help my grandkids as I'll be gone when they fall into the system.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1718058 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 - 11:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (Slapdash @ Sat, 18 Jun 2022 - 10:45) *
To me the first 2 shots are pretty much straight on.and your vehicle is cleanly targeted.

They both say 50mph.

The time to cover the distance at 50mph is entirely consistent with a 2 second interval with 1s granularity. (1.51s).

There is nothing on the photos to allow the time to be checked more accurately.

There is nothing that suggests the 50mph was inaccurate to me.

You suggested after the distances are inaccurate. I guess you can somehow mark and measure.

If the device was somehow malfunctioning that it was measuring time incorrectly then it cannot calculate anything reliably and most likely would have affected everybody that day.

That then comes back to obtaining the video in order to verify the time gap.

I'm asking for the video but I really don't want to shout "NOT GUILTY" just for the hell of it, and I beleive that getting the video would only be as a result of the case going to court.
I'm shooting off a letter though just to see if I can get it before then: Might be a load of bollox and I'm sure you'll let me know if it is. I don't want to send it if it's going to be dangerous.
Many thanks for the images requested however I feel that these are insufficient to validate the alleged offence and in fact prove otherwise, or at least cast reasonable doubt on the alleged offence having taken place.
I am convinced in my own mind that the vehicle wasn't speeding at the time and your images seem to confirm my own belief.
I do not wish for you to proceed to any prosecution as I don't want to incur unnecessary expense to both ourselves, the CPS and courts, however in order for me to fully accept that my honest belief that a speeding offence wasn't being committed at the time, I need clarification of apparent anomalies in the timings shown of the images you sent.
I do not wish to object to an offence just for the sake of doing so and would willingly accept that a speeding offence had been committed if the evidence you have is made available in order that I can ascertain satisfactorily what it shows.

The images supplied, and they are your copyrighted images, are inconsistent with the speeds shown, and as such require further evidential information.
Image 1 shows the car at a distance of 967 feet from the camera at a speed of 50 mph.
The next image shows the car 2 seconds later at a distance of 856 feet and still doing 50 mph. The distance travelled between the pictures is only 111 feet in 2 seconds, thus a speed of 37.8 mph which is what I honestly believe is correct. In a period of 2 seconds, a car travelling at 50 mph would travel 146.3 feet.
The 3rd image is taken at a distance of 174 feet and a speed of 37 mph.
The total distance during the course of the recorded session is 793 feet and the total time taken to travel that far is shown to be 15 seconds. That equates to be 36,13 mph average speed.

With the best will in the world dropping from 50 mph to 37 mph in 682 feet would require sudden deceleration or braking to almost crawling speed over that distance and an ongoing camera feed would show that to be the case.

I believe that it's only reasonable that information is given that may help us both conclude this matter and to that end request that you supply a copy of the video footage taken in relation to the alleged offence.
My request is based on your own proof that a car doing the speeds suggested over the time taken could not have been speeding.
I seek only to clarify that situation as you may be able to show why such an inconsistency has occurred, or what further evidential facts/things you have can explain the massive anomaly.

As mentioned, I do not wish to proceed to court action and am willing to accept the findings based on the video evidence, since release of this is no more onerous to you than printing pictures as you have already done. As the vehicle shown in the footage will be mine then I believe I have a right to see it anyway, with any other vehicle identification removed where needed.
However should court action commence then I will draw attention to the facts given already that your images and the mathematical equations taken from the data, casts reasonable doubt on the veracity of the claim. The court will also be shown the reasonable request made here for release of the video footage especially since I have accepted that if it were to disprove that your images show that an offence was not being committed by the mathematical conclusions, then there would be an acceptance of the alleged offence.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1718043 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 - 10:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (localdriver @ Sat, 18 Jun 2022 - 11:17) *
Are you sure of the location? The pictures in post 34 have a traffic light in the background. The streetview link in that post show roundabout without traffic lights.

There have been roadworks in that area recently and traffic lights added. I'll check it out though.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1718035 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 - 09:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


Here are the photo's:





Is there anything in the other data that gives any meaningful information?

Here's the location of the scammera van to within 15 feet. The monitoring was going on up the road to the left of the view on Earth.

You know.....the more I look at the 1st picture it seems like I had just come off the roundabout, where I would not have been doing 50mph anyway. That apart if I had just left the roundabout then the camera van would have been at a greater distance than shown. I know, I know.....
But consider; I'm clearly on a bend and at a small rise in the road. The van wouldn't have been able to take photo's round the corner.
If you view the scene here, the camera van was just before the clump of bushes to the right and the car must have been just coming out of the bend to the left.
The van couldn't have been, and I know it wasn't, any closer. It's a renowned parking place for it anyway. That said, my car is definitely just coming off the bend and 967 feet places the camera van in a location I know it wasn't at, ie on this piece of grass. Just a simple Google Earth measurement shows that to be correct.
967 feet from the location of the van that I saw it at puts my car here, ie on the road in the middle of the Earth picture
That's definitely not on a bend.
There's so much wrong going on here.....
I must get back down there with a camera to work this out.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1718025 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 - 07:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 17 Jun 2022 - 12:12) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Fri, 17 Jun 2022 - 11:35) *
It's been some time since I went into any depth on speed cameras etc, but I seem to remember that there's supposed to be a potential slippage effect if the camera is pointed at a reg plate on a car going round a bend such as leaving a roundabout.
How in hell would I be able to prove that?

A bit wrong.

A slippage effect is possible (a curve isn't necessarily needed) but while its possible it doesn't happen often and in tests it was almost impossible to make happen, although other issues were identified, usually where you have a secondary reflection of another vehicle.

A frame by frame analysis of the video would show up if slippage had occurred, but for one reading is very unlikely - 2 all but impossible. That doesn't mean the readings are definitely reliable, but it's very very unlikely to be slippage.

I don't know if there's a frame by frame clip. I thought they just took a single picture several times. Frame by frame seems to suggest a video clip.
Anyway, I have been doing a lot of dreaming, or having disturbed sleep due to this. I just know I wasn't speeding.
So I have applied a reverse calculation to my previous mathematical result of 50mph over a distance of 111 feet in 2 seconds.
Instead I have calculated that in 2 seconds over a period of 111 feet, the speed would equate to 38.4mph which is consistent with my own knowledge of what I was doing at the time, and as indicated on the 3rd picture.

So, we get to the point of what might have given rise to a wrong reading.
Could it be due to the traffic alongside for instance. I was under the impression that taking a speed reading while other traffic was in view was potentially going to give an incorrect reading. I know that an overtaking van was alongside for a good length of time and I even shook my head thinking what an a$$hole, as I was aware of the camera van. That thought was made at the same time I checked my own speed.
There's definitely something wrong here......
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1718013 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 - 10:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 17 Jun 2022 - 11:05) *
You need the frame count or '2 seconds' later can be 1.49 to 2.50 seconds which creates a huge difference in the speed you would calculate. 1.49 seconds would be 50.8mph for example.

It would need some fairly sharp braking though to average 40mph over the next 682 feet with a terminal speed of 37.

It's been some time since I went into any depth on speed cameras etc, but I seem to remember that there's supposed to be a potentiasl slippage effect if the camera is pointed at a reg plate on a car going round a bend such as leaving a roundabout.
How in hell would I be able to prove that? I know that the prosecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a speeding offence had occurred but would then throw up the 1st pictures showing 50mph for that.
Unless I can prove or at least give a damn good explanatioin as to why the 1st 2 speeds shown were probably due to incorrect use of the laser then I'm just delaying the inevitable and giving myself a larger fine to contend with. Isn't it a very shady thing to do, not least due to the potential slippage effect, of pointing a laser at cars on or just leaving a roindabout? Is there anything in the Type Approval for this.
As for the roundabout itself, it doesn't lend itself to someone going round it at 50mph.
The CPS would still say that I could have slowed considerably after seeing the van anyway.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1717881 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 - 09:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


Well I do know the camera location this time round since I saw the van, but without knowing for sure, it could have been at another location and I might not have seen it.
Anyway, I just got the pictures and I'm seeing an anomaly in the speeds showing on them
The 1st picture taken at distance of 967 ft at 11:35:38 am shows a recorded speed of 50 mph. The 2ndm picture shows the same speed 2 seconds later at a distance of 856 ft. Finally the last one taken at a distance of 174 ft at 11:35:52 shows 37mph, the sort of speed I know I was doing.

Maths. picture 1 to picture 2 is 111 feet.
111 feet over 2 seconds is 37.5 mph.

Location 2 at 856 feet minus location 3 at 174 feet is a distance of 682 feet.
682 feet over a period of 12 seconds = 38.8mph

total distance travelled during monitoring time -= 793 feet over a period of 15 seconds - average of 52.86 feet per second = 38.8mph.
The total distance travelled if a period of speeding was involved would result in a higher average speed than 38.8mph.

What do you reckon? Something wrong? I certainly didn't speed up or slow down to any noticeable extent so it seems that there's a problem.
Even if I had been doing 50mph at the 1st picture point, which I am adamant I wasn't, then slowing down to be within the limits would have resulted in a deliberate braking period, and once more I didn't brake to any extent. I checked my speed and was within the limits so had no need to brake.

The actual location of the 1st 2 camera snaps was at and just leaving a roundabout, even before I would have become aware of a scammera van. There are cars to the front side, and at the rear that aren't pinpointed by the camera but I don't know if there's a requirement for cars that have other vehicles potentially impeding a camera shot to be dismissed.


As for the S172, all's in order there so there's no escape route in that.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1717878 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 - 05:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Mon, 13 Jun 2022 - 15:26) *
QUOTE (rosysparkle @ Mon, 13 Jun 2022 - 14:59) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Mon, 13 Jun 2022 - 13:24) *
I've asked for photos but I don't know if they'll be helpful. They may just show the front of the car and Reg plate.
I've driven down that road again today to check things out. The signs have been moved up the road a good distance to a roundabout where a new housing estate is being built.
The signs were moved between the date you were flashed and today, or the signs were moved before you were flashed but you didn't notice them?

Either way, if the signs have been moved, it might be a good idea to get hold of the traffic order that sets the speed limit to see exactly where the limit changes.

I'm gonna do that BUT thinking things out after today's run down there, there's one of those flashing speed signs at what must be very close to where my car was.
It's probale that it was that sign that displayed the 38mph although I still checked my speedo as well.
Not that it will make a ha'porth of difference to the bent arm of the law.

While I'm waiting for the info above I'm also in 2 minds about the location.
The NIP says for speeding on the A179 Hartlepool. The A179 is over 8km long and there are at least 3 places that I know of where the scammera van parks up.
Uncertain/imprecise location is a possibility here, do you think?
So how best to go about this angle? Write and ask for more information right away, knowing that they'll likely be able to give it, or wait until the 28 days has almost expired?
As I am convinced that I wasn't speeding in any case, then perhaps I cocked up at another location along the road, but really don't think I did.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1717379 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 - 14:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


QUOTE (rosysparkle @ Mon, 13 Jun 2022 - 14:59) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Mon, 13 Jun 2022 - 13:24) *
I've asked for photos but I don't know if they'll be helpful. They may just show the front of the car and Reg plate.
I've driven down that road again today to check things out. The signs have been moved up the road a good distance to a roundabout where a new housing estate is being built.
The signs were moved between the date you were flashed and today, or the signs were moved before you were flashed but you didn't notice them?

Either way, if the signs have been moved, it might be a good idea to get hold of the traffic order that sets the speed limit to see exactly where the limit changes.

I'm gonna do that BUT thinking things out after today's run down there, there's one of those flashing speed signs at what must be very close to where my car was.
It's probale that it was that sign that displayed the 38mph although I still checked my speedo as well.
Not that it will make a ha'porth of difference to the bent arm of the law.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1717001 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 - 12:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


I've asked for photos but I don't know if they'll be helpful. They may just show the front of the car and Reg plate.
I've driven down that road again today to check things out. The signs have been moved up the road a good distance to a roundabout where a new housing estate is being built.
That said, I still won't accept that I was speeding.
I do know that at the time either just before, or alongsde me just as the camera van came into view, there was a van going faster than I was, and I thought to myself "what a ****". I'm wondering if the van alongside had any part in the matter.
I'm certain I was doing MAXIMUM of 40mph but when I saw the camera van I looked down and it showed 38 on the speedo. To get to 38 from an alleged 50 would take a hard hit on the brakes and I certainly haven't done that.
The van couldn't have taken a reading of the car any further up the road due to a bend and the distance between car and camera couldn't have been much more than 200 metres. I mean.... I would have known and slammed my anchors on but instead I drove smugly down the road and thought about the van that would certainly have been caught.
I even considered going back and flashing cars just to show them "how kind I am".
The speed I had been doing prior to that point would also have been unlikely to be 50mph but hey.... it's my word against theirs. If my FOI request doesn't give me anything to work with I'll "cop" out and take a hit. I can't afford another lengthy run in out of principle.
Cops, I bloody hate them, even the one sort of in the family through a marriage connection.
I'm wondering about a Bill of Rights now that we've Brexited. No compulsion to give any damaging personal information in respect of law keeping.
I wonder if the EHCR case still stands, that was very nearly panned by Judges who dissented with the verdict.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1716967 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 - 07:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


FOI request submitted.
On the 7/6/2022 a police camera van was monitoring for speeding motorists on the A179 Hartlepool road.

Please supply the exact location, ie GPS data as to where the van was parked during this time. This to be as exact as possible, or if any exact parking location is not on record then please say it isn't.

Please supply data as to how many vehicles were caught allegedly speeding during that monitoring session, but naturally no vehicle or Registered Keeper details so as not to disclose any personal identity.

Please supply data of the distances involved at the monitoring location, ie the distance at which vehicles were photographed from the actual position of the camera van. If no records are available then please indicate that none were lodged as part of the process.

Please supply any other data/records that can show consistency of operational integrity of the camera van regarding the checks that show that the van was not actually taking speed checks on vehicles prior to them passing the speed limit signs. If the data or records cannot show that the van was monitoring only vehicles once they had entered the speed limit area then please explain that such records are not kept, and/or that such checks were not made.
-----------------------------------------------------
Yeah, the consumption has decreased but you all know what I was saying. It's gone up to 44.7 mpg over the weekend too.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 12 Jun 2022 - 21:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 12 Jun 2022 - 21:41) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Sat, 11 Jun 2022 - 11:10) *
...have changed my driving so much that I have increased my consumption by almost 8% by slow starts, less than 60mph even on motorways etc. I've gone from 32.8mpg to 39.7.
Also most internal combustion vehicles are most fuel-efficient at speeds of around 55 mph

You’ll get best efficiency at the lowest speed you can maintain in top gear, that’s usually a fair bit less than 55mph.

Back in the day I recall the Austin Rover add campaign for the new Montego Diesel, with its 100mph/100mpg (at a steady 30mph).

That's what I aim for. Lowest speed in top gear but in my case it's around 50 - 55 depending on road incline etc. As it's an automatic I just put the speed at whatever suits the road, and on motorways and good dual carriageways usually 55 - 60mph.
I've become one of those drivers that I used to moan about.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1716883 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 - 10:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


The other day I had to go to Hartlepool.
First off though, having just completed a SAC a couple of months ago, I've been driving within speed limits, and in fact have changed my driving so much that I have increased my consumption by almost 8% by slow starts, less than 60mph even on motorways etc. I've gone from 32.8mpg to 39.7.
That's just an explanation of my reason for posting another speeding ticket.
So, I was approaching the start of the 40mph limit on the A179 down from Hart and the bit immediately before the coast road roundabout.
Knowing that this stretch is often monitored by scammer police vans, and in fact following my usual driving pattern I slowed down to be within the limit at the actual entry point to the signs.
DAMN IT. There was a bloody van parked a couple of hundred yards down from the signs. I know I wasn't over the limit and in fact was probably more towards 38 mph.
At the time I wondered how many people get caught by starting to slow only when they hit the signs.
Guess what. I got a NIP today. They must have had the camera trained on the traffic BEFORE they got to the signs.
I AM ADAMANT THAT I WASN'T SPEEDING, but will they listen pre action being taken? Probably not.
However I'm going all in on this one again. I'll start the ball rolling with a letter to the Chief Constable.
How many more have been scammed in this manner I wonder. And in fact if they are, as I know they are, monitoring traffic before the signs, how many DON'T get a bloody ticket.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1716652 · Replies: 44 · Views: 5,862

Lynnzer
Posted on: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 - 12:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


You've been lucky with a discontinuation. Very lucky, as this would really have been a cut and dried case.
Just as an afterthought, if the bay hadn't been clearly marked with a sign that could be easily seen from the space, there would have been a very slim chance of saying that the car was left there while the driver went to read the sign. Not a good case though, neverthless
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1694686 · Replies: 17 · Views: 1,547

Lynnzer
Posted on: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 - 11:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


2.19 seems to kill the airport drop-off and collection on roadways.
2.19 parked/parking an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle)
2.24 also kiils the bit that the PPC's use to monitor the time of entry and time of departure. It pins parking time thus:
2.24 parking period the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)
This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.
AND YET - 5 seems to contradict that. It seems to imply that parking starts after a period of time to read and agree the terms of parking and actually parking up. I see this will create some problems.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1694669 · Replies: 44 · Views: 4,224

Lynnzer
Posted on: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 13:12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


The sign is its own falldown. The wording at the top of the sign says" PRIVATE LAND - CONTRACTUAL TERMS APPLY" then at the bottom it says "BY ENTERING OR REMAINING ON THIS PRIVATE LAND YOU AGREE TO ABIDE BY ALL CONTRACTUAL TERMS"
Yet there none displayed. There's none at all.
You would expect another section underneath under the heading of Terms and Conditions
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1678446 · Replies: 63 · Views: 5,307

Lynnzer
Posted on: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 - 08:04


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813


I wonder if this is part of an ongoing process for an overhaul of the parking industry?
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1677727 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,035

314 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:50
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.