PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] NIP for 56mph in a 40 on A417 Herefordshire. No offer of speed awareness course :-(
ballymunboy
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 21:29
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 8 May 2011
Member No.: 46,474



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - July 2018
Date of the NIP: - 2 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 3 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A417 Bodenham towards Gloucester (LC)
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
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 - Travelling eastbound on the A417 from Hope-under-Dinmore (Herefordshire) to Gloucester (M5).

Google Street View --- https://goo.gl/maps/ArZ7mqmnAS22

Weather conditions - overcast; slight drizzle

Operator inside marked police van. Parked on nearside verge using handheld device - TeleTraffic LTI 20-20 UltraLyte 100 / 1000 - pointed through rear window

Speed limit: 40mph. Vehicle speed 56mph

Signage -- along 40mph length of road - one pair of 40mph terminal signs on either side of carriageway. A '40' roundel painted on road. One speed limit repeater 200 metres further on.

40mph terminal sign in poor condition on nearside of carriageway.
Sign obscured by tree foliage and coated in green algae.
Offside sign hidden by vehicles approaching on opposite carriageway.

Driver 'pinged' around 350 metres inside the 40mph limit; from a distance of around 120 metres.


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:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 21:29:11 +0000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 21:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 21:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



Are you suggesting you didn't know the limit?

How are you so unsure of the condition of the signs if you didn't see them?

This post has been edited by peterguk: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 21:46


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 21:40
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Too fast for a course, will be a CoFP of 3 points £100.

Do you have your own photos of signage? How do you know signage was hidden by approaching vehicles?


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ballymunboy
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 22:25
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 8 May 2011
Member No.: 46,474



Photos taken three days after alleged offence. We are not regular users of this road; and unfamiliar with speed limits.
Feel particularly aggrieved that speed enforcement is still taking place. Even while speed limit signs are blatantly defective. Through lack of maintenance and obscuring foliage. Really unfair.

Is it worth a challenge though? Or just put up with this slap-in-the-face from the pickpockets at West Mercia Police?


Nearside 40 limit sign obscured by trees. Opposite 40 sign obscured by passing vehicles





Clear road ahead now, but still only one of the '40' signs visible




Close up of nearside '40' sign. Absolutely filthy




A solitary '40' repeater, 200 metres further on.



And here's the likely suspect. Hauling in the plunder!





What about the Speed Limit Order for that length of the A417? Possible defects in it?

This post has been edited by ballymunboy: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 22:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 23:12
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (ballymunboy @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 23:25) *
What about the Speed Limit Order for that length of the A417? Possible defects in it?

Ask the highways authority for a copy and post it up and we'll check.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwaynedouglas
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 06:53
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 9 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,346



QUOTE (ballymunboy @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 23:25) *
Nearside 40 limit sign obscured by trees. Opposite 40 sign obscured by passing vehicles


What about the big highlighted red road, with 40 written on it?

I understand your point about signage, but it is written literally on the road in your own pictures.

I'm not sure I'd want to risk a court appearance based on signage in an area where there are both road signs (however you feel about their adequacy) and the prevailing limit written on the actual road.

As indicated, your best bet may be to accept any COFP offered, however galling.

With regard to checking the TRO, given the police are specifically targeting this area as of 12 months ago:

https://www.westmercia.police.uk/article/38...-18-August-2017

I'd suggest this is unlikely.

This post has been edited by Dwaynedouglas: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 06:55


--------------------
I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, my opinion is based on my experience - follow at your own risk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 09:35
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



The guidance on speed limit signage has been changed from more prescriptive interpretation to providing "adequate guidance" to the driver.

Do you definitely remember that the offside speed limit sign was blocked by a vehicle when you went past?

If so a court would have to consider if the requirement for adequate guidance is objective, e.g. that the test will be for all road users, or subjective, which would mean that whether the signage was adequate would vary between drivers.

Although speeding is a strict liability offence - you do not need to intend to speed - I think in the past courts have erred towards a defence of adequate signage being subjective - for example speeding charges have, in the past, been thrown out when signs are unlit at night, although they would stand during the day.

On the one hand you have the fact that speed limit terminal signs are paired for exactly this reason, to reduce the chance of both being blocked. They are the most important signs in a speed limit, and the nearside one is arguably the most important.

On the other hand passing vehicles aren't an issue with the signage directly - the court would have to decide whether otherwise compliant signage could fail to provide adequate guidance for the sake of a few seconds. Also they would have to decide whether the signs were visible from further away or closer. Obviously your photos are taken at the exact moment the signs are obscured, in reality whilst driving you do not have one snapshot. As has been said even if they accept that both terminal signs weren't visible, they would also ask whether the road markings and repeater signs provided adequate guidance of the limit.

You could of course give evidence that the signs were obscured, although to be honest it might be stretching plausibility that you specifically remember not seeing something on an otherwise unremarkable journey up to that point.

I do agree with you that it is poor practice to enforce a limit when signage is ambiguous, but that doesn't change whether you were or weren't speeding unfortunately. Certainly as has been suggested post up the TRO, we have already had at least one defective one recently. Your council should email you a copy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 10:21
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 10:35) *
Although speeding is a strict liability offence - you do not need to intend to speed - I think in the past courts have erred towards a defence of adequate signage being subjective - for example speeding charges have, in the past, been thrown out when signs are unlit at night, although they would stand during the day.

That’s not a subjective test though. It is objective - would the normal driver in those circumstances have received adequate guidance as to the speed limit? A subjective test would ask did that particular driver receive adequate guidance. I don’t see any reason to impose a subjective test.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 14:42
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



S85 says that that it is the duty of the traffic authority to "secur[e] that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles". I'm not sure how that could be interpreted as a normal driver. Surely that it every driver passing the signs?

In that case the judgement becomes subjunctive - whether to the defendant the signs provided adequate guidance, not that of a notional "average" driver. It's not an automatic defence - the signs can provide adequate guidance but the driver through inattention or recklessness does not obey the speed limit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 17:53
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 15:42) *
S85 says that that it is the duty of the traffic authority to "secur[e] that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles". I'm not sure how that could be interpreted as a normal driver. Surely that it every driver passing the signs?

In that case the judgement becomes subjunctive - whether to the defendant the signs provided adequate guidance, not that of a notional "average" driver. It's not an automatic defence - the signs can provide adequate guidance but the driver through inattention or recklessness does not obey the speed limit.

If it was a subjective test all an accused would have to do is say “I didn’t see it” and the prosecution would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they did. That would be absurd.

This is supported by Coombes v DPP (albeit the point wasn’t argued about objective/subjective), where the court said:

QUOTE
There is a requirement that at the geographical point where the motorist exceeds the speed limit the requisite signs could reasonably be expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for the motorist to reduce from a previous speed to a speed within the new limit.


Note “could reasonably be expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist”, not something like “must have conveyed the limit to the (particular) motorist”.

Further, in Peake v DPP:

QUOTE
Sub-section (4) provides there shall be no conviction unless appropriate signage is provided: if they are, the driver cannot pray in aid the fact that he did not see them; if they are not, the prosecution cannot rely on the fact that he in fact knows the limit anyway.


An objective test (the circumstances of the individual driver being irrelevant).

Finally, Hood v Lewis where a decision to acquit a motorist because he had not seen the speed limit signs was overturned.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 20:28
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



In the Coombs case the sign on the nearside could not be seen until the driver was level with it, as in this case, so he had no chance to slow down in advance of the sign, and there was no information before the court as to how far beyond the sign he was caught. In this case there was a repeater sign 200 metres further on and the van beyond that, therefore there was sufficient time to slow down. In addition the change in requirements seem to me to allow the cumulative effect of the sign, although obscured until the last moment, the roundel and the repeater sign to be taken into account. Mr Coombes was convicted in the magistrates' court and his appeal to the Crown Court was unsuccessful. It seems to me very unlikely that this case would have a more successful history and a high probability that it would not succeed at a higher level. I really do not think it would be sensible to risk taking it to court.


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ballymunboy
post Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 14:27
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 8 May 2011
Member No.: 46,474



Hi again guys,

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and advice! General consensus being cough-up, alas.

The Council, via Balfour highways contractor, has sent TRO allegedly imposing 40mph speed limit.

Very grateful if the gurus could give the TRO a once-over, please? Apparently in force since 1989, maybe slim chance of uncorrected defects?





Also a photo of vehicle, supplied by Police Camera Unit. Police claim it provides "very clear image" of driver (and cousin Albert in passenger seat)



Photo shows vehicle was gunned from astonishing distance of 217.4 metres from camera van. Which places vehicle as just rounding a bend with no nearby houses, nor side-roads. See notation on map.

No doubt done to maximise fine revenues. Not a genuine road safety measure. Which is what Police disingenuously claim in their propaganda.

If Police sincerely wanted to slow down motorists, they would :

(i) ensure no foliage obscured speed limit signage.
(ii) position camera van conspicuously. Not hidden around corner concealed by heavy vegetation.

*sigh*



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 14:58
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (ballymunboy @ Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 15:27) *
Photo shows vehicle was gunned from astonishing distance of 217.4 metres from camera van. Which places vehicle as just rounding a bend with no nearby houses, nor side-roads. See notation on map.

That's not an astonishing distance, around 1/5th of the operational range.

QUOTE (ballymunboy @ Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 15:27) *
No doubt done to maximise fine revenues. Not a genuine road safety measure. Which is what Police disingenuously claim in their propaganda.

You know they don't get the money from the fine?

The problem you face is the repeater which you seem to have 'ignored'? (Assuming you can clear the first hurdle of the obscured terminal signs)


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:29
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here