[NIP Wizard] No Visible Speed Camera Signs 37 in 30 Zone Options

[MCCRoadster]

NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - July 2019
Date of the NIP: - 26 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 28 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Measham road, Acresford, Leicestershire, United Kingdom
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? - Hirer
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 - Left 40mph limited main road to join a 30mph road, both roads displayed clear signage of limits. Entered side road slowly and noticed stationary vehicle in opposite direction motion with his hand ‘slow down’ which at the time I thought odd as I wasn’t driving quickly. My thoughts then went to speed camera so continued with some caution. I was aware further up the road that average speed cameras are set up and for 30mph but I never reached this area. I observed that there were no speed camera signs anywhere visible at all, and I later took photographs to provide evidence of this. The road is very twisty here so it’s difficult to go too fast. As I exited the small village I could see marker boards denoting national speed limit. I began to increase my speed in response to this. Just then I noticed a stationary speed camera van parked outside some house at the end of the village and just prior to the national speed limit change. I instinctively slowed and glanced at my speedometer (which is constantly showing as a digital readout, and I had been monitoring throughout) and I am confident that this did not exceed 39mph. Bearing in mind that speedometers are set with a threshold of about 5mph, then my speed should have been an actual 34mph. It is of course possible that I may have not realised my speed touch 42mph in aniticipation to the 60mph limit change. What can be done here and are there any grounds to there being no speed camera signs visible for this mobile site? I did read that all sites need to be adequately signed to warn motorists of speed cameras. Your help and advice is appreciated thank you.

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)? - No
Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes
Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you 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: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:47:53 +0000

[Advertisement]

[MCCRoadster]

But that is just for the example provided and may not be applicable to the point in question....

Yes, you could say that!

No sh!t.

This was in response to CP8759's example. Perhaps ask him why he used it?

This post has been edited by MCCRoadster: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 - 17:55

[southpaw82]

But that is just for the example provided and may not be applicable to the point in question....

Yes, you could say that!

No sh!t.

This was in response to CP8759's example. Perhaps ask him why he used it?

Your answer did nothing to explain why evidence found following a mistaken search would be inadmissible, so you didn’t even answer that question.

[Jlc]

...then immediately before a national speed limit with NO signs.

No limit signs? (Or are you still talking camera warning signs?)

Had a quick look on GSV and the terminal signs (here) seem fine. There appears to be a system of street lighting but it's hard to tell if they are sufficiently spaced to create a restricted road. (It's possibly an avenue to explore, but a lot depends on your route and where your journey started)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 - 17:58

[cp8759]

Look you've been told time and time again that speed camera warning signs make no difference and their presence or absence has no bearing on whether a court would convict you. At this point either you believe us or you don't but we have no reason to mislead you. I suggest you just forget about that angle and go and tell the people who advised you otherwise that they're all wrong.

However I agree with JLC that the spacing of the street lights is unusually large. As you're obviously highly motivated to fight this (which is not in itself a bad thing), you might as well pursue an avenue that might have legs, rather than going on and on about this lack of speed camera warning signs issue which you've been told is hopeless.

So, you need to do two things:

1) Measure the exact distance between the street lighting columns. You're going to need to invest in one of these https://www.trumeter.com/control-measuremen...-wheels/5000-2/ (a quick google search suggests you can pick these up quite cheaply from ebay or amazon).

2) Check if there is a Traffic Regulation Order for this road, the local council's highways department should be able to confirm this.

If (and it's a series of big ifs) there is no TRO, and the street lights are more than 200 yards apart from each other, and the section of road identified by JLC is where the offence is alleged to have taken place (I have not checked this), you have a good defence that the speed limit on that section of road is 60 notwithstanding the presence of the 30 mph terminal signs.

[MCCRoadster]

Understood, re safety camera signs.

I’ll recheck the location but to be honest I’m pretty certain there is a 30mph terminal sign as you enter the zone. Sorry if any confusion here but if others have checked on google maps or the like and think differently then it’s worth a look.

[Jlc]

Yes, it's a short stretch of 30mph with double terminal signs at both ends. It seems to reasonably convey the limit.

To maintain that limit a system of streetlighting has to be in place or repeaters. It's an extremely long shot that the lights aren't correctly spaced - but even it they weren't I still think it's an uphill struggle.

[cp8759]

Yes, it's a short stretch of 30mph with double terminal signs at both ends. It seems to reasonably convey the limit.

To maintain that limit a system of streetlighting has to be in place or repeaters. It's an extremely long shot that the lights aren't correctly spaced - but even it they weren't I still think it's an uphill struggle.

It's not an issue of the adequacy of the restriction, I agree the limit is adequately signed. However if there is no TRO, and the lights are not spaced correctly, then legally there is no 30 mph limit at all. This is because a road which is 30 by virtue of street lights is a restricted road by virtue of section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/82

If the lights are more than 200 yards apart, the condition in section 82(1)(a) is not met so the 30 mph limit simply does not apply.

Of course it is always possible the council might have rectified this by making up for it with a Traffic Regulation Order, so you would need to check for this as well.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 13:03

[The Rookie]

This case is informative (as well as downright amusing)
Fenton Martin V Harrow Crown Court

For info, the latterly infamous Constance Briscoe was a Recorder at Harrow crown court at that time, whether is its the same 'Recorder Briscoe' or not I can't say, but the competency and arrogance levels seem about right.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 10:24

[MCCRoadster]

So, you need to do two things:

1) Measure the exact distance between the street lighting columns. You're going to need to invest in one of these https://www.trumeter.com/control-measuremen...-wheels/5000-2/ (a quick google search suggests you can pick these up quite cheaply from ebay or amazon).

2) Check if there is a Traffic Regulation Order for this road, the local council's highways department should be able to confirm this.

If (and it's a series of big ifs) there is no TRO, and the street lights are more than 200 yards apart from each other, and the section of road identified by JLC is where the offence is alleged to have taken place (I have not checked this), you have a good defence that the speed limit on that section of road is 60 notwithstanding the presence of the 30 mph terminal signs.

I've checked on the Leicestershire County Council highways department under the relevant district for TRO and there appear to be none for this road. To ensure I haven't missed it then I should call the council to verify.

Looked at the street lighting although admittedly have not yet measured the exact distances. Confirmed, that is the road in question and the route traveled was in the direction indicated from the link provided. There are three street lamps within the zone and a fourth which is quite clearly just after the national speed limit signs (literally by less than half a meter, but definitely after the sign).

As you enter past the 30mph terminal signs there are a couple of houses further up the road on the left. The street lamps (three of them) are around this area and they do seem randomly spaced.

What is interesting is that after these couple of houses there is a space of fields and then a few more house, also on the left, and then the camera van and then the national speed limit. Note: there are no street lamps from the first set of houses all the way to the national speed limit which in itself may contravene the street lighting regulation being that there should be lamps spaced 200 yards apart 'within the zone'?

Just thought i'd mention this before progressing onto measuring the exact distances between the existing 'three' lamp posts.

What do you think?

[Logician]

There are three street lamps within the zone and a fourth which is quite clearly just after the national speed limit signs (literally by less than half a meter, but definitely after the sign).

It does not matter that the fourth lamp is outside the designated 30mph zone, if there is no TRO it is the lamps that create the zone, not the terminal signs, provided they are not more than 200 yards apart, so that lamp should be included for consideration.

Using the GSV measuring tool, the distance from this fourth lamp to the nearest of the three outside the houses is just within the 200yards, and the three are within that, so I think there is an appropriate system of street lighting in place, and it is a restricted road.



This post has been edited by Logician: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 11:06

[The Rookie]

0.1 mile on your trip is 176yards, so fairly easy to check spacing (if time consuming).

Or understand where they are on google satellite and measure the distances that way.

[cp8759]

There are three street lamps within the zone and a fourth which is quite clearly just after the national speed limit signs (literally by less than half a meter, but definitely after the sign).

It does not matter that the fourth lamp is outside the designated 30mph zone, if there is no TRO it is the lamps that create the zone, not the terminal signs, provided they are not more than 200 yards apart, so that lamp should be included for consideration.

Using the GSV measuring tool, the distance from this fourth lamp to the nearest of the three outside the houses is just within the 200yards, and the three are within that, so I think there is an appropriate system of street lighting in place, and it is a restricted road.

There another one between the two here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.7141808,-...3312!8i6656

In light of this (no pun intended) I think there's no basis to fight the allegation, but at least we've looked at every reasonable angle.

Interestingly I think the zone is still defective, because in the absence of a TRO there's no 30 mph limit between the terminal sings at the other end of the zone (on the boundary with the 40 mph limit) and the first street light, so if you'd been caught between the terminal signs and the first street light, you'd arguably have a viable defence that only the temporary national speed limit applies. But if the detection took place after you'd passed the first street light that won't help I'm afraid.

[MCCRoadster]

That one is one of the three which I counted (I just checked again) and the fourth is next to the national speed limit sign.

Is measurement done by direct line of sight between the posts (via a device) or by the distance traveled by walking or driving the road? There will be a difference (if only minor) and worth noting.



This post has been edited by MCCRoadster: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 12:34

[Logician]

Interestingly I think the zone is still defective, because in the absence of a TRO there's no 30 mph limit between the terminal sings at the other end of the zone (on the boundary with the 40 mph limit) and the first street light, so if you'd been caught between the terminal signs and the first street light, you'd arguably have a viable defence that only the temporary national speed limit applies.

There is a lamp on the A444 opposite Acresford Road, which is about 200 yards from the first lamp in Measham Road, if the lamps are less than 200 yards apart, would that establish a 30 mph limit, except where overridden for the first part of that distance by the 40 mph limit on the A444 established by a TRO?

[cp8759]

Interestingly I think the zone is still defective, because in the absence of a TRO there's no 30 mph limit between the terminal sings at the other end of the zone (on the boundary with the 40 mph limit) and the first street light, so if you'd been caught between the terminal signs and the first street light, you'd arguably have a viable defence that only the temporary national speed limit applies.

There is a lamp on the A444 opposite Acresford Road, which is about 200 yards from the first lamp in Measham Road, if the lamps are less than 200 yards apart, would that establish a 30 mph limit, except where overridden for the first part of that distance by the 40 mph limit on the A444 established by a TRO?

I would have thought that if a lamp falls within a 40 mph zone by virtue of a TRO, then it cannot count for the purposes of determining whether a nearby stretch of road is a restricted road, though I highly doubt this has ever been tested in court. After all the TRO will provided that the area of road where the light is located is not a restricted road.

You can also see how it clear lead to absurd situations if lights the TRO controlled area counted for the purposes of section 82: Based on this view, if the terminal sign shown here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.7136197,-...3312!8i6656 were let's say 40 or 50, there would be a small 30 mph in the gap between the terminal sign and the streetlight. That cannot reasonably be what Parliament intended.

[The Rookie]

I’d disagree on the basis that it would have been a restricted road and then the TRO changes a stretch of it, the rest would remain restricted.

[Logician]

At the time Parliament introduced the lamppost rule to decide what was a built-up area, there was either a 30mph limit or none, later other limits were introduced which could be established by means of a TRO, and later still other limits which applied in areas other than existing limits depending on the type of road, so I do not think the intention of Parliament is very clear. I am quite undecided between the view that a lamp in an area covered by a TRO should be disregarded, and that it does count towards establishing a restricted road, part of which is overridden by the TRO for the 40 limit.

[NewJudge]

I am quite undecided between the view that a lamp in an area covered by a TRO should be disregarded, and that it does count towards establishing a restricted road, part of which is overridden by the TRO for the 40 limit.

I think just as important (as far as this thread goes) is what a Bench of lay Magistrates might decide. This thread has progressed through a number of "technicalities" which have all been rebuffed in one way or another. Now we have come to rest on what seems to be a highly technical defence based on the location and spacing of street lights. So intricate is it that at some point a distance of half a metre is mentioned which might determine the legality or otherwise of the limit.

I think a Magistrates Court may well concentrate on whether or not they believe the signs effectively convey the limit rather than the intricacies involved with the legalities of the limit itself. I think, in particular, an unrepresented defendant may struggle to steer a court in the direction he believes their considerations should take.

[cp8759]

NewJudge I don't think there's any technical defence left. The OP was caught well within the lit area, so no technical issues around the boundary of the 30 zone will be relevant, simply because the detection was bang in the middle of it.

[NewJudge]

Thanks cp. I was somewhat losing the will to live.