Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Mobile "safety" Camera NIP
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
brenj86
Hi everyone thanks for taking the time to read this. So lets start at the beginning shall we biggrin.gif 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.
Jlc
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?

QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 16:47) *
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?
ford poplar
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.
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 17:10) *
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
peterguk
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 17:10) *
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... wacko.gif
Jlc
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.
captain swoop
If you hadn't passed a sign showing 40, then why assume the limit had changed?
brenj86
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:
  • 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, 18 May 2016 18:44:47 +0000

QUOTE (captain swoop @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:41) *
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 dry.gif

I will try to answer your questions as best I can without ranting biggrin.gif

@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 wink.gif 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 cool.gif

@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 tongue.gif

@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 smile.gif
NewJudge
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.
The Rookie
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.
Jlc
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:51) *
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).

QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:51) *
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.

QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:51) *
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.
brenj86
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:56) *
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 biggrin.gif

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.
brenj86
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:04) *
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.
Jlc
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?
peterguk
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:40) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:04) *
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.
brenj86
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:24) *
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:51) *
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).

QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:51) *
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.

QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 19:51) *
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 laugh.gif
peterguk
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.
brenj86
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:45) *
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:40) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:04) *
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.

QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:06) *
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.
Jlc
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.
peterguk
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:14) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:45) *
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:40) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:04) *
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.

QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:06) *
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.
Jlc
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:17) *
What part is ridiculous?

Well the part that they can park where they like... tongue.gif But the key part is that even if they were committing a separate offence (as they are not necessarily immune) it doesn't provide a defence here.
peterguk
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:26) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:17) *
What part is ridiculous?

Well the part that they can park where they like... tongue.gif But the key part is that even if they were committing a separate offence (as they are not necessarily immune) it doesn't provide a defence here.


Agreed, but didn't seem any point further complicating an apparently obvious situation. biggrin.gif
brenj86
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:17) *
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:14) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:45) *
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:40) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:04) *
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.

QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:06) *
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.


You made a statement, I requested some sort of proof, you are yet to provide any so its still a ridiculous statement.

What the Lamposted Limit? laugh.gif or the sign posted one? I will be reviewing the relevant documentation myself tomorrow to clarify that whole situation.

Fortunately you are not in a position to state whether i have a defence this is the role of the magistrate.


andy_foster
Many believe that 'safety' cameras have very little to do with safety, and everything to do with 'jobs for the boys'. However, this has essentially no bearing on the admissibility or the credibility of the evidence against you.

I can an argument that if you had been able to see the 40mph terminal sign, you would have realised that you must still be in the 30 mph limit. However, I am struggling to see how that could conceivably be woven into an arguable defence. Ironically, some people on seeing a single 40 mph sign (if it had been visible) might have thought that it was a repeater sign and therefore quite reasonably believed that they were already in a 40 mph limit.

If you're determined to fight this, I would be minded to look into the TRO. If the dual carriageway section is generally a 40 mph limit, it would make sense for that limit to start at the start of the dual carriageway - so it is possible that the sign might not actually be at the start of the limit. Or it could be correct.



peterguk
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:28) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:17) *
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:14) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:45) *
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:40) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 20:04) *
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.

QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:06) *
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.


You made a statement, I requested some sort of proof, you are yet to provide any so its still a ridiculous statement.

What the Lamposted Limit? laugh.gif or the sign posted one? I will be reviewing the relevant documentation myself tomorrow to clarify that whole situation.

Fortunately you are not in a position to state whether i have a defence this is the role of the magistrate.





Now that is a true statement.

I'll bring the popcorn.
brenj86
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:26) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:17) *
What part is ridiculous?

Well the part that they can park where they like... tongue.gif But the key part is that even if they were committing a separate offence (as they are not necessarily immune) it doesn't provide a defence here.


I do appreciate your comments and this is actually helping laugh.gif but could you provide reference to your responses, I cant take advice based on what
i can only construe as opinion due to the lack of any reference to any source material.

The one thing that is apparent is that I should spend abit seeking professional legal advice before I get my bottom handed to me.
southpaw82
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:04) *
The fight is regarding the conduct of the operative.


In court for your own offence is not the best ground to do so. You can make a complaint to the force concerned and you may get an apology but I'd not hold my breath for more.

QUOTE
I can see quotes relating to the highway code which i accept but the law is what im concerned with


The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 85(4)

QUOTE
Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road, but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above.


That is the law that means you can't be convicted of speeding if the signs are deficient. You will see it does not apply to a "restricted road", that is, a road on which there is a system of street lighting less than 200 yards apart, which indicates a 30 mph limit is in force. /if, as seems likely, you were on such a road then section 85(4) does not apply and you are liable for conviction regardless of any defects in the signs.

This isn't to say that a court might not find there were special reasons not to endorse your licence but I can't honestly see such an argument succeeding for you.

This also ignores the fact that where you were caught appears to be in a 30 mph limit on a restricted road and as such the signs were not deficient in the first place. The allegedly deficient 40 mph signs are irrelevant.

QUOTE
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.


You're not being sued and the maxim does not apply in a criminal context.



QUOTE
Could someone advise if they know where i can find any information regarding obstructing signage and if it is an actual offence?


Not in the context you've described and in any case it would not form a defence for you, for the reasons given above.

QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:14) *
I can see you have experience with NIP's and your understanding of law in a wider sense may be limited.


Considering I hold a general legal qualification ("a law degree") and considering I get paid handsomely by my employer to "do law" for them, I hope you won't raise the same allegation against me.

In my opinion (albeit a qualified one) you have very little chance of a defence on the merits or the law. Absent a procedural cock up or other fluke you face conviction, being in mind Andy's point about checking the TRO.
Jlc
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:30) *
Ironically, some people on seeing a single 40 mph sign (if it had been visible) might have thought that it was a repeater sign and therefore quite reasonably believed that they were already in a 40 mph limit.

That's an interesting angle indeed. The pair of signs were previously there - here.

But the sign is larger than a repeater - although who would normally know a terminal sign is bigger? But the route preceding to the point of capture is likely to have shown no contradictions to the restricted limit?
brenj86
Just for the sake of asking and no peter i don't expect any reference to source for this one laugh.gif do you think from your experiences with NIP's
that the ticket office would respond if I sent them an email having a rant...I mean explaining my situation?
Jlc
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:40) *
Just for the sake of asking and no peter i don't expect any reference to source for this one laugh.gif do you think from your experiences with NIP's
that the ticket office would respond if I sent them an email having a rant...I mean explaining my situation?

Click on Peter's link in his signature. You'll find out he does has some 'experience' of NIP's.........

You can make a reasoned argument to the police - but unless there's something blindingly obvious they'll probably say only a court could decide. (If you say the wrong things then the matter may progress to court without any fixed penalty/course offer)
brenj86
Thank you for you input southpaw, these are the kind of answers backed up by the relevant sources that I would expect of someone who has a
rounded understanding. No peter this isn't a dig at you tongue.gif

I will consider my options, tho since reading your post I feel there may be few left.


peterguk
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:40) *
Just for the sake of asking and no peter i don't expect any reference to source for this one laugh.gif do you think from your experiences with NIP's that the ticket office would respond if I sent them an email having a rant...I mean explaining my situation?


The undisputed facts: 30mph limit. Your speed 42mph.

Your issues: A 40mph sign in the distance that was hidden. A camera van sited where you didn't think he should be.

IMHO, i wouldn't bother wasting the postage stamp.
brenj86
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:38) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:30) *
Ironically, some people on seeing a single 40 mph sign (if it had been visible) might have thought that it was a repeater sign and therefore quite reasonably believed that they were already in a 40 mph limit.

That's an interesting angle indeed. The pair of signs were previously there - here.

But the sign is larger than a repeater - although who would normally know a terminal sign is bigger? But the route preceding to the point of capture is likely to have shown no contradictions to the restricted limit?


nice work mate, i don't think it would be reasonable to expect someone to interpret the meaning of a sign based merely upon its size.
Not while your driving

I know I did notice that hence the veiled dig at his lack of knowledge regarding the law in general. Its just i don't want to know anything,
I need to understand everything happy.gif

Could anyone point me in the right direction concerning the TRO, im searching on http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/...p;search=Search
don't think that's correct tho.
Richy320
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:28) *
Fortunately you are not in a position to state whether i have a defence this is the role of the magistrate.

The thing is, if the (very experienced) guys on here reckon you're guilty it won't cost you a penny. If the magistrates find you guilty it will cost you a fortune. Me, I'd take their advice, do the speed awareness course.
Jlc
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 22:01) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:38) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:30) *
Ironically, some people on seeing a single 40 mph sign (if it had been visible) might have thought that it was a repeater sign and therefore quite reasonably believed that they were already in a 40 mph limit.

That's an interesting angle indeed. The pair of signs were previously there - here.

But the sign is larger than a repeater - although who would normally know a terminal sign is bigger? But the route preceding to the point of capture is likely to have shown no contradictions to the restricted limit?


nice work mate, i don't think it would be reasonable to expect someone to interpret the meaning of a sign based merely upon its size.
Not while your driving

Don't just concentrate of the positives - there are flaws in the argument that it appeared to be a 40. (Not least your speed of 42). Also, the fact you were in the restricted limit and there was probably nothing in your journey prior to contradict that.
brenj86
QUOTE (Richy320 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 22:05) *
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:28) *
Fortunately you are not in a position to state whether i have a defence this is the role of the magistrate.

The thing is, if the (very experienced) guys on here reckon you're guilty it won't cost you a penny. If the magistrates find you guilty it will cost you a fortune. Me, I'd take their advice, do the speed awareness course.

I very much agree but I must base my view of their experience based on the answers provided. For instance Southpaw's response seemed
that of a knowledgeable person sharing his understanding clearly. I felt some comments were not put forward in such a manner and in no way
were meant to help me understand anything, more to put me in some kind of proverbial place and set me straight.

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 22:13) *
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 22:01) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:38) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:30) *
Ironically, some people on seeing a single 40 mph sign (if it had been visible) might have thought that it was a repeater sign and therefore quite reasonably believed that they were already in a 40 mph limit.

That's an interesting angle indeed. The pair of signs were previously there - here.

But the sign is larger than a repeater - although who would normally know a terminal sign is bigger? But the route preceding to the point of capture is likely to have shown no contradictions to the restricted limit?


nice work mate, i don't think it would be reasonable to expect someone to interpret the meaning of a sign based merely upon its size.
Not while your driving

Don't just concentrate of the positives - there are flaws in the argument that it appeared to be a 40. (Not least your speed of 42). Also, the fact you were in the restricted limit and there was probably nothing in your journey prior to contradict that.


Yeh I know that wouldn't be a good idea, I was just happy to see that someone could make some kind of acceptable argument even if it wasn't one I had thought of.
NewJudge
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:04) *
Also I do not require opinions I require facts and information of which any forthcoming will be very appreciated.


Fact: You were driving at 42mph in a 30mph zone - a fact which you do not dispute.

Fact: The other matters you mention provide no form of defence to that.

If you take this matter to court on the basis you suggest you will be convicted of speeding. You suggest that it is the job of Magistrates to determine if you have a defence. Quite true. But unless you put your defence to them you will face a conviction. The prosecution will have sufficient evidence to prove their case.

You have been given ample advice by a number of people here who all say roughly the same. Some of the finer legal principles you mention relate to civil law and have no bearing on criminal matters. I appreciate you are annoyed at being caught but to suggest that you did not see a sign indicating a higher speed limit and this somehow provides a defence to breaking the lower speed limit will not succeed. You will certainly not succeed by arguing that you thought the single terminal "40" sign you saw was a repeater and so you were aleady in a 40 limit.

By all means give it a run if you think you have a case. I'm not a gambling man but I'd wager you'd lose.
andy_foster
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 21:58) *
The undisputed facts: 30mph limit.


Whilst it probably was a 30mph limit, how are you able to state as fact that it was?

N.B. I was involved in a case in Manchester several years ago where the road in question was a Trunk Road, but the purported speed limit was set by the local council (if it was a Trunk Road at that time that would have been ultra vires as only the SoS (Highways Agency as was) could change speed limits on Trunk Roads. The District Judge took 'judicial notice' of the speed limit from knowing what it was from having driven on that road for numerous years. Unfortunately the defendant, on the advice of a rather colourful barrister, decided to appeal to the Crown Court on a different issue.
peterguk
QUOTE (brenj86 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 22:01) *
Could anyone point me in the right direction concerning the TRO, im searching on http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/...p;search=Search
don't think that's correct tho.


That portal is for proposed orders.

Try phoning the council.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.