Safe Speed Forums

Visibility of Mobile enforcement sites
Camera operatives at the mobile camera sites should wear fluorescent clothing and abide by all Health and Safety requirements;

Vehicles should be clearly marked as camera enforcement vehicles with reflective strips (uniquely identifying them as speed camera enforcement vehicles).

Covert operations can in exceptional circumstances be allowed but must be recorded by the partnership

Signing
Camera warning and speed limit reminder signs must be placed in advance of fixed or mobile speed enforcement taking place. Ideally these should be placed within 1 km of fixed camera housings and at the beginning of a targeted route for mobile enforcement sites

Signs must only be placed in areas where camera housings are present or along routes where mobile enforcement will be targeted;

Any signs on routes that are not enforced (less than one visit every two months) should either be removed or retained and the frequency of visits increased.

Communications
The location of both fixed and mobile cameras should be well publicised via local web-sites, public sector announcements on radio stations and in local newspapers.

Sign design
Signs must comply with those specified in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions or specially authorised by DTLR.

Site review
Each site must be reviewed on a six-monthly basis to ensure that conditions on conspicuity, visibility and signing have not changed or do not require alteration
Timing
All new cameras should meet the new visibility criteria

All existing cameras must comply with the new visibility criteria within 6 months of the ministerial announcement

:lol:
Remember , to send you a summons they have to include a statement stating all the signing was in perfect order. They know that is not true!

As I understand it, this verdict does not constitute precedent, and so by appealing they only risk it becoming precedent, if the verdict is upheld in a higher court.

Further to my recent correspondence dated 6 November 2007 and your considered response that I received today. I would like to point out a couple of discrepancies with the Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by Hampshire Safety Camera Unit. I would also like you to find enclosed the S172 Driver/Keeper Statement, and please accept my apologies that I forgot to tick the box.

I must draw to your attention that at the time you allege I was not on the road that you alleged i.e. A27, Eastern Way, Fareham, Hampshire. I was actually on the M27 Spur. The A27 starts approximately 205 meters down from where I was observed and filmed. This information has been obtained by studying the still photographic evidence that was sent to me to aid driver identification. It does now appear too late to re-issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution with the correct road name.

The terminal signs are not in the correct place on this road which is fatal to a prosecution. This has been proven at Portsmouth Magistrates Court on Thursday 11 October 2007 in the case of R v Thomas.

The initial speed limit order was on the old A27 on its old route from Cams Hill through the Delme roundabout to Titchfield. It did not cover the flyover over the Delme roundabout.

Hampshire A27 Spur , Fareham road traffic regulation order

Length of road in the borough of Fareham
40mph speed limit
The A27 spur {Delme arms roundabout} between its junction with the A27 eastern Way and a point 328m North east of that junction



I have taken legal advice and with respect ask the Partnership to take advice before proceeding with taxpayer’s money on a case that a similar one has already been decided by a District Judge

I look forward to receiving your response.

...letter has no salutation...

I think the line above the first sentence shows a wise masking of personal detail

However the letter relies on the decision of a DJ not setting precedent - although I would have thought that, until tested in a higher court, it should be at least a strong guideline to magistrates. Fisherman care to comment?

Further, these arrogant ***** go on to suggest that the pratnership are only obliged under legislation to give adequate guidance of the speed limit. What utter b*******.

Personally I suggest that ohgreat ignores any CoFP. In the unlikely event of prosecution and subsequent conviction, I would willingly contribute to a fund towards appeal costs.

...I dont think I can afford to take this as far as court...