Speed cam battler to fight on despite losing
A speed camera campaigner has refused to admit defeat after a long-running court wrangle failed.
Motorist Lynn Robson launched a bid to overturn a speeding fine in December 2006.
The now 61-year-old claimed mobile mounted speed cameras were illegal, after he was caught doing
34mph in 30mph zone.Mr Robson, of Sunny Blunts, Peterlee, took his battle to Sunderland Magistrates' Court, where the case was brought before the bench 10 times.
But last month, magistrates found him guilty of exceeding a 30mph speed limit at North Road, Hetton.
And now Mr Robson – who represented himself in court yesterday – has been left with a £2,427 bill for court costs.
He was also slapped with a £100 fine and three penalty points.
Now he is considering launching an appeal against the court's decision, claiming
expert witnesses :rolleyes: were biased against his cause.
He said: "It certainly was not the result I was hoping for. I want to appeal, but I'm not sure how I will do it."
He says
he is not against speed cameras. 
He said:
"They are a very useful means of reducing speeding. But they catch doctors and lawyers – the people who go on speed awareness courses tend to be in this category – not the boy racers, as they are on back lanes where there are no cameras.
"Motorists are easy picking, no doubt about it. It falls to us to prove our innocence. The idea of innocent until proven guilty is out of the window."
The original speeding ticket for the offence on February 20, 2006 imposed a fine of £60 and three penalty points.
Mr Robson was snapped in his Citroen C5 estate on North Road in Hetton.
He was adamant he had not been speeding and set out to prove mobile cameras were illegal.
Mr Robson said evidence from the Home Office showed the Gatso 24 radar speed camera which caught him should not have been filming from inside a van.
Guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) also state that type of camera should not be mounted inside a vehicle.
But experts said the Acpo guidelines refer to Gatso radars used from a moving vehicle.Road safety groups have welcomed news of the court's decision.
Ray King from Safe Speed for Life, said: "We are pleased with the verdict as we think he has wasted a lot of people's time, but the court has reached a verdict on the fact that we use our equipment properly.
"All our operations are weighted on the side of the motorist.
"If someone is caught speeding then all the evidence is available online. We have speed awareness courses for motorists that are just over the speed limit and all our equipment is monitored by the Home Office."
they all calimed to abide by the "guidelines of 10%+2" which means at 34 mph . he is not at prosecution level levied by
. This variation alone is unjust with some being offered speed aware courses at hugely different margins - which makes a post code lottery and mockery of road safety policy in any case.
Consistency in justice.. consistency in accident stats.. proper record keeping to establish whether or not the cams worked (and Profs Pilkington and Mountain both agreed and complained about this failure skewing and compromising any research in the appendices to their papers.
I wish him luck. I wonder if it would be worth Claire's and Ern's time in contacting this bloke?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
they all calimed to abide by the "guidelines of 10%+2" which means at 34 mph . he is not at prosecution level levied by 
)
