Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 05:57

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Essex and Autoexpress
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 21:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
The following appeared in Autoexpress' 'speed trap guide' published 9th Feb 2005:

Image

The following letter from Brian Ladd of Essex SCP appeared on page 48 of the 9th March 2005 issue:

Image

I replied and offered a challenge letter which was printed on page 50 of the 23rd March 2005 issue:

Image

No response yet, but I'll be sure to post any developments to this thread.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 22:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 18:19
Posts: 90
Location: East Yorks
Couple of points:
If it is not properly signed in accordance with the law, you can still be prosecuted if there are street lamps at less than 200 yards. I believe this applies even if a higher speed limit applies. This will apply to many roads with a maximum speed limit (not NSL).

Secondly - the fine doesn't go to the speed camera partnership if you go to court. If that's true - great, you've just made my day!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 17:53 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
Technically:

A system* of street lights** which casts light on to the carriage way not more than 183m apart

* 3 or more
** which could include a flood light fitted to a building on private land


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 04:45 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 01:42
Posts: 686
Ladd is splitting hairs on the "Technical" thing. Paul did not imply minor excesses of the speed limit are not against the law, just that it is a "technical", i.e. victimless offence. At least, that's the way I read it.

It's a tricky one. Drink driving too is a victimless offence if said driver gets to his destination without incident. Yet, no-one would describe driving home after drinking 5 pints of Stella Artois as a "tecnical" offence.

Why? Because medical studies have proved the effect that alcohol has on reaction times and one's ability to drive safely.

They have shown us NOTHING to prove than an otherwise law-abiding driver that drifts up to 38mph occasionally, when conditions permit, poses any sort of danger to the public at all.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 02:28 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 18:42
Posts: 1283
Location: Essex
If Mr Ladd does ever deign to respond I would be interested to know why when the dangerous siting of a camera van is pointed he deems it academic ???

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.638s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]