Safe Speed Forums

I have received a NIP saying I was photographed doing 57 in a Temporary (Road Works) 50 limit. I may have been doing that speed - I don't know. I saw the camera van in a lay-by but was watching the traffic and not my speedo. Very annoying to be caught right on the ACPO limit!

I think I may have a technicality defence due to a possible defect in the NIP. I live in a village alongside the dual carriageway with the roadworks. In the vicinity of the village there is a permanent 50 limit. While there are roadworks they have used temporary signs to extend both ends of the limit (start it earlier and end it later). I joined from my village into the road and was snapped just 200metres later. I therefore joined and was photographed in the middle of the permanent 50 limit unaffected by the temporary restrictions at each end.
The NIP says "Exceed Temp Speed Restriction - 50mph Road Works (Spec Art & Order S16 RTRA 84".

Does enyone think I could rely on this defect in the NIP?

Thanks

Are you saying that when you left the normal permanent 50 limit, there were no reminders that you were entering a temporary limit?

I would go to court - if I have interpreted it correctly!
Contact your local paper, and make sure that all other drivers know too!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

When I joined the dual carriageway it was within the original permanent 50 limit and when I was photographed 200metres later it was still within the permanent 50 limit. I later reached the point where the limit became the "temporary" limit.

So my concern is that the NIP is possibly/probably incorrect in describing the offence as being breach of a temporary limit.

From where I joined the dual carriageway I could in fact have left it 300metres past the camera van via a side lane, and have never entered an area of temporary limit.

Thanks for your reply.

BoboTheViking

you would need to read the tempoary speed limit order.

I expect it reads from point a to point b
if you were between point a-b then you are potentially guily (if it was properly signed)
We had a tempoary roadworks (southampton A35) where they prosicuted under section 85 ofthe rta act rather than section 16. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?sho ... =redbridge
they defendants lost at magistraites then won at crown only to have it over turned at high court http://img337.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1cropys7.jpg
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1586/p2cropqx7.jpg

You are going for the reverse of this case. I think your chances are very slim!!!


Are you saying that you went from a 50 limit and would usually have passed a nsl sign that was covered up and a repeater had been added with or without a tempoary speed limit sign

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code