Safe Speed Forums

No chance of a refund...
REGARDING Speed cameras. Are we due a refund — headline Echo January 7 2009.
To answer the above question - no! Fair play to Tony Seatpn and good luck to him, but I will advise him right here and now that the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Revenue Raising Camera Partnership (and let's not kid ourselves here, a road safety partnership that oversees a 30 per cent rise in road deaths in the past year has clearly failed in its remit and so the argument they peddle about making 'Hampshire Communities Safer' self destructs!) are beyond reasonable discussion.
Her Majesty's Government's concept that working class motorists represent a greater threat to society than Al Qaida and must be supertaxed at all costs, will be defended, regardless of the legal and more pertinently, moral principles, whatever the cost, as I have just found out from the European Court of Human Rights. Tony, I wish you well in your quest against the hydra that is surveillance society Britain, and where you may presume safely that you are now guilty until you prove your innocence, but please try and understand that you cannot reason with these people.
They are not interested in rights and wrongs, either ethically or legally. The government has set them directives and financial targets, and regardless of how moronic those directives are, (and I agree, marginalising communities for reasons of sheer greed, when the threat posed by Al Qaida is 'severe' (from the MI5 official website 09/01/2009) and when the economy is about to go into complete meltdown, probably turns the concept of moronic into an exact science) they will be pursued vigorously and relentlessly, regardless of the damage that will be done to normally law abiding citizens.
There will be no discussion or debate - we will follow Government orders regardless. Just like Mr Goering at Nuremberg. It is yet another example of let us look at things on complete -short termism basis - why? Because we can make an instantaneous profit. Let us not even be concerned about the long term irreversible damage that is done!
Mediocrity and an incapability of independent thought has triumphed yet again!
DN GRANT, Winchester.

SOUTHAMPTON: Authority won't reveal action plan
Council silent on speed fines row
COUNCIL chiefs have refused to reveal what they are going to do over accusations speed limits on one of Hampshire's busiest roads are not legally enforceable.
As revealed in yesterday's Daily Echo, a complaint has been lodged with the body that looks after the county's speed cameras cataloguing 21 "serious defects" with speed limits on the A33 and A3024 in Southampton.
But Southampton City Council says it needs more time to consider whether it needs to take any action.
When asked by the Daily Echo for details of what defects it is aware of, and what action it would be taking and when, the city council refused to say.
Instead, it issued a statement from Cllr Matt Dean, Cabinet member for environment and transport. He said: "We will continue to consider the recommendations by the Safer Roads Partnership before deciding if further action needs to be taken on the segment of this route which the council is responsible for maintaining.
"Southampton City Council always looks at how it can improve the city's roads and we make road safety one of our main priori- _____ ties."
The man behind the complaint says the faults mean every driver caught speeding on the road between Ashurst and Southampton city centre should have their fines refunded.
Tony Seaton is demanding the speed cameras are suspended until the problems - which include missing, obstructed, faded and blanked out signs - are sorted out.Hampshire's Safer Roads Partnership has admitted there are "some signage issues" on the road, which is used by thousands of motorists every day. The partnership said it is working with the two councils to rectify the problems, insists no motorists
have been fined where the signs are unlawful. Hampshire County Council has pledged to replace missing signs on its patch by the end of the week.

Seeing red over story I TOOK great interest in your article about speeding fines which may be overturned because of faults alleged to be found in the speed limit signs displayed on the roads in question.
Mr Seaton seems to have set himself up as a champion for dangerous drivers who knowingly have broken the speed limit. These drivers surely already know the speed limits on the roads they use every day.
The photograph in the Daily Echo shows a smug looking man standing beside a speed camera. Like it or not, these cameras have saved countless lives throughout the country and many lives have been lost to selfish drivers who have ignored them. Mr Seaton seems to have spent a lot of time looking for ways to get out of paying a speeding fine but surely his time can be better used in paying attention to his speedometer.
I drive every day and I try to pay attention to the speed limit of the road I am driving on, but if ever I am caught speeding I will hold my hands up to it and accept the conse-

quence of my actions, not try to wriggle out of paying a fine. I would much rather do that than face the parents of a child I have killed or injured because I was more interested in getting home a minute earlier instead of driving at a safe speed. The very drivers you are working to help are the drivers who are most likely to cause an accident or destroy someone's life. They have knowingly broken the law. I wonder how many families have had their lives wrecked by the consequence of a road traffic accident caused by speeding drivers. I hope these convicted

drivers have their fines upheld by the authorities and take more care in future. It might stop them repeating their actions and in doing so maybe prevent another tragedy.
So Mr Seaton, if you see a fault in road signs why not make the authorities aware of them so that they can be correrected instead of trying to assist the type of driver who is responsible for much of the carnage on our roads. Let's face it, they are all guilty of speeding otherwise they would not have been fined in the first place.
DISGUSTED, Totton

Some further missing repeater signs have also been identified and these will be replaced.

Yes 1.2 miles! Apparently acording to Mel K tsrgd2002 has been out dated by new legislation.

14.1 Traffic authorities have a duty under section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to erect and maintain prescribed speed limit signs on their roads in accordance with the Secretary of State’s directions;
i.e. the signs must be prescribed by and provided in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 unless they have been specially authorised.

Signs that do not strictly follow the Regulations and the Directions (see para 1.4 in respect of Northern Ireland), or have not been specially authorised are not lawfully placed and the speed limit might be unenforceable.

To avoid the risk of failed prosecutions, it is of the greatest importance that speed limits be signed lawfully. It is equally important that speed limits be signed clearly and in accordance with this guidance, so that at no time will drivers be in any doubt about the prevailing limit.

sunday 1st feb? and 1 defect cleared- just. Two pairs of combined camera and 300mm speed signs errected 200m prior to the Totton speed camera.
all other signs still exactly as they were. (AFAIK) I will do a full check as long as its not slippy. There are still no legal 450mm repeaters and it is 670m from M271 to Speed camera. There should be a repeater within 350m @ 50mph. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsm ... apter3.pdf page 118.
because Julian hewitt refuses to bag the cameras or tell us when they are suspended or suspension lifted I have no idea if he is now wrongfully enforcing

GreenShed, how would you feel if you joined a road from a side turning with no speed limit signs and proceeded along it at 50mph only to receive a NIP in the post two weeks later because the road actually had a 40mph limit? If the authorities want to rigidly enforce limits with no discretion then they must ensure that the signs are correct and visible.

You probably know what the limits are on your local roads but what happens when you are away from home? You have to rely on signs then, but if they are not visible you stand a good chance of committing an offence without even realising.

Whils in principle it would be reasonable to leave the cameras unbagged. That assumes that the council and camera partnership are honest. The camera partnership refuse to say if any routes are suspended. They refuse to admit any errors and quite frankly I dont trust a word they speak. As I have launched a formal complaint I am entitled to a reply. Remember that 1 year earlier the county councilor promised that all the signing in Hants CC are would be checked, When the story broke he promised that the signs aproaching the totton camera would be fixed by the end of the week.

These are elected councilors and are accountable to us. They have to meet thier statutory obligations as a Highways Authority. Just like you and I have to tax and insuire our cars.