Safe Speed Forums

Here
This implies that if the road is labeled incorrectly the Court no longer cares ! That is of extreme concern.
The loading of the prosecution fee is just so very wrong, this is no way to manage justice because it isn't right.
I wonder how long the road has been a 40mph for ? Sad too that the Judge assumes that it was a specific speed that must have been, therefore dangerous, not the road conditions or circumstances, none of which are even mentioned.
Whilst his 50mph might have been a danger to others was it correct? Cameras are often wrong, I wonder that they didn't fight the case on that, although I am surprised that with wrong road labeling the Judge ignored the error !

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

You are quick to your conclusion and I would say you are in error.

The area layout is as in the following image.



Freeman, after no doubt studying the maps and TRO's very carefully, has concocted a defence based upon missing the small extension to Boxford Lane that adjoins School Hill. It would be a strange oversight to come up with that cock-and-bull defence of the TRO being referenced to the junction between School Hill and Boxford Lane without noticing that Boxford Lane also has a junction with itself only a few yards away from the claimed incorrect TRO reference point.

The correct and intended reference is the junction Boxford Lane/Boxford Lane that is just to the west of the claimed point at the junction School Hill/Boxford Lane; what a calamity the defence didn't spot that...or did they?

More to the point, did Jimmy take this into account when he ignored the 40mph signs thinking "oh! The TRO is defective here, I think I will drive at 50mph! hey ho" and other such unfunny Carrisms

Thanks for the image that is helpful.
Where was the camera & pointing which way (I assume toward Boxford) ?
Do you know where the 40mph signs are it is hard to see? Can you mark them up (and not if in pairs and if lighted one's or not?)
My conclusions are from the quotes given. It woudl be better to have the full account from the Court but that is neigh impossible to get - or attend of course.
The new rule to have people those judged to have committed crimes pay for the prosecution is not justice, as I say. I think that this new principal is very wrong.
The legal state of 40mph is one thing. The proof of road users who go beyond the legal limit is another. The traffic police who could apply proper on the spot appropriate judgments did far more than 'just' book for a speeding offence.
Understanding road users in real world environments is important. In the same way proper appreciation of appropriate enforcement as to when road users actions are dangerous and when they are illegal needs to be understood by the Government and it's advising bodies to ensure roads are kept safe and road users are forever growing and learning.
I cannot judge if what went on here is wrong or not, 50 may or may not have been dangerous, as the Judge states. It was illegal if the road he was on was the 40mph not the (I assume) 60mph A road, and then was the reported 50mph speed accurate? Was the camera in error?
The two arguments of illegal activity and of disproportionate enforcement will rage on. In our view the road safety issue is proven it does nothing to improve road safety and in fact reduces it through the side effects and bad policy.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Carr could well be trying it on, but I think many would say that it is fair that a charge from a technical infringement should be fought by technical infringement.

Oddly, Carr has done exactly this before – and won!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That might be down to the "Prosecutors Repair Kit" which is given the all CPS's, so that they have a better chance of winning against the public.
I am given to understand that Mr Perry may have written this 'document'.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

My goodness Greenshed, you must have been very busy in the 1 hour and 13 minutes between SSV2's post and your very detailed response.

You seem to have found the exact location, made an annotated arial view, got all the technical details etc.

Anyone would think that you had inside knowledge of this case defended by a "celebrity" with a fancy lawyer. Just the type of thing referred to RSS.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Like Claire above you seem to be able to jump to conclusions with scant evidence; this subject has been discussed elsewhere for 2 days now and anyone with a semblance of understanding of road traffic regulations would put my report together in about 15mins from the report of the attempted defence.

Google Earth found the location in a few milliSeconds after the address was typed in.

Motoring defence solicitors rely on the courts and prosecution not being able or resourced to do a similar check with their favourite trick being to bring this type of challenge on the day of the trial.

Technically Carr was travelling 10mph faster than the speed limit
Technically the signs he could see were showing the maximum allowed speed was 10mph slower than the speed he chose to drive
Technically he had no knowledge of the TRO (I would say he had never, and probably still hasn't even heard of a TRO) so technically he wouldn't have been able to know the limit was 10mph less than he drove
Technically his solicitor was talking bollix and technically he was found out
Technically justice has been served and someone who can afford to attempt to get away with driving in excess of the speed limit and previously using his mobile phone when driving is technically convicted when the Crown invests a similar amount of effort in resisting a technicality that technically "never was".
Technically Mr. Carr was taking the pi55 and now technically he may think twice about spending £10,000s on technicalities.
There are fewer technical straws to be clutched at and technically people are beginning to know that technicalities, when met head-on are technically defeated...mostly.








Let's see if an appeal is launched on the same technicality; I would predict not.

Yet last time he did it, he won.

A technical infringement deserves a defence via technical scrutiny. Like I already said, he could be trying it on and may well fail, but we know the SCPs are far more guilty of 'trying it on' (RTTM, long-term trends) so I won't hold anything against those defending infringements using such an approach.


PS, Malcolm IS right with his conclusion though, isn't he greenshed! Do you need me to explain how to the reader?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It took me less than one second to find the cam location


http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/EES/ees019.htm


I note it says "just inside the 40 mph zone. Was the limit just outside 30 mph or 50/60 mph? Anyone know?

In any case - had he been driving "a la COAST" - he'd have seen the lollies and the van (described in detail to be either "red or blue with a yellow light on top -located on the top of the hill" on the website ..)



What was his depth of field/vision towards the horizon/brow of this hill? .. I am assuming that he was going up the hill here... Anyone out there know the actual gradient of this hill?

All of this would have featured on the CPS case against as well within the arguments of "safe driving according to circumstances and why the 40 mph was being enforced" - and it would then be up to Mr "Loophole lawyer" as he's known to the press to argue the toss over their arguments as well (says me making the controversial comment here for discussion purposes )

For discussion purpose only ...




A number of reports would back up the journalese perhaps. Generally speaking .. the journalists quote accurately enough but have to "angle the catchiest bits to sell copy"




In any civil court ... if it goes against you - you more than often end up paying costs.. Perhaps in Carr's case - it was more his ablitity to pay - perhaps? - which was taken into account The cost of expert witnesses would have been provided by both sides .. and perhaps more on the defence's side. All the CPS needed to show was "40 mph enforced and he was pinged above it" ... unless of course "Mr Loopehole-finder" was also arguing about "calibration" at some point :ppocorn:



It was a van cam on top of a hill We do not actually know the limit of the road before the lolly sign as the article as quoted does not say. It may have been 30 mph .. 50 mph or 60 mph for all we know.

[/quote]


But still why real trafpol and the old fashioned method score over the cameras as there can be zero argument when nicked

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

http://www.suffolkroadsafe.net/suffolks ... ations.php


http://www.suffolkroadsafe.net/suffolks ... _sites.php


The second link suggests limits vary along the A1071 - COAST skills apply all the time.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

If the limit as posted was not properly applied, then it isn't a technicality. Quite simply: The limit would not be enforceable.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

No it doesn't. We see this sort of thing fairly often. The test whether the defendant was so misled by the error that his or her ability to mount a defence was curtailed.

The expert witnesses had to be called to rebut the defence expert.
Some while ago Lord Justice Kay said "It should be clearly understood that defendants who instruct, or are unwise enough to accept advice from their lawyers to pursue hopeless technical defences to breathalyser prosecutions which inflate the costs of the case will pay those costs if their defence fails." The same principle holds true for other types of hopeless technical defence. In any event costs and fines are levied at an amount that the defendant can afford to pay. Had I been the defendant the costs would have been much lower, but then I can't afford a Bentley GT


The charge was speeding not DWDC so the elements you mention are relevant only either in mitigation or as aggravating features. The reports I saw quoted the prosecutor as saying that speed is dangerous not the judge.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

This is interesting. Are you saying that a speed limit which has been incorrectly legally introduced (for example by defective traffic orders) will still have the force of law if signed correctly on the road as this will not be misleading to the driver at the time?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Indeed. Defence has to prove this in effect. Freeman could not in this instance.



Malc .. we do not know if the lollies were incorrect and if they were .. Freeman would have pounced for certain

I hinted at this earlier




As I also hinted .. the lolly and COAST prevail ... but Freeman could have angled on signage/brow of hill if he could have done so... In this case.. perhaps he could not. The fine was high and you could argue "unfair to be just within the lower (assume) lolly.. but this was on the brow of a hill per other data found.. and he was not using COAST to be fair here. He ma well have been nicked by plod and probably would have been by our lot

Judge/Bench of Mags will go off the facts as reported and finding of fact as presented to court

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

It would depend on proof of signage. We are aware of disputes re. calibration on the other hand




Sadly.. we seem to be drifting towards scrutiny of bank account and income.. It has led to some obscenely di fines disproportionate to the actual minor offence (dropping a sweet wrapper for example by sheer accident .. and which would have been picked up by the dropper anyway if given hte chance .. ) in Finland and Switzerland over trivialities




Which Freeman should have challenged? and argued accordingly within the law.., if he could.. but sadly I think he had little ammo on this one

Damm IG Had no idea you were active.. Hope I've not undermined as we do not always agree at times - especially off line

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

NO. I was responding specifically to the point made by Claire with regard to the road name. This is sometimes called the vague locus defence. Basically the information given must be sufficiently accurate to enable the driver to know where he was alleged to have been doing whatever he is accused of.

It gives rise to a few interesting situations. Consider an allegation of exceeding the 30 limit on (for example) Armstrong Road. If Armstrong Road is 3 or 4 miles long and is all at 30 that may be too vague. If Armstrong road is 50 miles long but only 1 mile is at 30 that may suffice. Note that I have used the word "may" in each case because there is no distance at which it automatically becomes too vague. The individual circumstances of each case are taken into account.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

A Cole 100 mph in a 50 mph limit = £1000 fine and earns a fortune.

J Carr 50 mph in a 40 mph limit = £3,500 fine for just 10mph over the limit and earns considerably less than Cole's fortune I suspect.

Exactly how different are these two cases

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Carr's fine was 'only' £300. The rest was for court and witness costs resulting from his contesting it (and his failure).

Cole's fine was £1000 (with court costs of £300); he was also banned. He didn’t contest it.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

If a message needs sending, that one should just bend over and take it -this just advertises the fact .Sort of reminds me of a film called Matilda

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on