Safe Speed Forums

You are sadly mistaken, the signs merely have to provide adequate guidance. You need to check your case law on this matter, the High Court has decided strict adherence to signing requirements does not invalidate a speed limit. The world according to RobinXe and anton no longer holds water in this respect.

So in essence, penalties are being issued for technical infringements even though the basis for that reaction itself infringes technicalities?

"Do as I say and not as I do" and all that!

... was and most probably knew he was doing 37mph

And here is where your argument falls over. He actually said "30 odd" which doesn't necessarily mean 37, above the prosecution threshold, or even illegal. Yet you clearly read that as "something he knowingly did." - even though you also qualified that with "probably "

I wonder if the likes of RSS also have a habit of misrepresenting the statements of defendants?


I will repeat my question to you: so in essence, penalties are being issued for technical infringements even though the basis for that reaction itself infringes technicalities?

"I got an NIP,saying my recorded speed was 37 mph"
There is evidence of the speed and no evidence that it was anything other.

The case law in this area is that a "technical infringement" does not prevent a prosecution or conviction. Why would it?

Who is Greenshed anyway?

Last year I was driving along a dual carriageway in Greater Manchester with national speed limit. I turned off onto a single carriageway and was bombing along at 30 odd mph when some way down the road was a mobile camera unit. Under 2 weeks later I got an NIP,saying my recorded speed was 37 mph and inviting me to plead guilty.

Next day I went back to this road and parked up and had a good look at the posted speed limit signs I had passed the previous day. There was a 30mph sign on the nearside, but the sign on the o/side was completely obscured by a bush, which had overgrown. So I got my camera out and took some photos. I filled in the NIP to admit I was the driver but sent in some of the photos of the offending bush along with a covering letter, explaining the speed limit was null and void.

A week later the Gormless Manchester Police wrote back saying they were aware of the obscured sign and had told the Council to cut it back, but they had not done it yet. The tone was, we do know about the bush, so it's ok, we know about it, pay up.

I considered this little missive and I wrote back, saying:Dear Officer, you inform me that the Police are aware of the overgrown bush hiding the speed limit sign, and matters are in hand to cut it back. Really? Well I am very glad to hear it! Because until you do get it cut back, this speeding ticket is null and void and I am not paying!And if you want to push this further then I am going to a lawyer, and my MP, and the press and TV. Your PR department will then have their work cut out fending off enquiries from the media as to why you are trying to prosecute someone you know has not committed an offence.Because under the 1984 Road Traffic Act, TWO speed limit signs have to be present and VISIBLE, when a speed limit is posted.One on either side of the carriageway. And it doesn't matter what the reason is that one of the signs is missing or hidden. If it's not there, then it's not THERE!
If it's not there, it's not enforceable.

The GMP quietly dropped the matter. I never heard anymore about it!
There are important issues here. First, the camera officer should have checked the legality of the signs before setting up his camera. He obviously didn't; or doesn't know the Law.Second, the disgraceful way they wrote back and tried to con me into thinking this was ok.And more importantly is this: how many other drivers went along that road, got a ticket and paid up, because they didn't know the law about the signage? maybe lots. Those are miscarriages of justice, thanks to the Gormless Manchester Police. Those people have pleaded guilty to an offence which they have not committed in Law.And of course GMP won't bother to track them down and offer a refund. They don't have time and resources for that. Funny though, they do have time and resources to trace people when they want money out of them!

So don't let yourself be walked over. Stand up for your rights. I am the sort of person the authorities don't like. I ask unpleasant questions, demand answers, won't be fobbed off. I check, I verify, I want answers! If we all did this the State would never be able to get away with rolling out their speed cameras, ID cards, DNA databases, bin taxes, and foreign wars. They want a compliant populace who just watch wall to wall telly and go out and get drunk. So long as we don't ask nasty questions. Fight back, demand answers, make a nuisance of yourself. Make the authorities work for their salaries and gold plated pension pots.

This is my style. Hope you like it?

You are sadly mistaken, the signs merely have to provide adequate guidance. You need to check your case law on this matter, the High Court has decided strict adherence to signing requirements does not invalidate a speed limit. The world according to RobinXe and anton no longer holds water in this respect.

I am not a legal expert but it would neither surprise nor dismay me if the court applied a criteria that is widely used in legal argument - that of the "reasonable person". The question, surely, is "is the signage such that a reasonable person would not be mislead as of the speed limit"? de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) might also be invoked.

There is a requirement that at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the requisite signs could reasonably be expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for the motorist to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit.

Nothing in the statute suggests that the defence under s 85 is conditional on the defendant being unaware of the speed limit. In Wawrzynczyk v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Constabulary (CO/4116/99 – unreported, 28 February 2000) this court pointed out that the offence of 'exceeding the speed limit' is not an offence requiring a mental element. In that case the speeding motorist knew that temporary speed restriction signs had been placed in the wrong position. The Court held that his knowledge had no relevance to the matter.

...
the Coombes judgement also mentions the snappily named case of Wawrzynczyk v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Constabulary
The s85 mentioned is s85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

I have no intention of taking sides in this particular thread but this may be of interest.

The case of Coombes v DPP [2006] EWHC 3263 contains this paragraph
making it clear that this is not a clear cut issue and that every case will turn on its own individual details. Coombes conviction was overturned. His defence was obscured signage due to overgrown hedge.



the Coombes judgement also mentions the snappily named case of Wawrzynczyk v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Constabulary
The s85 mentioned is s85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Peake v DPP [2010] EWHC 286 (Admin)