Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Jun 27, 2026 20:21

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 13:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mega link

NO LET-OFF OVER SPEEDING PENALTY

BY SIMON PEEVERS

11:00 - 30 December 2005
A motorist caught by a speed camera has been told his conviction will stand despite two other drivers on the same stretch of road being let off because signs may have been in the wrong place. Richard Barclay, from Backwell, was one of hundreds of motorists to be caught by the camera on the A370 just off the end of the Long Ashton bypass near Flax Bourton.

In June last year, the Evening Post revealed two drivers argued the 30mph signs were in the wrong place. More than 200 motorists appealed against fines for speeding on that stretch.

They said the signs were 200m further away from Flax Bourton than they were supposed to be.

John Hatton, of Weston- super-Mare, first made the claim and escaped his £60 fine and three-point licence endorsement. And Bryan Dunthorne, from Lockleaze, also won a ruling that he had been wrongly fined.

The signs were shifted but then put back to their original positions earlier this year.

A group action has since been launched, led by a Bath-based lawyer, in a bid to get fines repaid and points removed from driver's licences.

Mr Barclay has been told by Assistant Chief Constable Rod Hansen, that those two cases do not form any legal precedent and the three points will stay on his licence.

Mr Hansen also said in a letter he believes the stretch of road was properly signed at the time Mr Barclay and many others were caught.

In the letter, Mr Hansen said: "The situation is complicated and it is easy to understand how, without knowledge of all the prevailing facts, differing legal opinion may be drawn over time.

"You make reference to two appeals against convictions that were upheld by the court.

"These were individually decided on the facts of each case and unfortunately create no precedent from which to work.

"The terminal roundel signs for the 40mph limit, as one travels in the direction of Bristol, were backed by 30mph roundels advising traffic travelling towards Flax Bourton that they were entering, at that point, a restricted road.

"Further, mid-distance along the 199 metre stretch of road in question there was a repeater 30mph sign backed with a blue background colour safety camera sign as approved by the Department of Transport.

"What I conclude from this is that I am satisfied that the stretch of road in question was subject to a 30mph limit and adequate measures were in place to advise motorists."

Mr Barclay said anybody who was caught in that area should be treated in the same way as the two motorists who had their convictions overturned.

He said: "I thought it was good that Mr Hansen treated my case with the seriousness I had hoped. It is obviously a disappointing outcome as far as I am concerned, and probably for anybody else who was flashed by that camera.

"I did find the legal jargon that he used bamboozling to an extent, and I wonder if you gave the letter to six different lawyers whether they would interpret it in six different ways.

"I always thought that precedent was an important part of British law and that past cases would help to inform judgement on new cases.

"So I was quite surprised to read Mr Hansen's comment that those past cases do not set a precedent.

"If Mr Hansen is right by saying they don't form a precedent, it could have repercussions for all of those people who are currently appealing against their speeding fines."

The police do have the power to withdraw the speeding fine, or "sanction" before a case goes to court. In Mr Barclay's case, Mr Hansen told him he did not feel it was necessary to alter the sanction.

Paul Smith, who runs the pressure group Safe Speed, which campaigns against the use of speed cameras, said: "It sounds like the assistant chief constable blustering and bluffing his way through the law.

"The police could have accepted Mr Barclay's argument if they wanted to. The point is that there is no justice available until you get to court. But people are browbeaten into submission because they face spending thousands of pounds in court over a £60 fine."

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.067s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]