Safe Speed Forums

If I approach a mobile revenue generator van, on a dual carriageway with central reservation and in a restricted speed stretch on the inside lane, me going southbound, and the van parked on the northbound carriageway, in a lay-by, is the van legally authorised to target my vehicle?

A simple ascii art illustration

when you say a restricted speed limit on the inside lane i take this as a different limit to the other 3 lanes,

if all 4 lanes were say 70mph then from theillustration provided as long as both north and south bound were sign posted then yes all 4 lanes wouldbe enforced

_________________
now retired

The stretch on all 4 lanes has a speed limit of 40mph.
It is a stretch of around 500 yards between a 50mph zone and a NSL zone on the same road.
The location of the mobile camera in question is not on the published list by the safer roads partnership (http://www.saferroads.org/)
It is on Bagshot Road, Bracknell, between two roundabouts. The camera is parked in front of the Shell garage on the layby road just off the northbound carriageway.
The safer roads partnership only publishes the fixed and mobile cameras in the surrounding residential areas, and the mobile camera on the NSL stretch southbound.

Which isn't legally possible in the UK - limits are set on lengths of carriageway.

i know this area i was down there last week, the nothbound road ie heading for the M4 is signed as a site not so sure about the southbound as i did not travel it, i saw a van there its just before the entrance to Sandhurst if memory serves me correct.

what sort of speed were you doing southbound

_________________
now retired

According to the NIP letter I received, 52mph.

recalling the area am i right with sandhurst and some swimming pool complex, then i would imagine that both north and south wouldbe enforced. 50 in a 40 cross fingers

_________________
now retired

In your signature you say "let's find a happy medium".

My proposal is to lower the penalty to 1 point on the licence for an SP30.

Sorry to disagree, but
Dft guidelines do not allow detection in opposite direction on duel c/way or motorway. section 3.2.1

Acpo code of practice insist on the camera van being within 10 feet of the carriageway

and the home office scientific development bureau who gave type approval insist that the type approval is subject to ACPO code of practice being followed.

This is also confirmed by a letter I got from home office minister Paul Goggins

_________________
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

Now seems to be a difference between what they are told to do and what they can get away with - as has been said many times before the driving force is revenue.

_________________
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

Interesting!

I asked for photographic evidence, so I will know in the next few days if the van did indeed target me from said spot.

If that is the case, I may have a case.

Will post picture once I get it from the fixed penalty support unit.

Would you be so kind as to point me to the right place for this DfT guideline?

Thanks a mile!

Hi Anton.
This is very relevant to ongoing threads on a different forum


I think this is open to interpretation!
Does it mean the operator must be within 10 feet of:
a) ‘the lane being targeted’ or
b) ‘the road but cannot target vehicles beyond the divider’ or
c) ‘the road’
? I can’t find an explicit requirement.
Given the fact that the hard shoulder is also quite wide, how can an operator be allowed to enforce lane 2/3/4 of a motorway if they can’t enforce the far lane of a single carriageway? (assuming adequate line of sight)

EDIT:
Was this setup in fact unlawful?



Would you mind posting (or PMing) further details? This would conclusively end the debate on another thread.

Smeggy

Which other debate where you refering to on another tread

All this is of great interest to me as I was also taken from the other side of a dual carriageway and I similarly got a letter from Mr Gogging, but in that he was trying to fudge the issue.

edited

edited

Sorry, I mean't another forum.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 237268&p=1

(I think you have to register if you want to view posts in that section)

The minister wrote


I interpret this to mean that the ACPO code of practice must be followed in day to day operation. Other parts of the letter state that HOSDB only tested under these conditions to give the device its type approval.

I know of at least three cases in court at the moment with opposite c/way detection.

To clear up a bit of confusion: I interpret "the carriageway" to be "the carriageway" you are driving on. not the lane you are driving in.
A duel carriage way is "two carriageways" east bound carriageway and a west bound carriageway.

I Don't want to go in to a Nick Freeman impression but this is how the equipment was type approved and the code of practice laid down, The government minister is relying on these procedures being followed. There must have been a good reason for these rules being published.

If I was to go further there must also be a reason why Hampshire are fighting nail and tooth in the courts to prevent the video tapes made on duel carriageways being released to people defending these charges. So far they have ignored 6 written requests and three times in court the magistrates have told the prosecution to release the video and three times they have failed. Surly this is contempt of court or trying to pervert the course of justice or something? The defendant has even got a reply from the Chief Constable saying that he will try to find the tape.... that lead went cold. The case continues... 7+ similar battles are going on in Hampshire alone. Nationally there are similar cases too.

Think about this: Rules are rules, guidelines are guidelines. A code of practice is a set of rules and type approval is dependant on rules being followed.

_________________
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

edited

Just to update you on the sitiuation, as I am not going to let this go un-noticed.
I sent the request for photographic evidence last Thursday (19th Jan), as Recorded Signed For.
I got a track number, and I know they got my letter and signed for it.
So far I haven't received any communication back from them.
Will keep you up to date with the developments.

If that's true, then the VSL system on the M25 is breaking the law-on at least 2 occasions I've seen it displaying different limits for different lanes...