Over 200,000 could get speed camera refund

[The Luggage]

On 13 Apr, 14:21, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:52:31 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Colin Reed wrote:
> >>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> This is an oft quoted "guideline" that seems to be regularly denied by
> >>> police spokesmen when talking about speeding.
> >> That's odd.
>
> >> ACPO doesn't "deny" it. They promote it, not least on their website.
>
> >>> Do you actually have any
> >>> cite to show that this is an "official policy"?
> >> <http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/speed_enforcement_guideli...>
>
> >> See page 6.
>
> >> The published margins are, of course (as I suspect you already know),
> >> related to the legal requirements for accuracy of speedometers, with a
> >> tiny bit added on for a safety cushion.
> > The published margins are not related to the legal requirements for
> > accuracy of speedometers.
>
> Except for the fact that they are both 10%, you mean?

Except that they are not. The relevant allowable tolerance for
speedometers is ZERO. As m ellis has already posted, and you snipped,
a speedometer must not underread. So if your speedo reads 70 mph, your
actual speed will be between 63 and 70.

> Yes - we know that there's another 2mph added to the prosecution
> tolerances, but that is on top of the 10%.
>
> Why, in your opinion, are these tolerance levels applied? I'm not aksing
> you whether you think they *should* be applied, only why they are applied.

I'm not the OP, but I think they add 10% and 2 mph because they know
they would have far too much work on their hands collecting the fines
and dishing out the points if they set it any closer to the limit.

TL

 

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:51:31 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> said in
> <4f4f171d-a755-4936-8308-06e4b7f998af@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> EXCLUSIVE 200,000 could get refunds of up to £13MILLION after driver
>> proves UK's most profitable speed camera is illegal due to poorly-lit
>> signs
>
> Yeah, right, like the plod who got away with it because the signs
> did not have a yellow border.

Regulations which only exist if the specified sign defining them exists,
can, by their very nature, have only been violated if the specified sign
actually does exist. Simple really.

> Why is it that obeying the speed
> limit is never an option?

If the technical requirements required to specify a speed limit have not
been satisfied, then there is /no/ speed limit to obey.

--
Matt B

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:12:02 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> Yeah, right, like the plod who got away with it because the signs
>> did not have a yellow border.

>Regulations which only exist if the specified sign defining them exists,
>can, by their very nature, have only been violated if the specified sign
>actually does exist. Simple really.

The speed limit was correctly signed. The only error was in the
colour of the border of the camera sign. There was never any
suggestion that the *police driver* was unaware of the speed limit
or the fact that he was exceeding it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:12:02 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>> Yeah, right, like the plod who got away with it because the signs
>>> did not have a yellow border.
>
>> Regulations which only exist if the specified sign defining them exists,
>> can, by their very nature, have only been violated if the specified sign
>> actually does exist. Simple really.
>
> The speed limit was correctly signed.

What was the defence then?

> The only error was in the
> colour of the border of the camera sign.

Did the sign comply with the appropriate sign regulations?

> There was never any
> suggestion that the *police driver* was unaware of the speed limit
> or the fact that he was exceeding it.

If the signs were not to specification, then, technically, no speed
limit was actually in force.

--
Matt B

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:11:35 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> There was never any
>> suggestion that the *police driver* was unaware of the speed limit
>> or the fact that he was exceeding it.
>
>If the signs were not to specification, then, technically, no speed
>limit was actually in force.

You are not listening. The speed limit was correctly signed, there
was no suggestion that the police driver was unaware of the speed
limit or the fact that he was exceeding it, his defence was that the
sign warning of automated enforcement was not to specification.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/3147201.stm

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:11:35 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>> There was never any
>>> suggestion that the *police driver* was unaware of the speed limit
>>> or the fact that he was exceeding it.
>> If the signs were not to specification, then, technically, no speed
>> limit was actually in force.
>
> You are not listening.

I carefully read everything you wrote. But you didn't give enough
information to make the case clear.

> The speed limit was correctly signed,

so it /could/ have been enforced, using appropriately authorised methods.

> there
> was no suggestion that the police driver was unaware of the speed
> limit or the fact that he was exceeding it,

Fair enough.

> his defence was that the
> sign warning of automated enforcement was not to specification.

So the enforcement measure was not appropriately authorised then.

You couldn't make it up, could you. A technical offence could not be
made to stick, because those charged with enforcing it had not complied
with all the necessary technicalities

--
Matt B

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:49:15 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> You are not listening.
>I carefully read everything you wrote. But you didn't give enough
>information to make the case clear.

No, you simply assumed a scenario that was favourable to you but not
supported by what I said. I said, and I quote: "The speed limit was
correctly signed. The only error was in the colour of the border of
the camera sign. There was never any suggestion that the *police
driver* was unaware of the speed limit or the fact that he was
exceeding it."

I do not think there is any ambiguity in that.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:49:15 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>> You are not listening.
>> I carefully read everything you wrote. But you didn't give enough
>> information to make the case clear.
>
> No, you simply assumed a scenario that was favourable to you but not
> supported by what I said. I said, and I quote: "The speed limit was
> correctly signed. The only error was in the colour of the border of
> the camera sign. There was never any suggestion that the *police
> driver* was unaware of the speed limit or the fact that he was
> exceeding it."
>
> I do not think there is any ambiguity in that.

You are correct, I misread it the first time, in my haste - I apologise.
The fact stands though, that although the limit /was/ correctly
defined, and it /could/ have been legally enforced, there was a
technical "irregularity" in the enforcement set-up that they were using,
so the prosecution of the technical offence was invalid - on a technicality.

--
Matt B

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>>
>>>> Why is there a 50 mph speed limit on a motorway anyway?
>>> It's the bit right down at the southern end of the M11, where it
>>> interchanges with the A406 (N Circ Road) and the A12.
>>
>> Which I drive on almost every day. Any driver who claims he can't
>> see the 50 mph sign shouldn't be out without a white stick and a
>> Labrador.
>
> It was at night. And AIUI, it has been admitted that the illumination
> of the sign (I assume it is not ballotinised) had completely failed.
> That's the issue.

If the street lights -which start on that section about 100 yards before the
"50" limit - had failed as well then I might have a modicum of sympathy.
However, being able completely to miss not one but two[1] six-foot high
bright yellow signs with the number "50" written on it in two-foot letters,
combined with the words "Speed Cameras" in an equally large typeface does
not speak volumes for Mr Grills' powers of observation. The more so since
there is a pair of repeater "50" signs about 150 yards before the camera.

1 - one on each side of the southbound carriageway

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Never give a gun to ducks.

 

[JNugent]

Dave Larrington wrote:

> > JNugent <[email protected]>:
>> Dave Larrington wrote:
>>> JNugent <[email protected]>:
>>>> naked_draughtsman wrote:

>>>>> Why is there a 50 mph speed limit on a motorway anyway?

>>>> It's the bit right down at the southern end of the M11, where it
>>>> interchanges with the A406 (N Circ Road) and the A12.

>>> Which I drive on almost every day. Any driver who claims he can't
>>> see the 50 mph sign shouldn't be out without a white stick and a
>>> Labrador.

>> It was at night. And AIUI, it has been admitted that the illumination
>> of the sign (I assume it is not ballotinised) had completely failed.
>> That's the issue.

> If the street lights -which start on that section about 100 yards before the
> "50" limit - had failed as well then I might have a modicum of sympathy.
> However, being able completely to miss not one but two[1] six-foot high
> bright yellow signs with the number "50" written on it in two-foot letters,
> combined with the words "Speed Cameras" in an equally large typeface does
> not speak volumes for Mr Grills' powers of observation. The more so since
> there is a pair of repeater "50" signs about 150 yards before the camera.

> 1 - one on each side of the southbound carriageway

It's good of you to (maybe) have some sympathy. It seems that even the
authorities have a little more of it, since they've dropped the case. It
seems safe to assume that on the normal criteria, if they'd had a better
than 50% chance of a conviction (in this case, a wrongful conviction),
they wouldn't have dropped the case. The underlying issue was that at a
later date, the repairs (apparently) still hadn't been done and that
(apparently) summonses were still being issued.

 

[lardyninja]

On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are not listening. The speed limit was correctly signed, there
> was no suggestion that the police driver was unaware of the speed
> limit or the fact that he was exceeding it, his defence was that the
> sign warning of automated enforcement was not to specification.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/3147201.stm


So is it illegal for councils to erect speed cameras without adding
warning signs? If so that is so unbelievably stupid I could spit.
Surely the speed limit sign itself is all the warning any driver
should need.

LN

 

[JNugent]

lardyninja wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You are not listening. The speed limit was correctly signed, there
>> was no suggestion that the police driver was unaware of the speed
>> limit or the fact that he was exceeding it, his defence was that the
>> sign warning of automated enforcement was not to specification.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/3147201.stm
>
>
> So is it illegal for councils to erect speed cameras without adding
> warning signs? If so that is so unbelievably stupid I could spit.
> Surely the speed limit sign itself is all the warning any driver
> should need

....provided that it is visible and properly lit at night (or of the
reflective type) and sited where it can be seen (eg, not buried within
an overgrown hedgerow or located behind a direction or other warning sign).

 

[John Clayton]

> Regulations which only exist if the specified sign defining them exists,
> can, by their very nature, have only been violated if the specified sign
> actually does exist. Simple really.
>
>> Why is it that obeying the speed
>> limit is never an option?
>
> If the technical requirements required to specify a speed limit have not
> been satisfied, then there is /no/ speed limit to obey.
>
> --

I live by a 20 limit area.
It has 3 zebra crossings, one set of ped controlled lights. It has zigzag
markings either side of all three.
Every day absolutely hundreds of motorists fly through at 40 or 50 mph, park
on the markings, normally fail to stop at zebras with peds waiting to cross,
rarely they hit and kill peds, but 4 peds have died in the past 2 years on
zebras.
None of this is any thing to do with a cycling list, but all the preceding
"car apologist" tripe is served up daily here by MattB, "SirJeremy" and
silly "nuxxbarr".
Please just shut up and leave us to cycle, please go away.
John

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 29 Apr, 18:50, "John Clayton" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Regulations which only exist if the specified sign defining them exists,
> > can, by their very nature, have only been violated if the specified sign
> > actually does exist.  Simple really.
>
> >> Why is it that obeying the speed
> >> limit is never an option?
>
> > If the technical requirements required to specify a speed limit have not
> > been satisfied, then there is /no/ speed limit to obey.
>
> > --
>
> I live by a 20 limit area.
> It has 3 zebra crossings, one set of ped controlled lights.  It has zigzag
> markings either side of all three.
> Every day absolutely hundreds of motorists fly through at 40 or 50 mph, park
> on the markings, normally fail to stop at zebras with peds waiting to cross,
> rarely they hit and kill peds, but 4 peds have died in the past 2 years on
> zebras.
> None of this is any thing to do with a cycling list, but all the preceding
> "car apologist" tripe is served up daily here by MattB, "SirJeremy" and
> silly "nuxxbarr".
> Please just shut up and leave us to cycle, please go away.
> John


I haven't posted for a while, John, but here's a suggestion for just
you following your slightly hysterical post above:
If you don't like where you're living then move.
All best wishes, Sir Jeremy.