1)
manufacturers specifications
In almost all cases, they clearly state that the device must be used on a straight section of road or a road with minimal curve such that at the extreme initial reading there is no overlap with another carriageway or road furniture This can often be overlooked during the selection of locations
A very mild anticlockwise bend will allow the camera to see vehicles on the other carriageway, a very mild clockwise bend would allow the camera to catch street furniture, e.g. lamposts, waste bins, dog pooh bins. This clockwise bend is so severe the camera captures a grassy hill slope, therefore , to quote the above " at the extreme initial reading these is overlap with something far more dense and likely to affect the laser beam than a bit of street furniture".
There are good reasons (including self calibration?) why the manufacturers spec clearly states that the device must be used on a straight section of road.
1) Camera should be used on a straight section of road - the photo clearly shows the extent to which this is not "a straight section of road"
2) As a vehicle goes around a bend,there is radial velocity, linear velocity and translational velocity. Any person who has glided on ice in a straight line holding hands with other skaters will know that as the line changes direction to go around a bend, the velocity of the person on the outside of the bend goes really fast, simple because they are now going around a bend and not in a straight line.
This is another reason why manufacturers specs clearly state that the device must be used on a straight section of road
3) Note the camber of a vehicle going along a straight road, the road slopes slightly to drain water
Now look again (picture below) at the slope of a vehicle as it goes around a bend and is affected by an outward force that also affects its speed, (making its measured speed higher?)
Therefore as the vehicle went around the bend there was a vertical anticlockwise rotation of a statistically significant angle (number of degrees). This is the same effect as e.g. rotation of the camera by e.g. 10 degrees anticlockwise as a car approaches it in a straight line, i.e. if either the camera or the car rotate, the effect is the same and it looks as if the car has now changed from angle in first picture to angle in second.
This is another reason why manufacturers specs clearly state that the device must be used on a straight section of road
4)The doplar effect.
This affects all waves, sound waves and waves from a laser. The average person can understand how waves change as a car travels towards them in a straight line, or away from them in a straight line, or goes around a bend because:-
Listen to the siren on an ambulance or police car and how it changes as it comes towards you and then passes you and then goes away from you. e,g, the 'dir dah' noise changes to diir daah'
This is another reason why manufacturers specs clearly state that the device must be used on a straight section of road.
5) Calibration - Correct auto calibration can be affected by any of the above if the camera is not used as per manufacturers spec 'on a straight section of road'. This would then add to the inaccuracies created in 1, 2, 3, and 4.
6) If the manufacturers specs have been ignored in relation to the operation of the camera, then were they ignored during the initial calibration of the equipment, therefore a request has been made for this information.
Speed camera calibration:-
http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=5709
Ask for the camera's "Certificate of Calibration". They will write to you and tell you the camera is "auto-calibrated". This is ***** (rubbish) as it needs a human involved to test and approve the calibration therefore no camera can be legally "auto-calibrated". So write back and refuse their explanation on these grounds and again demand a current certificate of calibration. (This advice was given to me by a solicitor and confirmed by a friend who works inside the court system!)
No signs!!
Please see http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/speeding-defences-1/
from which the following gives an indication of the content:-
Q
SPEEDING DEFENCES 1. Is inadequate posting of a speed limit a valid defence to a speeding NIP?
A
According to case law, yes.
In Coombes v DPP [2006] EWHC 3263 (Admin), (2006) The Times, 29 December, a driver's conviction for speeding, contrary to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 89, was quashed by the Divisional Court (following an unsuccessful appeal to the Crown Court) because the road sign imposing the 30-mph limit in question was obscured by overgrown hedgerows, so that it became visible to motorists only at the point where it was passed.
Referring to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 85 (below), Walker J held that this imposed (at the least) a requirement that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably have been expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. Motorists should not be convicted of speeding in the absence of adequate guidance.
(Case described in more detail below.)
The Association of British Drivers offers a downloadable kit to help drivers contest unfair speeding convictions
www.abd.org.ukMotoring Law website Road Law (
www.road-law.co.uk) is advising motorists to check their situation if they have apparently been caught speeding in a temporary speed limit in roadworks.
"There are specific legal requirements with regard to the signs that must be displayed advising motorists of the correct speed limit on any road, and this applies just as much to temporary speed limits where roadworks are being undertaken, as it does to any other stretch of road," explains former solicitor Martin Davies, who runs the Road Law website. "If the speed limit signs are insufficient or incorrectly placed then the police are not in a position to prosecute drivers for breaking the speed limit."
The situation has been highlighted by lengthy roadworks on the A303 in Wiltshire starting back in May 2003, which led to several thousand motorists being caught for breaking the temporary speed limit. However one motorist was so incensed by the lack of signs that as soon as she received her NIP she returned to the roadworks and took photographs to prove that she could not have known of the change in the speed limit. Her case was dismissed and led to the Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership issuing a statement (see below) in February 2005.
The statement has several repercussions :-
Any driver who has already been prosecuted for speeding on the A303 at Folly Bottom over the past 2 years can apply to have their conviction quashed, the points taken off their licence, their fine repaid and make a claim for compensation for any losses they have suffered as a result of the wrongful conviction (eg increased insurance premium). This is automatic for those already convicted of offences on the A303 at Folly Bottom between October 2003 and 13 January 2004
Other drivers who have been caught in the area and who cannot recall having seen clear speed restriction signs are now also having their cases reviewed. These matters have been adjourned until 30 June 2005, but the CPS are expected to make a decision and statement about these cases before this date.
Road Law is aware of a similar situation on the A63 at Welton in Yorkshire, which has led to cases being discontinued.
The advice from Road Law for motorists who have been caught on these two specific roads (the A303 and the A63) is to contact Road Law for specific advice on their situation, and for any motorist who has been caught speeding in roadworks to check if there were actually speed limit signs on the stretch of road on which they were driving. The actual regulations are quite complex, but in general signs should appear at the beginning of the speed limit and then at regular intervals within the speed limit. If there is any doubt then they should take legal advice before accepting any charge.
Road Law has a panel of specialist motoring solicitors that advise on matters throughout England & Wales and operate a unique fixed fee telephone advice and legal representation system. Full details can be found on the website at
www.road-law.co.uk.
Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership Statement (18 February 2005)
A303 Folly Bottom
After careful consideration of all the available evidence, including detailed reports prepared by expert witnesses for both defence and prosecution, the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to withdraw speeding prosecutions relating to the A303 at Folly Bottom.
In the cases which were listed for a pre-trial review hearing at Salisbury Magistrates Courts on 17 February 2005; the prosecution offered no evidence and those cases were dismissed. (The Police and CPS are now carrying out a review of any remaining pending cases).
Evidence supplied by the defence raised the possibility that the defendants could have been confused by the signage. There was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at all times the speed restriction signs were positioned correctly, in accordance with the legal requirements. The CPS therefore concluded that there was not a realistic prospect of conviction.
From May 2003, the A303 trunk road at Folly Bottom near Amesbury, Wiltshire was the subject of extensive road works over a period of many months. On 10 May 2003 a Road Traffic Order under the provisions of section 14(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 came into force to impose a temporary speed restriction of 40 mph through the area of the road works. This was for the purposes of road safety, and health and safety for the road works staff.
The nature of these extensive road works required that the restriction signs be moved to correspond with the daily works.
To protect road users and staff at the site, the Wiltshire Constabulary Safety Camera Unit carried out periodic speed enforcement checks, which resulted in court prosecutions. These cases were sent to the Crown Prosecution Service for review and prosecution.
Although there was clear evidence of careful checks of the signage having been carried out by the enforcing police officers prior to conducting speed checks, the defence expert’s report highlighted that there was insufficient evidence to prove a consistently high standard of checks to ensure that the signage met legal requirements at all times.
19 May 2005
Release Ends.
For more information visit the website
www.road-law.co.uk or contact Martin Davies at LAW on the WEB
martin.davies@lawontheweb.co.uk t&f - 01243 535377
Road Law (
www.road-law.co.uk) is a microsite within the LAW on the WEB legal information and advice website. It was first published in July 2002 and provides a range of legal advice, information and guidance to motorists, including a Road Reckoner service (
www.roadreckoner.co.uk); fixed fee legal advice and representation from a panel of specialist motoring solicitors; and a specialist telephone advice service.
2. LAW on the WEB (
www.lawontheweb.co.uk) was established in February 1999 by Martin Davies, a solicitor, formerly in private practice. On site it provides free legal information, advice and guidance to the general public on their rights and the law, covering basic legal issues including employment, family, wills, motoring, property and accidents, as well as providing a free email legal question service. It is also a gateway to other legal information and services, with an extensive directory of solicitors, links to legal document producers and other useful legal sites, and even a legal fun section.
3. LAW on the WEB now has a readership of more than 80,000 readers every month.
Also worth a look:
www.derbygripe.co.uk/defence.htm
3-8-2010. In July 2010, Yetkin v Mahmood and Another reaffirmed the responsibility of councils to keep foliage clear of roadsigns and sight lines. In this case a pedestrian was knocked down because the car driver had not seen him due to overgrown shrubs.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:01:31 Hedge helps man beat speed fine
A motorist has won a High Court battle to overturn a speeding fine after arguing he could not see the roadside warning signpost.
Coombes vs Director of Public Prosecutions Dec 20th 2006.
John Coombes, from Wells, Somerset, was fined for speeding in a 30mph zone near the city in 2005.
He argued that an overgrown hedge meant he could not see a signpost warning of the restriction.
His conviction was quashed by two senior High Court judges in London on Wednesday.
This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt
They ruled that, because of an obscured sign, he had not had sufficient warning that he was passing from a 40mph zone into a 30 mph stretch.
Mr Coombes' solicitor, Jeffrey Bannister, said: "This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt. "Namely that they should not be convicted if trees and hedges overhanging or obscuring signs mean they cannot properly see the signs, and they are not given adequate notice of changes in the speed limit."
Mr Coombes was caught in a police speed trap on the B3139 Bath Road at Horrington near Wells last July.
He was convicted of speeding by Mendip magistrates in January 2006 and fined £250 and ordered to pay £150 legal costs.
At Bristol Crown Court, both conviction and fine were upheld in April 2006, and he was ordered to pay an extra £229 legal costs.
The High Court said his legal costs should be reimbursed out of public funds.
Obiter Dictum: " For a driver to be convicted of speeding it was a requirement
that the relevant road signs could reasonably be expected to indicate the limit to an approaching driver in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. "
A5 30 limit speeding convictions revoked
May 4 2007 Chester Chronicle
THE research of a Chester-based solicitor has helped to clear 3,000 motorists who have been fined and given points for speeding in North Wales.
They were all trapped by an Arrive Alive camera van on the A5 in Bangor, which angered locals so much public protest meetings were held.
The limit had been reduced last summer from 40mph to 30mph - but now it has been announced there had been a blunder, with Gwynedd County Council being blamed.
The Arrive Alive scheme caught 80,000 drivers in North Wales last year.
Solicitor Ray Woodward discovered a Road Traffic Order made in 1981 for a 40mph limit had never been revoked.
Mr Woodward represented three clients, all driving at less than 40mph, who had pleaded not guilty to speeding and whose cases were formally dismissed by magistrates in Caernarfon this week.
Dozens of other motorists have also denied speeding and have been waiting for the result of this case before deciding what to do next.
In a statement, the CPS said it had written to 38 people who faced speeding charges this week 'informing them that the proceedings against them are to be dropped'.
Solicitor Gerallt Evans said: 'We have advised North Wales Police that this decision applies to all other persons who have been convicted of excess speed offences at this particular location since July 26. The police will now be making arrangements for those convictions to be cancelled.'
Incorrect positioning of speed and Gatso warning signs makes fines and points illegal
In a case heard at Portsmouth Magistrates Court during w/c 15-10-2007, District Judge Gillibrand ruled that errors in the way speed and Gatso warning signs were positioned and too few of them meant that the 40mph limit on the A27 in Fareham had no backing in law. 250,000 £60 tickets to be refunded and points removed for 3 years prior to the judgement.
Speeding Ticket Defences Check List From Safe Speed
Motorist's Prosecution Checklist:
