This case isn't about faulty equipment, it's about the road signs not being in accordance with the regulations.
The driver interviewed on the local news knew what the speed limit was, as does everyone else who uses the road - the clue is the large signs with 40 on them, but he (and others) gets off because of a technicality.
|
Then it isn't a technicality! If the speed limit is incorrectly notified/signed it isn't valid and you can't be convicted of exceeding it. The locals may all know what it is but what about visitors and/or tourists? There either is a limit or there isn't and if it it isn't correctly signed then there isn't one!
|
Hants case is about faulty signage, you could enter a lower limit from the road you were on without being able to see a sign reducing the limit depending where you entered from. Therefore blissfully unaware and thinking one was legal at say 40mph when the scammers were "enforcing" at say 30mph. The head of the scameraship was told a year ago by the police there was a problem but they kept on issuing tickets, endorsements and fines, looks like the problem with the site was first raised at least three years ago.
Kent case is either faulty equipment or misuse by operators, no more tickets to be issued in Kent until they have resolved this and likelihood of illegal ticketing, endorsement and fines having occurred for at least the last 4 months maybe more.
Neither of these are "technicalities" the problems include deliberate ticketing when sites known to be improperly signed, misue or equipment failure. Yet they still sent out fines and issued points, great eh?
But you try telling the scammers that when you get a NIP.
As always
Mark
Edited by mark on 13/10/2007 at 19:05
|
Some of us, like mark, see the constant lowering of speed limits on safe roads and the placing of cameras to ambush innocent motorists for the semi-criminal racket it is.
Others think people who have strayed over one of these silly low limits have 'done wrong' and ought to pay up like utter pink fluffy dice even when they are let off.
Never the twain shall meet, or very seldom, because in the hereafter the latter group will inhabit a special circle of hell reserved for mischievous peddlers of ill-considered false morality, where they will be constantly punished and tortured for hitherto unsuspected offences and crimes, of which an endless succession will be devised. 'Breathing too regularly/irregularly', 'appearing worried/unworried', things like that. I will be laughing up at them from some warmer and more convivial level.
|
|
|
Kent
www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/20.../
Kent Police?s Sgt Lynn Castle said on BBC Radio Kent this morning that the court case had identified a problem with the calibration procedure followed by officers before using the devices.
She said: ?It?s the setup procedure that the officer has not followed as per the manufacturer?s guidelines as to checking the distance and the speed and the alignment checks prior to the use of the device.?
She said a ?quick revision of policies? was underway and that the force was ?reminding officers what the policies are?. She claimed the devices would be back in use ?very soon?.
|
In both cases it took individuals who were prepared to go to court to uncover the wrong doings.
Hants were still insisting there was nothing wrong with the signage and they might appeal.
However the head of the scammers was told by a senior traffic plod the signs were wrong 12 months ago. Why did they continue to enforce at that location? I may well hear you ask, draw your own conclusions.
Interesting that the size of the refund when the refund button is pressed by all those innocent motorists may well be bigger than the scameraship yearly budget, so who ends up paying for this complete horlicks? we all do of course. I note that over at Pepipoo (whose members took this case forward) they are calling for the woman in question to ask for a loaded revolver to be left on her desk in the hope she might do the decent thing. It seems there are numerous sites in Hampshire that have the same defects.
Kent again only came to light because some brave soul went to court and argued the toss.
In both cases thousand of motorists were more likely to have paid up than gone to court to argue. These poor people now deserve their chance to press the refund button, especially if they have paid more for insurance or lost jobs as a result.
These are not isolated cases either if you remember Folly Bottom or Newport you will recall egregious and illegal scamming conducted elsewhere.
As always
Mark
Edited by mark on 13/10/2007 at 20:08
|
|
"Hants case is about faulty signage, you could enter a lower limit from the road you were on without being able to see a sign reducing the limit depending where you entered from."
If the driver interviewed had entered from the slip road and he was unaware of the limit then I agree he has been wronged and is entitled to a refund and perhaps damages. He didn't though, he was on the M27 spur, where it is very clear what the limit is.
|
There were 14 cases dismissed by the Hants court this week not just one.
Each case related to the same "enforcement" zone but it is more likely than not for each of these drivers, that their entry routes to the "enforecement" zone were different as differing routes (3 listed in the press report) into the zone are listed as being improperly signed.
At the end of the day however I am afraid the courts and CPS have chosen to disagree with your view as to how these motorists should be punished.
The law says that if improper signage is in force then the scammers cannot use that area as a cashpoint.
As always
Mark
|
|
|
|
