This could filed under the category of urban myth, as there is no requirement in law for speed cameras to be identified by signs.
The Department for Transport issued guidance in 2007 to local authorities and the police which contained references to speed cameras and their visibility, but the important points to note are that a) the guidance was entirely optional, b) did not fetter or prevent the police in carrying out unmarked or covert enforcement operations, and c) non-compliance of the guidance on the part of the police did not, in any way, form a defence to a charge of excess speed or a traffic light offence.
Guidance issued by the 'Ask the Police' service, created by the Police National Legal Database and supervised by West Yorkshire Police, states that 'There is nothing in law that states that any speed camera device, whether fixed or mobile, must be marked in any way, signed or at a particular position. There are codes of practice and best practice guides that are set by police forces themselves but these are policies rather than law.'
In short, there's only one surefire way to avoid being caught by a speed camera...
Ask HJ
Can I challenge an NIP for alleged speeding in a variable speed limit?
I’ve recently received a Notice of Intended prosecution from the police. The notice arrived 12 days after the offence. I responded immediately providing the required information although we had to resort to credit card records to identify the journey that we had taken. I requested details of the incident and was provided with photographic evidence of my car doing 58mph as I slowed from the motorway speed limit of 70mph.
he information also identified the exact location of the camera which was sited on an overhead gantry on the M1 just before the Tinsley Viaduct. With this specific information, we were now able to identify when the incident took place, but no reason was given for the sudden change in speed limit.
Our dashcam provides us with no insight as to the reason for a variable speed limit being applied and despite my requests to the police, they have not yet released further details of the reason for the change in speed limit. I do understand that reasons for changes in speed limits are not always obvious, but sometimes the information signs also give the reasons, such as, ‘pedestrians in carriageway, object in road or lane closure. We were given no indication as to the reason for the change in speed limit. To keep things simple, I have agreed to attend a Motorway Awareness Course and have no doubt that I was over the applied speed limit, however without more information, I would have been unable to defend myself if I had chosen to try and defend my actions in court.
I have also requested details of the applied speed limit from Highways England but unless they respond to my freedom of information request they seem clueless as to the reason. I am still waiting for a reply from the Police which may help to clarify matters, but again, if they refuse, I will have to make a Freedom of Information request. My frustration with this situation lies with my inability to see the problem when it disappears due to the variable speed limit changing unlike a speeding offence where the signs are still in place. I have since learnt that hundreds of motorists have been issued speeding tickets at Tinsley Viaduct due to a 50mph limit being applied because of faulty safety barriers. As yet I do not know If I am one of these motorists? Are the Police and Highways England wrong to withhold this information and is there a procedural process I could have challenged in this case?
Although the speed limits on smart motorways can be changed in response to a specific incident, they can also be altered to manage traffic flow and prevent sections of heavy traffic from reaching a standstill. If you were to obtain the information relating to the application of a reduced limit on the motorway, you would need to dispute your penalty in court with sufficient grounds that either the application of the limit was unjustified or the signage indicating the reduced limit was inadequate in order to have the prosecution overturned.
Answered by David Ross
More Questions
