Over 200,000 could get speed camera refund

Nuxx Bar

I could make various comments about this, but I'll wait for the trolls
to hang themselves first I think. ;-)

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/...98487-20367189/

Over 200,000 could get speed camera refund

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

Exclusive by David Collins 30/03/2008

Drivers caught by Britain's most profitable speed camera are set to
win refunds totalling £13MILLION after one motorist proved he was
wrongly fined.

In a landmark case, Simon Grills said he could not see 50mph signs on
the M11 in the dark because their lights were not working.

The Crown Prosecution Service dropped their case against Simon just
two days before it was due in court after he showed that the lights
have been broken since November 18, 2005. That opens the floodgates
for an estimated 214,000 drivers flashed at night to get £60 fines
refunded, points taken off their licences or even get their licences
back if they were banned.

And the Sunday Mirror can reveal that the lights STILL don't work and
other motorists flashed at night are STILL being charged.

Ex-policeman Richard Bentley, an expert in road signs who helped
Simon, said: "It's outrageous how the CPS dropped their challenge yet
there are still people being prosecuted for the same offence. The
lights weren't working, so no one driving at night should be charged."

The hated camera catches 500 motorists and rakes in £30,000 every day
at a spot where the 70mph limit suddenly drops to 50 on the southbound
M11 at Woodford, Essex.

Sunday Mirror motoring law expert Judge Tread urged anyone wrongly
snared to appeal. Ollie Mishcon said: "This is a chance for thousands
caught by Britain's greediest speed camera to get their own back -
thanks to one man's fight."

Hugh Bladon, of the Association of British Drivers, added: "People can
lose jobs when they get a driving ban, with knock-on effects like
divorce and homelessness."

Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series. "When I got flashed I couldn't
work out how I'd missed the sign," he said. "Then it clicked - it's
simply not visible at night."

Simon, who has devoted 300 hours to his legal battle, added: "I found
that the unlit sign broke many laws."

Highways Agency bosses have now pledged that the lights will be fixed
"over the next few days".

Britain now has 7,935 speed cameras, far more than most European
nations. Germany has 3,108, Italy 1,945 and Holland 1,594.

Lancashire has the most cameras (345). Somerset is 2nd (246), then
Essex (221). The road with most is the A6 in Lancs with 31.

Speed cams raised a total of £104.4m in England and Wales last year.
The Welsh are hardest hit. Fines average £5.82 per head of population.

naked_draughtsman

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:51:31 -0700, Nuxx Bar wrote:


> In a landmark case, Simon Grills said he could not see 50mph signs on
> the M11 in the dark because their lights were not working.

I'm not sure if I believe that (don't dipped headlights illuminate road
signs?) but the police/HA really should get their house in order on things
like this. It can't be that hard to make sure speed cameras are bright
yellow with loads of warning signs so people have no excuse if they get
caught!
Why is there a 50 mph speed limit on a motorway anyway?

> Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
> driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series. "When I got flashed I couldn't
> work out how I'd missed the sign," he said. "Then it clicked - it's
> simply not visible at night."

So even if the 50 mph limit wasn't there, he was speeding anyway? Whether
or not he was driving dangerously it's still breaking the law and he
should have just accepted it on this occasion.

> Simon, who has devoted 300 hours to his legal battle, added: "I found
> that the unlit sign broke many laws."

300 hours? Does he not have anything better to do?

> Speed cams raised a total of £104.4m in England and Wales last year.
> The Welsh are hardest hit. Fines average £5.82 per head of population.

I think the statistics are a bit skewed here: Wales has quite a small
population and a lot of visitors from other places. I'd say only about 1
in 25 of people I know have had a fine in the last year - £5.82 is about 1
in 6 if the fine is actually £30 for being paid quickly (I think, feel
free to correct my math!).

peter

JNugent

naked_draughtsman wrote:

> Nuxx Bar wrote:

>> In a landmark case, Simon Grills said he could not see 50mph signs on
>> the M11 in the dark because their lights were not working.

> I'm not sure if I believe that (don't dipped headlights illuminate road
> signs?) but the police/HA really should get their house in order on things
> like this. It can't be that hard to make sure speed cameras are bright
> yellow with loads of warning signs so people have no excuse if they get
> caught!

This has already been discussed elsewhere on UK usenet. It isn't about
whether the cameras can be seen; it's about whether the speed limit
signs can be seen. A driver or motorcyclist might be travelling at what
(to him) seems a very reasonable speed of, say, an indicated 62mph and
be unaware that the limit has changed to 50 from 70.

> 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.

>> Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
>> driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series. "When I got flashed I couldn't
>> work out how I'd missed the sign," he said. "Then it clicked - it's
>> simply not visible at night."

> So even if the 50 mph limit wasn't there, he was speeding anyway?

Not really (it depends).

The 70mph NSL would usually only be enforced at ACPO-recommended
margins; ie, only a measured speed in excess of limit+10%+2mph (IOW,
77+mph) would be prosecuted.

> Whether
> or not he was driving dangerously it's still breaking the law and he
> should have just accepted it on this occasion.

That's easy to say when it isn't you who is going to be treated like a
second-class citizen with "points" on your licence (says he, with a
clean licence).

>> Simon, who has devoted 300 hours to his legal battle, added: "I found
>> that the unlit sign broke many laws."

> 300 hours? Does he not have anything better to do?

Nothing better to do than protect his driving licence, his reputation,
his job and his whole lifestyle (which can be disnissively wrecked in a
moment by a driving ban)?

What would be a "better" way to spend your time?

OG

"JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:wPKdnd00B6YLfWLanZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net...
> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>
>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
>>> In a landmark case, Simon Grills said he could not see 50mph signs on
>>> the M11 in the dark because their lights were not working.
>
>> I'm not sure if I believe that (don't dipped headlights illuminate road
>> signs?) but the police/HA really should get their house in order on
>> things
>> like this. It can't be that hard to make sure speed cameras are bright
>> yellow with loads of warning signs so people have no excuse if they get
>> caught!
>
> This has already been discussed elsewhere on UK usenet. It isn't about
> whether the cameras can be seen; it's about whether the speed limit signs
> can be seen. A driver or motorcyclist might be travelling at what (to him)
> seems a very reasonable speed of, say, an indicated 62mph and be unaware
> that the limit has changed to 50 from 70.
>
>> 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.
>
>>> Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
>>> driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series. "When I got flashed I couldn't
>>> work out how I'd missed the sign," he said. "Then it clicked - it's
>>> simply not visible at night."
>
>> So even if the 50 mph limit wasn't there, he was speeding anyway?
>
> Not really (it depends).
>
> The 70mph NSL would usually only be enforced at ACPO-recommended margins;
> ie, only a measured speed in excess of limit+10%+2mph (IOW, 77+mph) would
> be prosecuted.

I'm not so sure about these 'ACPO recommendations'. My MIL was NIPped on
camera evidence at 32 in a 30 zone. Had she told us I would have suggested
she challenge the case, but she didn't.

New Bristol Road in Weston super Mare - had previously had a 40 limit, but
the limit had been reduced to 30 just a few months before.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:51:31 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> 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. Why is it that obeying the speed
limit is never an option?

But I have an idea. I think the limit should be posted on the back
of the camera. No excuses at all, then.

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

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:05:18 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> said in
<wPKdnd00B6YLfWLanZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net>:

>A driver or motorcyclist might be travelling at what
>(to him) seems a very reasonable speed of, say, an indicated 62mph and
>be unaware that the limit has changed to 50 from 70.

Provided that he's not looking, and has not spotted the five million
traffic cones, yes.

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

Sir Jeremy

On 11 Apr, 23:48, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> >
> But I have an idea. *I think the limit should be posted on the back
> of the camera. *No excuses at all, then.
>
> 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


I must be seeing things, Chapman's come up with a good idea

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
<2cda3790-20c3-4565-abef-c7cceb10ae8f@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:

>I must be seeing things, Chapman's come up with a good idea

I guess you must have finally averted your gaze from the end of your
bonnet, a rare thing in a militant cager, I know :-)

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

JNugent

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:51:31 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <derderderder619@hotmail.com> 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. Why is it that obeying the speed
> limit is never an option?
>
> But I have an idea. I think the limit should be posted on the back
> of the camera. No excuses at all, then.

You're not the first to suggest that.

TPTB never accept it.

JNugent

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:05:18 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> said in
> <wPKdnd00B6YLfWLanZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net>:
>
>> A driver or motorcyclist might be travelling at what
>> (to him) seems a very reasonable speed of, say, an indicated 62mph and
>> be unaware that the limit has changed to 50 from 70.
>
> Provided that he's not looking, and has not spotted the five million
> traffic cones, yes.

Traffic cones?

What's that to do with it?

JNugent

Sir Jeremy wrote:
> On 11 Apr, 23:48, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>> But I have an idea. I think the limit should be posted on the back
>> of the camera. No excuses at all, then.
>>
>> 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
>
>
> I must be seeing things, Chapman's come up with a good idea

He's nicked it from Paul Smith (who in turn, might not have been its
originator).

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:51:31 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
>driving at 77mph

He claims he didn't see the sign, yet he was still driving well in
excess of the 70mph limit.

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:05:18 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>What would be a "better" way to spend your time?

Driving legally, perhaps?

Zog The Undeniable

Nuxx Bar wrote:

> Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
> driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series.

Er...fair cop, then, 50mph limit or no 50mph.