Signage for mobile speed traps.

[.A.N.T. 0]

Couldn't find anything using the search, though I think I've seen something about this in the site somewhere...

 

Driving in today there were police doing a roadside speed check.

 

I thought I read somewhere that they can only do this within a certain distance from a 'speed check' sign. 500m or 1km or something.

 

There's no sign down this road anywhere and I was wondering if anyone they caught could be fined.

 

I agree with them checking through that village though as there's a few nasty turnings on bends but there's no sign warning of it...

 

So basically, can you be caught by a mobile speed trap if there's no sign warning you it could be there within a certain distance?

[dr_mat 0]

So basically, can you be caught by a mobile speed trap if there's no sign warning you it could be there within a certain distance?

 

Yes.

[Jim Bowen 1]

was it deffo speed they were checking and not tax etc?

[double-6s 0]

I got done by a mobile with no signage the other day. 96 mph :(

 

My day in court looms :(

 

 

I've heard stuff about signs within a certain distance, but I'm not holding out much hope.

[davidwort 0]

...

 

I've heard stuff about signs within a certain distance, but I'm not holding out much hope.

 

I think this has more to do with 'Safety Camera Partnerships' being allowed to keep the revenue, this is certainly the reason why the backs of fixed cameras were painted bright yellow, the idea being people would be happier for the Partnership running the cameras to pocket the cash if they were well identified on the roads.

The locations used by Safety Camera Partnership camera vans in Northamptonshire all have the camera warning signs half a mile or so from any of the stretches they randomly park the vans on.

But the poilice can set up a speed trap wherever they like with no warning signs.

[corozin 0]

The rules on the deployment of both fixed and mobile cameras changed during the summer.

 

There is now no requirement for a road to reach defined KSI stats in order for either a static or mobile camera to be deployed onto it.

There is also no requirement to post camera warning signs in these areas any more (although in practice most forces will continue to do so as they are effective)

There never was any requirement for warning signage to be posted to alert drivers to mobile units - I don't know where you got that from.

There never was a requirement for mobile cameras to be painted bright colours, but the law has also been changed so that static units no longer have to be painted yellow. However I believe that in practice they will continue to be painted bright colours as it's accepted that doing anything else will be received very negatively by the public.

There have also been changes made to the relevant laws so that it is now a direct criminal offence to refuse to name the driver of a Scamera'd car (6pts, £5,000 max fine I believe).

 

There have also been changes to the funding hypothocation rules, meaning that all revenue now goes to the Treasury (who now cream some money off the top for themselves) before redistributing it back to the Scamera partnerships via local authority funding (whereas before the local authorities collected and administered the money directly themselves)

 

Bottom line is still the same. If you get caught by a mobile camera you'll still get a ticket.

 

John

[double-6s 0]

No I don't know where I got it from either - probably some crap I read on the internet eh? ;)

[Toad 0]

That's some useful information John.

 

I had always thought that there needed to be signs and the van/camera needed to be marked, otherwise they were no sort of deterrent, that's what gets on my wick when the vans sit on motorway bridges.

 

What was the deal with the motorists in the roadworks on the A303 was the speed limit not signposted, or was it the cameras that were at fault?

[junkie 0]

I heard that when they do the mobile checks they are meant to only check the vehicles that look to be speeding in excess and not every car that passes, prob wrong though.

 

Apparently you can name yourself as the driver but do not write it on the form you receive, if you do and then sign it there is no getting away for sure, but write on the form see attached sheet and write on the attached piece your details, but sign the form received and not the attached info your sending as well, so effectively you have declared you as the driver and if it went to court that cant be used in evidence. This way you can see the photo/video evidence which as you all know you can only see it once you have declared who is driving, as more often than you think there will be a descrepancy somewhere and you may just get away with it. Im not condoning anything as you sholdnt speed but we all do and this may help somebody who has 9 points and a possible ban looming, so you have nothing to lose anyway so worth a try, you never know.

Too many people dont put up a fight as the scare tactics they use saying if you dont accept 3 points and this £60 fine and you challenge it you will most likely get a more hefty penalty, well maybe but maybe it might get thrown out of court.

 

Found this website that explains better than i can

 

http://www.pepipoo.com/FAQ.htm

[corozin 0]

Yeah the Pepipoo site has been around for years but as the law has only been changed in about the last 1-2 months I personally wouldn't bet my driving licence on the advice on there being relevant now.

 

As you probably guessed from reading the changes, the part relating to declaring the driver has been deliberately modified due to some pesky motorists either refusing to declare the driver, or (as PepiPoo used to advise) not to actually sign the form (the idea is that without a signature it's inadmissible in court). I think you should assume that both those loopholes have now largely been closed, and that if you fail to give reasonable cause for not declaring the requested details, and be able to prove why not in court, you're in for a hard time.

 

Another way to look at it would be that the law is now clear - refusing to comply with the form's requests without a justifiable reason is now simply an attempt to obstruct or pervert the course of justice.

 

As a further cheery-up, the same round of changes to the law also banned the use of radar/laser detectors, except where they are triggered by GPS info.

 

Happy buggers aren't they (New Labour) ??

 

John

[.A.N.T. 0]

No I don't know where I got it from either - probably some crap I read on the internet eh? ;)

 

 

Same as I think!!

 

 

 

Cheers for the info... At the end of the day I'm quite glad I was stuck behind the person who I had but a mile up the road berated loudly at for sticking to the speed limit on the way to work!!! (windows closed, just a release of stress you know...)

 

 

Useful info none-the-less and I'll be taking it easy round here from now on...