# Failure to Comply with traffic signal



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

Shocked!

No offences for 32 years. Just had a notice to say I have been through a red light 1.5 seconds.

Anyone else had similar?

Looks like I may have to attend a course.

Says I have to reply in 28 days. Good job we were not leaving for a long trip.

GUTTED.

TM


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

that won't be cheap.

cabby


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

These are the thresholds for the course of action in Dorset. 

Seconds Into red Process
1 to 1.9 seconds	Driver Awareness Scheme if meeting criteria or otherwise a Fixed Penalty Notice 
2 to 2.9 seconds	Fixed Penalty Notice
Above 3 seconds	Court Hearing


----------



## spykal (May 9, 2005)

That's a B but there are valid Excuses some can be seen here :

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/traffic_lights.php

Did you get a photograph? Post it :grin2:


----------



## TheNomad (Aug 12, 2013)

Don't you mean 'no offences for which I was caught' in 32 years?

I know there were a helluva lot of things I've done over the years that I've got away with......


----------



## spykal (May 9, 2005)

TheNomad said:


> Snipped ....I know there were a helluva lot of things I've done over the years that I've got away with......


and not only when driving :grin2:

I must admit that I am sorry to hear that TM got caught because it seems so easy these days to break the law when driving... and put me right if I am wrong but it often seems to be the normally "careful and considerate " drivers who get caught ...when every day I see blatant law breaking by other road users but when do they ever get caught ??? Phone users, speeders, tailgaters, lane hoggers... I could go on. Should the law take into account your previous good driving record or is Motoring Justice blind ?

Many years ago when we lived in a town the boy racers used our road in the late evening as a raceway so us locals asked the police to do some speed checks .... they did them .... In the daytime , and guess who got a ticket, my one and only ever ticket, for doing 35 mph !!

Sorry for the rant :serious:


----------



## rosalan (Aug 24, 2009)

Sadly you may not see them being caught but the odds are on that they will, in the fullness of time be caught. Being the typical older driver, I do get frustrated when I see blatant dangerous driving where the perpetrator seemingly gets away with it.
I am also one of those sad people who enjoys watching the Police 'fly on the wall' programs where the baddie gets caught. Unfortunately my wall is covered with the mess of meals, thrown there when they get let off.


Alan


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

That's bad luck Trev.


----------



## HurricaneSmith (Jul 13, 2007)

Both my sons have previously attended speed awareness courses and told me they were inspirational, describing the whole thing.

I was recently "invited" for the sum of £85 and thought it was only OK, possibly because one of the two trainers deflected questions and simply went by a pre-scripted form of words, and also the accompanying videos were of very poor quality. Still, we all got tea and biscuits thrown in.

One thing they did say was that by attending we had each retained a clean licence and no conviction, yet one insurer (Ad****l Insurance) now asks whether you have been, so I won't be going to them for a quote any time soon. :smile2:


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

The Wife and I have attended a couple of speed awareness courses. :smile2: They must have had some effect as we have not been nabbed for a while. Our Insurer asked if we had any points or attended the courses but it did not make any difference to our premiums.


The other day I followed a black Audi who observed the speed limit, observed lane discipline and used his indicators ...... it was obviously stolen. :surprise:


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

TM

I used to deal with red light and camera offences for a while.

Unless you were going through a red light in order to let an ambulance or similar emergency service vehicle approaching from behind you go through (which it appears you were not) then its really not worth trying to argue. 

In Dorset the Red Light cameras were (are?) set up so they actually do nothing until the lights have been red for 1.5 seconds. 10MPH equates to 4.5m/sedc so at 30mph thats roughly equates to 3 x 4.5 = 14 metres or 2 MH lengths That means that you were at least 14 m (or 45 feet) from the stop line when the light went red :surprise: NOT when it went amber (which is another 2 seconds or another 28m back from the stop line ) so when the signal went from green to amber (assuming this is in a 30 limit??) you had 3.5 seconds, or 42m, (138 feet) to stop before reaching the stop line. If you were going at less than 30mph then you would have had more time to stop!

Did they supply you with a picture of your offence?? ( if not you can request to see it, probably at their office) If so your speed is ALSO shown on the picture somewhere. (that was used to negate people claiming they were actually braking but just crept over the stop line)

Sorry to say its pay up and look big time. :frown2:


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

I was reading the motorlawers link posted by spykal and a question on there was from a driver of an articulated vehicle who asked what the law is if the lights are green when the front of the vehicle crosses the line but have changed to red before the back has crossed the line. The answer is: 
*"If the red light is not showing when the front of the vehicle crosses the line, but is illuminated before the rest of the vehicle has passed, an offence is committed. The rules state that it is your obligation as a driver to ensure that the whole of the vehicle can pass on green. If it cannot, you should not proceed."*

This is something that I have thought about a few times when pulling the toad and still don't know what you are supposed to do - you can hardly pull up at a green light to wait for it to go to red so that you can be first off the line when it goes green again. I guess you need to be going fast enough to get through the lights but not always easy in slow moving traffic.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

peribro said:


> *"If the red light is not showing when the front of the vehicle crosses the line, but is illuminated before the rest of the vehicle has passed, an offence is committed. The rules state that it is your obligation as a driver to ensure that the whole of the vehicle can pass on green. If it cannot, you should not proceed."*


The only possible reply to that is "HOW?"

If the light is Green as it passes out of your sight HOW? can you possibly be expected to calculate/estimate/guess exactly when it will change to Red?

The only possible answer is as above - you stop at every Green light (just in case it changes to Red immediately after you pass it) and wait until the next Red phase has passed and the light goes Green again when you can have a reasonable expectation that it will stay Green long enough for your entire vehicle to pass over the junction.

Well I think we should all do exactly that from now on - "congestion" they ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## dovtrams (Aug 18, 2009)

Given that there is an orange (no pedants please) prior to the red, I do not understand this. As for speeding, easy, keep a couple of miles under the speed limit. The speed limit is just that, not a target.

I have never broken any motoring laws!!

Dave


----------



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

IF you are not offered an awareness course, think carefully about your course of action.

As has been said, big-up and face the music. You can probably write a letter expressing your regret, highlighting your record and stating any mitigating circumstances.

However, when I was prosecuted for failing to stop at a Give Way sign (and knocking over a cyclist:frown2 I was advised not to attend court, as the magistrate could then ask the police for further comments, possibly adjourning the hearing for a month or so. If I wasn't there then the case would be judged on the merit of the written statements (and I already knew what they were saying).

All I got was a £30 fine, which amazed me and everyone else, although my mitigating circumstances were quite strong (she was travelling head-down at speed in thick fog with no lights and dark clothing - I accept it was still my fault). I'd already paid £50 to repair the cycle and took the victim a big bunch of flowers.

Good luck - Gordon


----------



## midgeteler (Jul 19, 2009)

Speed awareness courses are fine if you just want to keep your licence clean of course
( I've attended 2), but are full of bullshot. I had a huge argument at the last one when he tried to inform everybody that speed cameras were not in place as a revenue generator when of course, they blatantly are.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

dovtrams said:


> I have never broken any motoring laws!!


Unless you insert "knowingly" into that, you cannot ever drive anywhere.

It is impossible to drive anywhere without breaking some aspect - however obscure - of motoring law.

That was told to me by a Chief Inspector in a Traffic Division.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Stanner said:


> Unless you insert "knowingly" into that, you
> cannot ever drive anywhere.
> It is impossible to drive anywhere without breaking some aspect - however obscure - of motoring law.
> That was told to me by a Chief Inspector in a Traffic Division.


I agree. Breaking a traffic law is in many instances subjective and not as simple as being over a speed limit. I do not believe anyone, including those involved with the prosecution of traffic laws, has not infringed at some time or other.


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

Thank you all who have replied.

All Taken on-board.

And I agree with almost all of you!

Trev


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Peribro

I don't know where you got your information from but......

The offence is failing to STOP at a red light. The offence is committed when the vehicle passes the stop line. Once you are over the stop line you can simply no longer commit the offence. That's why the red light cameras don't do anything until 1.5 seconds after the full red AND record the vehicle speed to prove it wasn't slowing. 

Andy


----------



## Mullsy (Aug 10, 2013)

Mrplodd said:


> Peribro
> 
> I don't know where you got your information from but......
> 
> ...


 Just a thought,if it registers your speed,can you be done for speeding as well?


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Mrplodd said:


> Peribro
> 
> I don't know where you got your information from but......


As I mentioned Andy, from the link posted by spykal.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Mullsy said:


> Just a thought,if it registers your speed,can you be done for speeding as well?


There was / is a very notorious Red Light camera on the dual carriageway entrance to Poole that was also Speed on Green. During the Green phase it acted as a speed camera and as a Red Light camera on the Red phase. After a huge outcry and having made a stack of money enforcement was stopped. Rumor has it that it is in fact still live but the enforcement threshold has been raised considerably above the 30mph speed limit. 
Having said all that I have not heard of anyone being prosecuted for speeding in addition to the Red Light offence.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

I've found an interesting statement by Hill Dickinson Solicitors http://www.hilldickinson.com/downloads/client_services/knowledge_and_publications/insurance/19_august_2011.aspx in which they state:

*"In addition, the prohibition on passing over the stop line applies to any part of the vehicle when the red light is showing; if the front of the vehicle has already crossed that line when the light goes red, it is an offence under s.36 for it to proceed further."*

So what does one do if there is a box junction ahead? I'm in slow traffic pulling the toad and come to green lights but stop as the other side of the box junction isn't clear. It clears so I move ahead at which point the lights go red (I also have a light facing me on the other side of the junction). Do I stop and comply with the red lights but commit an offence by blocking the box junction - or do I proceed out of the box but have then failed to stop at a red light?:frown2:


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Ray

The red.ight/speed camera on holes bay road was introduced because motorists were approaching the lights, seeing them go to Amber and then flooring it to get through the lights before they actually went Redmond is so doing increasing speed. As I said in my previous post the system is inactive until the light has been red for at least 1.5 seconds. That is quite a long time when you actually relate it to distance travelled. The camera was modified in order to catch those who DIDNT go through a red light but DID go through at 40+ and yes there were an awful lot of them (until word got around that is)

I still maintain that the offence is "failing to stop AT a red signal" not past it :nerd: the offence IS however committed if your vehicle passes OVER the stop line before coming to a halt!! I don't care what some solicitor or other has posted on line you simply CANNOT be convicted of failing to stop at a red light if it's not visible to you when it turns red. No court in the land will convict you. 

As far as someone being prosecuted for jumping a red light by a police officer being on another approach the Presumption in law is that if the signals are Green for one direction (where said rozzer is sat) then the other signals are on red.

I now deal with traffic signals as my current job. There is NO WAY that any signal controller will allow two opposing approaches to show green at the same time (unless of course it's a straight road when that configuration is common) the controllers have a large number of sensors and very sophisticated software. In the highly unlikely event of a serious fault they will default to ALL RED. Also a lot of signals on crossroads will revert to all red at night. The idea being that if a driver sees a green light they will be tempted to try and get through but if it's red they will slow down at which point the controller will "see" the car and change "his" signal to green. Many will also detect vehicle speed and change to red if the approaching traffic is exceeding the speed limit!!! Like I said, very sophisticated bits of kit.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Mrplodd said:


> Ray
> 
> The red.ight/speed camera on holes bay road was introduced because motorists were approaching the lights, seeing them go to Amber and then flooring it to get through the lights before they actually went Redmond is so doing increasing speed.


If that was the case why not make it a Speed on Amber camera? I would argue that the number of drivers prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit across the junction whilst the lights were Green far out numbered any who were doing so whilst the light showed Amber. I would also bet that the vast majority of those prosecuted were at a speed of less than 40mph - hardly flooring it. 
I used to work for one of the largest traffic light manufacturers in the UK. As you have said the lights will not continue to function if a critical conflict is detected.


----------



## Mullsy (Aug 10, 2013)

rayc said:


> There was / is a very notorious Red Light camera on the dual carriageway entrance to Poole that was also Speed on Green. During the Green phase it acted as a speed camera and as a Red Light camera on the Red phase. After a huge outcry and having made a stack of money enforcement was stopped. Rumor has it that it is in fact still live but the enforcement threshold has been raised considerably above the 30mph speed limit.
> Having said all that I have not heard of anyone being prosecuted for speeding in addition to the Red Light offence.


 Thanks for that.Do the Speed on Green cameras not have the distance markers on the road? I thought that's how you could tell it also did speed checks.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Mullsy said:


> Thanks for that.Do the Speed on Green cameras not have the distance markers on the road? I thought that's how you could tell it also did speed checks.


The markers on the road are there for the secondary check i.e the camera is the primary and the markings are there to carry out a secondary check prior to a decision being made to prosecute or not. I believe the road markings are not the only approved method of carrying out the secondary check. The camera itself can have a grid pattern on it that will show up on the photo so the speed can be assessed by the time/distance method.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It'a an impressive example of how a minor infractions can be turned into a revenue gathering exercise. I'm sure it catches many people who would never risk it again if they were given a simple talking to as it does really bad eggs. Probably more. 

But there we go. It's automated and easy, doesn't cost much to do and I'm sure it's very profitable to run. 

I do wonder who runs it, a partnership divvying up the money?

I cannot help but be impressed by the way our laws are used to harvest money from motorists, Alan.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Ray

The Holes Bay (and other similar devices) are actually dual operation devices that operate as red light OR red light AND speed cameras. 

The speed detection mode has primacy and when the signals turn red it ALSO operates as a red light camera (all "standard" single function red light cameras record speed but ONLY when the lights are red) 

The whole purpose was to catch those who tried to beat the lights. There were a large number who were caught at 50+ (30 limit) which tends to suggest that it's installation was justified.

I am pretty sure it was one of the very first dual system units in the country. 

Alan.

Like all other automatic devices there is a simple sure fire way to beat them every single time.

Abide by the law :wink2:

Do you think that shoplifters should be let off? They don't cause injury or death, speeding red light jumping drivers do!


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Trite.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Alan

Would you feel the same if it was one of your family T boned by a red light jumper??

Have you ACTUALLY seen the results?? Well I have too many times, even at that very junction! AND I have had to do the dreaded "Knock on the door" far too many times to tell someone that their nearest and dearest won't be coming home 


EVER! 

Imagine it's YOUR door I knocked on once.

Andy

I speak from a position of personal experience.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

God. Spare me that lecture Andy.

I know that people break the law and it would be best if none of us did. I also know that at times it can happen quite unintentionally.

I'm sure that you wouldn't claim never to have gone through a traffic light a little late? Alan.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

erneboy said:


> It'a an impressive example of how a minor infractions can be turned into a revenue gathering exercise. I'm sure it catches many people who would never risk it again if they were given a simple talking to as it does really bad eggs. Probably more.
> 
> But there we go. It's automated and easy, doesn't cost much to do and I'm sure it's very profitable to run.
> 
> ...


On our local TV news tonight was a report that the number of drivers prosecuted for Dangerous Driving was at an all time low. At the same time the number of attendees at Driver Awareness Courses for minor offences is at an all time high. It is no coincidence as road safety policing is about the easily detectable not the most dangerous. Dorset Police also get to keep the surplus from running the courses so there is plenty of incentive to catch those who meet the criteria for attending them, rather than those whose driving is worthy of a trip to court.
When speed cameras were first introduced we were told that it would free up Traffic Officers to concentrate on serious offences. Instead they cut their numbers at a stroke by over a third. Dorset has less than 40 dedicated Traffic Officers and I understand Devon & Cornwall Police Traffic Officers number 57 in 2014 from 239 in 2010. In fact they had none at all in In the 12-month period ending March 2012 and in the 12 month period ending March 2013.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Cameras do not detect stupid driving offences, only specific offences at specific locations that have a proven history of injury collisions.

The reduction in dedicated traffic police was a political decision taken in the Tony Blair years. The vast majority of policemen would welcome better traffic law enforcement but the politicians don't want to.

Alan

I have not knowingly been through a red light, (other than on a blue light run of course) if I have then I would accept the fact, pay up and learn from it, rather than bleating on about it "Not being fair" If I went through a red light there would only be one person at fault ME! I would view it as driving without due care and attention rather than "just" running a red light. I accept that our views will always differ, like I said I have had first hand experience many times, I doubt if you have had any similar experiences. I don't know what your profession was but I would doubt my knowledge of it would be anything other than cursory! 

Andy


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Mrplodd said:


> Ray
> 
> The Holes Bay (and other similar devices) are actually dual operation devices that operate as red light OR red light AND speed cameras.
> 
> The whole purpose was to catch those who tried to beat the lights. There were a large number who were caught at 50+ (30 limit) which tends to suggest that it's installation was justified.


I know that is why they are called Speed on Green cameras. It was reported that there it made £1m in fines in its first year of operation. At £60 a time that is getting on for 17,000 offenders. I do not believe for one moment they were all amber gamblers. The Echo reported that the Holes Bay site has witnessed just one serious accident since 1999.
When you read of the goings on in the maternity care at Cumbria's Furness General Hospital you soon come to the conclusion that talk of 'one death is one to many' does not apply everywhere as it does in the road safety enforcement world.


----------



## keithfw (Jul 14, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> TM
> 
> I used to deal with red light and camera offences for a while.
> 
> Unless you were going through a red light in order to let an ambulance or similar emergency service vehicle approaching from behind you go through (which it appears you were not) then its really not worth trying to argue.


Thats not correct in Sussex - I deliberately drove slowly through a red light to let an ambulance pass and I got done for it. I had 2 people stop and signal me to go through so the ambulance could pass by so it was a very controlled manoeuvre yet Sussex cops still did me for it.


----------



## hondaboy (Apr 23, 2014)

Mrplodd said:


> Cameras do not detect stupid driving offences, only specific offences at specific locations that have a proven history of injury collisions.
> 
> I would dispute your statement that cameras were put ay specific locations. There are 2 cameras that have been installed at 2 locations in Maidstone and no one can ever remember there being any type of accident at those locations.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Here are the official figures for Holes Bay Road - difficult to see that the camera has made any difference other than increasing the fines.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Ploddy, I'm not bleating about anything. I'm saying that cameras have proven very effective at revenue gathering and that it's my belief, shared by many, that that's become a large part of their function.

I'm saying that in many cases people do try to drive well and that many of those people would respond very well to a warning. I'll go further and suggest that when people are simply relieved of cash that experience may have an effect on their respect for the law, Alan.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> ........
> Alan
> 
> ............ I don't know what your profession was but I would doubt my knowledge of it would be anything other than cursory!
> ...


That has nothing whatever to do with this discussion Andy. I'm a motorist, a tax payer and a voter. As such it's perfectly valid for me to suggest that, in some respects, law enforcement is being done badly when that's what I think, Alan.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

peribro said:


> Here are the official figures for Holes Bay Road - difficult to see that the camera has made any difference other than increasing the fines.


That is for the northbound camera which was not enforced so rigorously as the Southbound according to reports at the time. There were also bound to be less speeding offences as it was on the departure from Poole preceded by a roundabout.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

rayc said:


> That is for the northbound camera which was not enforced so rigorously as the Southbound according to reports at the time. There were also bound to be less speeding offences as it was on the departure from Poole preceded by a roundabout.


These are the stats for the Southbound camera. In the two yearly periods, 2009 - 2011 that the camera was 'Speed on Green' there were 21,000 NIP issued in addition to the 700 red light offences. There are no reported fatalities and in the period 2006 - 2012 no collision injuries or fatalities at all.
If you were in charge of road safety and your belief was that the speed limit was vital would you accept 21,000 offenders? Would you not want to investigate the reasons why and engineer them out? Dorset police stated quite openly that the Speed on Green camera was not aimed at casualty reduction. In the end public opinion prevailed and the enforcement of Speed on Green was dropped.

http://www.dorsetroadsafe.org.uk/im...Holes Bay RdPoole jw Sterte Road 1023 Sbd.pdf


----------



## valphil (Sep 5, 2012)

Mrplodd said:


> Peribro
> 
> I don't know where you got your information from but......
> 
> ...


 Then the cop that did me for that exact offence in my artic , shouldn't have done , at least it reinforces my view on traffic cops


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

I assume that this was dealt with by way of a fixed penalty notice? As I cannot see any court convicting you because the offence is failing to stop AT a red signal, if you have passed it you cannot see it, You cannot react to something you cannot see. If double yellow lines are obscured by mud etc you canot be convicted of a parking offence. 

I certainly would not even have THOUGHT of booking you under those circumstances for the above reason. its impossible to fail to conform to something you cannot see. 

It's a bit like that awful crash a few weeks ago where the young chap lost control of a truck on a hill and killed the school kids. There was a width restriction on that road BUT the sign had been knocked down a few days earlier, therefore he couldn't be prosecuted for failing to comply with the (non existent) width restriction sign. Which is entirely correct in my view.


----------



## valphil (Sep 5, 2012)

yes , fixed penalty , no point going to court , his word against mine , there's only going to be one winner


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

Strikes me that some people want it both ways.
I have to admit that I constantly brake the law when driving but I won't whinge if and when I get caught.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> ....... There was a width restriction on that road BUT the sign had been knocked down a few days earlier, therefore he couldn't be prosecuted for failing to comply with the (non existent) width restriction sign. Which is entirely correct in my view.


If that had been told to me before I accepted the Fixed Penalty for speeding near the M5 on a dual carriageway, where the same road has a 50mph limit on the other side of the M5 at Taunton, and there is only ONE sign and that is amongst overgrown trees on the left side of the road, no sign on the right hand side and no road markings to indicate 30mph.........

and that was obscured by a large lorry parked in the bay beside it so the whole hedgerow with the sign embedded deep within it was invisible .....

At the time I was told by local residents that the mobile speed camera on the hill there is there frequently "to raise money" - the limit is 30mph but far from clearly marked.....

The actions of the Police force involved seem to be less than honest to me......

but I accepted the fixed penalty notice and the three points and the raised insurance premiums and from what you are saying I should not have been served with the NIP at all......

Dave :frown2:


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

Penquin said:


> If that had been told to me before I accepted the Fixed Penalty for speeding near the M5 on a dual carriageway, where the same road has a 50mph limit on the other side of the M5 at Taunton, and there is only ONE sign and that is amongst overgrown trees on the left side of the road, no sign on the right hand side and no road markings to indicate 30mph.........
> 
> and that was obscured by a large lorry parked in the bay beside it so the whole hedgerow with the sign embedded deep within it was invisible .....
> 
> ...


Dave,
If you were aware of all those factors, apart from the " to raise money", I am surprised that you didn't fight it at the time.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Penquin said:


> If that had been told to me before I accepted the Fixed Penalty for speeding ........but I accepted the fixed penalty notice and the three points and the raised insurance premiums and from what you are saying I should not have been served with the NIP at all......
> 
> Dave :frown2:


I admitted, and still do, that I was doing 46 mph in what was a 30mph restricted area, so the NIP was correct It is only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the comment which substantially said that "If you cannot see the sign you cannot be charged with breaking the law" that I was not aware of....

I admit I was doing 46 mph so the points etc are justified, it would have been wriggling out of it to claim, however correct such a claim would have been, that I could not see the only sign indicating the restriction (and it is still marked in exactly the same way as we checked a few weeks ago when going to VanBitz at Taunton) since it was hidden amongst vegetation as well as by a lorry.......

I am sure that some sharp legal practice would take great delight (and considerable financial reward) for fighting what must be very, very many such incorrect NIP due to the poor signage there......

Maybe that should be done, but for me, the actual offence is correct I WAS doing 46 mph in a 30mph limit...... my error and fault.

Dave


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Penquin said:


> I admitted, and still do, that I was doing 46 mph in what was a 30mph restricted area, so the NIP was correct It is only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the comment which substantially said that "If you cannot see the sign you cannot be charged with breaking the law" that I was not aware of....
> 
> I admit I was doing 46 mph so the points etc are justified, it would have been wriggling out of it to claim, however correct such a claim would have been, that I could not see the only sign indicating the restriction (and it is still marked in exactly the same way as we checked a few weeks ago when going to VanBitz at Taunton) since it was hidden amongst vegetation as well as by a lorry.......
> 
> ...


But as Mr P said earlier you should only be "accused" of and "convicted" of an offence IF you could reasonably have known you were committing the offence.

If the signage is not legal, it is not legal to serve a NIP and the penalty (if charged) is also unlawful. 
If the signage is still obscured and so invalid so is the restriction - you should challenge the penalty.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Stanner said:


> If the signage is not legal, it is not legal to serve a NIP and the penalty (if charged) is also unlawful.
> If the signage is still obscured and so invalid so is the restriction - you should challenge the penalty.


Unless of course there were street lights no more than 200 yards apart on the road in question in which case the fact that the signage was obscured is not a defence.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

peribro said:


> Unless of course there were street lights no more than 200 yards apart on the road in question in which case the fact that the signage was obscured is not a defence.


Yes, of course.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

That whole Motorway junction and all of the dual carriageways are lit with lights closer than 200m, even the road with the definite 50 mph limit going into Taunton, it is still lit with lights closer than that, so I have no real chance of challenging it, and it was now nearly 5 years ago so is all time expired.....

Live and learn - I am VERY careful on that piece of road whenever we venture into the Wild West....... (c/w rural France....:wink2::nerd: )

Thanks for the suggestions, it all goes to show how much of a minefield all of these things are, simple answer don't drive faster than 20mph anywhere for fear of breaking a limit (that would be popular wouldn't it....:surprise: ) and always stop at green lights so that you can be sure they have JUST turned green as you cross......

I wonder how long it would be before some sharp officer in blue served a NIP for obstructing the flow or similar......:frown2:

Dave


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Dave

Is this the section of road by the park and ride as you approach from the Yeovil direction?? I would agree 100% that this is one of the most unreasonable 30mph speed limits in the country!!!!! However that doesn't negate the fact that there is a bloody daft (and heavily enforced) limit. 

I made some enquiries as to the reasoning behind the limit "Road safety sir, there is a busy entrance to and from the park and ride" I did point out that the park and ride access was controlled by traffic lights but was advised "That makes no difference sir" Head, brick wall, beat ?????


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Just after the M5 junction for Taunton, the dual carriageway into Taunton is 50 mph, the other way towards Yeovil is 30 mph but only has one sign on the nearside, agree there are traffic lights there - I had stopped at them and was then driving towards the Shepton Mallet show on a quiet Sunday morning....

The camera van is apparently commonly parked on the right hand side looking back at that section as there are very many others caught in the same place.....

I did try the police for a Freedom of Information request about how many have been caught there, but was told "we cannot provide that information", no reason given......

I strongly suspect the reason is that there are very very many and that it is a cash cow location and is deliberately kept so poorly marked because of that reason......

But it was a while ago and I have moved on (although still annoyed at myself for speeding........)

Dave


----------



## Murano (Mar 22, 2006)

Mrplodd said:


> I assume that this was dealt with by way of a fixed penalty notice? As I cannot see any court convicting you because the offence is failing to stop AT a red signal, if you have passed it you cannot see it, You cannot react to something you cannot see. If double yellow lines are obscured by mud etc you canot be convicted of a parking offence.
> 
> I certainly would not even have THOUGHT of booking you under those circumstances for the above reason. its impossible to fail to conform to something you cannot see.
> 
> It's a bit like that awful crash a few weeks ago where the young chap lost control of a truck on a hill and killed the school kids. There was a width restriction on that road BUT the sign had been knocked down a few days earlier, therefore he couldn't be prosecuted for failing to comply with the (non existent) width restriction sign. Which is entirely correct in my view.


Thats very interesting about the double yellow lines, I had always been under the impression that, that was why not only yellow lines are required but there must also be the sign on a nearby post. Assuming that you are correct does this also indicate that if yellow lines are non exixstant due to wear, then one can park there without fear of a parking ticket ?


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Murano said:


> Thats very interesting about the double yellow lines, I had always been under the impression that, that was why not only yellow lines are required but there must also be the sign on a nearby post. Assuming that you are correct does this also indicate that if yellow lines are non exixstant due to wear, then one can park there without fear of a parking ticket ?


You will probably get the ticket but the lines and signage are defective in ANY way you should be able (on presenting adequate evidence) get the ticket cancelled.

Just the "termination bar" missing from the double yellows should be enough to make them invalid - indeed a layer of snow is enough but some parking adjudicators have not accepted the word of law on this saying it is "trivial".

http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/parking-ticket-lines-signs/


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Stanner said:


> You will probably get the ticket but the lines and signage are defective in ANY way you should be able (on presenting adequate evidence) get the ticket cancelled.
> 
> Just the "termination bar" missing from the double yellows should be enough to make them invalid - indeed a layer of snow is enough but some parking adjudicators have not accepted the word of law on this saying it is "trivial".
> 
> http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/parking-ticket-lines-signs/


Or not maybe. My BiL, who you've met Stanner, was done for parking on non existent double yellow lines. A stretch of road had been dug up and patched and the lines had gone. He let it go to a Magistrates court and went along with a folder full of photographs and drawings with dimensions on. The Magistrate listened for a minute or so then yelled, "Ten pounds, next".


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Dave

The law is that if you enter an area where a speed limit is lower (50 into 30 for example) then there must be TWO terminal 30 signs one on either side of the road or carriageway. There is also a minimum distance that the signs must be visible from ( off the top of my head I think 50-30 it's 60m

The camera operators are INSTRUCTED to check that all signs are there and visible and photograph them each time a check is carried out. If they actually do that or not is debatable, especially in regards to clear lines of sight.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Thanks for that, lots of new information which I wish I had known then....

sadly I very much doubt that anything could, or would be done now.....

but at least all traces of the offence have now vanished from my licence as more than 4 years have passed.....

Dave


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

erneboy said:


> Or not maybe. My BiL, who you've met Stanner, was done for parking on non existent double yellow lines. A stretch of road had been dug up and patched and the lines had gone. He let it go to a Magistrates court and went along with a folder full of photographs and drawings with dimensions on. The Magistrate listened for a minute or so then yelled, "Ten pounds, next".


Just because you are done it doesn't mean you were done "lawfully".
That case should have been challenged with the adjudicator, not allowed to go before a magistrate.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Stanner said:


> Just because you are done it doesn't mean you were done "lawfully".
> That case should have been challenged with the adjudicator, not allowed to go before a magistrate.


I suspect that it happened in the days before parking was decriminalised.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

rayc said:


> I suspect that it happened in the days before parking was decriminalised.


Could be, it was quite a while ago.


----------

