Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: tramsmantles on May 09, 2026, 11:14:00 pm
-
Thanks Andy.
Interesting potential defence strategy. Is it prudent to look into the TRO? The man putting up signage felt oddly coincidental. It's worth noting this was within the 'Zone' which is furnished with traffic calming measures as you suggest is appropriate for a 'zone'.
A quick search has yielded:
- TRO: https://store.traffweb.app/leeds/documents/parkmap/sched/Dated%20Citywide%20Map-Based%20Speed%20Limit%20Order%2030%201%2025.pdf
- Map of the tip of the street where the alleged office took place: https://ibb.co/qLYSxdY4 (yellow highlight the tip of the street, though it continues onto another map page).
- My unskilled interpretation (please rip apart) is that the TRO refers to *speed limits* not a *zone*. New
Street is signed as a zone: https://maps.app.goo.gl/mvpkqYCWnS8JAxuu5
- And for completeness: here's the man putting up repeaters on an adjacent street which still appears to be in the same 'zone': https://ibb.co/gM6k7RHf
The driver will be identified today.
-
Off the top of my head, there are 2 types of 20mph "restriction" - a 20mph zone and a 20 mph limit.
A 20mph zone requires terminal signs at the start/finish of the zone, and traffic calming measures (with stipulation on maximum distances between such measures).
A 20mph limit requires terminal signs and regular repeaters.
The signage on GSV indicates that it is a 20mph zone, and appears to have quite a few traffic calming measures (or at least have had when the images were recorded).
If "throughout the village" (where the repeater signs were being put up) is also a 20mph zone, rather than a 20mph limit, then there would appear to be no requirement for repeater signs, and presumably placing them would even be unlawful.
If the signage (including requirements for traffic calming measures) is defective, that might constitute a defence or defence strategy*. If the TRO is defective, then presumably there would be no 20mph restriction in law, so no offence could have been committed.
Were the camera van was parked is utterly irrelevant, and the requirement to serve a NIP on the RK within the 14 days appears to have been complied with.
Regardless of whether or not you have any defence to the speeding charge, you must name the driver by 28th May.
For speeds of up to 10% +9mph over the limit (so 31 in a 20 limit) you should expect to be offered an SAC. Received wisdom suggests that the s. 172 response admitting to being the driver would need to be received within 3 months of the offence, and the course completed within 4 months of the offence - so unless you have a reason for delaying, it would seem prudent to do so sooner rather than later.
You are far too far from timing out for delaying to be a worthwhile strategy to cause a time-out.
The only other common reason for delaying is if you were trying to get advance sight of the photo(s) on the ruse of asking for them in order to help to identify the driver.
-
Hey everyone,
Long time lurker and hold-over from the old Pepipoo days.
Before I start, everything is alleged.
This is in a company car, lease company is the owner and on the V5C.
Timeline:
3 March: Alleged offence of doing 30 in a 20mph zone around half a mile from home.
4 March: Lease company received NIP
9 March: Lease company responded nominating me
1 May: I received the NIP
The camera van was parked in a residents permit zone on a residential street, the speedo checked and, you can fill in the blanks...The location approximately here heading toward Bradford Road. https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZaYZp3suRMbbCrhY6
As an interesting aside, I noticed a man in a high-vis with police style markings putting up new 20 mph repeater speed signs just a day or two ago around the village.
I have the NIP, I need to respond within 28 days, I'd appreciate advice on how to deal with this.
I've not posted the NIP yet but can do so using an external service.
I last did a SAC in 2019.
Very many thanks.