Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: Donostio on April 04, 2024, 03:02:43 pm
-
Ha! No ill will. We do have different views on it though.
I spoke with the solicitor involved in the Forster case for 37 minutes this morning, regarding the evidence that was heard and the mitigation accepted by the magistrate. More out of curiosity than need. Since my licence isn’t on the line I’m still best to just plead guilty, take the points and £100 fine, and not go to court.
He had a slightly different view/recollection of it than your associate...
Others with more at stake may want to challenge the charges. Like the poor sods that have unwittingly got 5-10 tickets in two weeks and are facing a ban! There are at least four more cases coming up in court soon. It will be interesting to see how they go. To court is unlikely to be that sympathetic but a few wins may force the hand of the Met / TfL to install better signage. Though since the limit is supposed to go back to 70mph within 12 months that is unlikely, and they also will not want to cast doubt on the previous convictions by changing the signage now. So it will probably remain a case by case fix, with legal costs. For example, if you were driving at night, in rain, with traffic and lorries on your left you may have a reasonable case that the signs (while meeting the minimum in law) were not adequate for you to see them.
-
Obviously, a rogue 50mph sign towards the end of a restricted stretch of road cannot possibly have contributed to an increased number of motorists caught speeding, as motorists are physically incapable of recalling having seen such a sign on previous journeys and assuming the limit to be that which the sign purported to indicate.
This causes me a great deal of difficulty as I live in a large town, with mostly 30mph restricted roads with a compliant system of street lighting. When I start a journey from home, I have to guess how far I need to drive without seeing a "regularly spaced repeater" (as the requirement for maximum spacing was replaced with the requirement for the spacing to be regular, which doesn't mean regular) in order to determine that the speed limit is in fact 30mph. Unless it's a motorway. It doesn't look like a motorway, but judging the speed limit of a road from how it looks isn't as easy as it used to be when urban dual carriageways were invariably 40mph.
-
It only meets the minimum in law: 30cm, unlit, low level and on one side of the road...
That is incorrect. There are twin “40” roundels, one each side of the carriageway on each of the two entries to the stretch. Whilst I haven’t measured them, I would guess they are larger than 30cm. Here’s GSV images of the two locations. The first is on the slip road from the Crittals corner roundabout; the second is on the main eastbound carriageway towards the end of the flyover. These images were taken before the new limit was imposed, and NSL roundels are visible. These have been replaced with “40” roundels of the same size and, as far as I can see, using the same mounting posts.
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.41266,0.115838,114.32h,0.99p,1z,zTU951oZ-0g818wgJzsekQ
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.412276,0.117029,90h,5p,0z,ZachmDzHGp3x0nHPGrg8bg
These are perfectly clear and, as far as I can tell, comply with the usual signage which conveys the limit, not just to the barest minimum, but perfectly adequately. They are no different to any other “terminal” signs seen elsewhere. There is street lighting in both these locations (they are virtually adjacent to each other) so no illumination of the signs is necessary. Neither of these images seem to concur with the photo you posted at 4:08pm yesterday, which you assert is at the the point of entry. That looks to be taken much further east, before the brow of the hill before the road begins its descent towards Swanley half a mile or so into the stretch, probably about here:
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.41071,0.125029,113.33h,-0.57p,0z,SZTXO_gWXQxeTS_s3QIyaA
The other picture you posted is at the first countdown marker to the service area, so almost at the end of the stretch.
So perhaps, if that is so, you should surmise why so very many motorists are falling foul of this change in the speed limit.
I’ve absolutely no idea. What I can say is that even with all the recent publicity (including on national television) drivers are still hammering along well in excess of 40mph, some I would suggest at up to 70mph. I cannot explain this other than to think they are regular users who simply have not noticed the reduced limit. But it is certainly not because of deficient signage.
The magistrates showed leniency due to the signage being the bare minimum in law. You are confusing your *view of the situation* with *facts* and what happened in a courtroom where you were not present.
No, I was not in the courtroom, but I have a reliable acquaintance who was. That’s how I found out about Mr Foster’s ten points because, as far as I am aware, no other source has reported it, preferring instead to emphasise that he was "only " banned for 28 days instead of six months. Mr Foster’s solicitor did not plead for leniency on the basis of deficient signage; he asked for an alternative approach to twelve points and a totting up ban, bearing in mind that the offences all occurred in the same place within about a week, and all having been committed before he got notification of the first. It is that plea which the Magistrates reacted to. He accepted that his client must have suffered a lack of observation. Unfortunately Mr Foster and his family painted a slightly different picture of the proceedings when he was interviewed for TV as he left court.
No publicity would have been given to this issue had it not been for the “rogue” 50 sign which appeared for a short period after Christmas. The Facebook group which had been formed to discuss it firstly rounded firmly on this as a reason for the high number of transgressions. This was dismissed by the police because the rogue sign, being sited almost at the end of the stretch, played little or no part in the transgressions. It seems the attention is now centred on “inadequate” signage.
We’re straying way too far into “Flame Pit” territory here and I fear the moderator’s sword may descend on us, so I’ll leave it there.
-
BBC News - Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818174
Quite why the Magistrates went against their guidance (which suggests they should have imposed points for all four offences thus making him liable to a “totting up” ban) is unknown, but was not (or at least should not have been) because of inadequate signage.
The magistrates showed leniency due to the signage being the bare minimum in law. You are confusing your *view of the situation* with *facts* and what happened in a courtroom where you were not present. The magistrate had a different view to yours - based on the evidence they heard.
There was no evidence to support that principally because the signage is clear and compliant. I know because I drive that stretch quite often. Not only is the required signage quite clear but there are also notices warning drivers of the new limit which have been in place since the limit was imposed last autumn.
The signage could be much clearer. It only meets the minimum in law: 30cm, unlit, low level and on one side of the road. Indeed it is also not a legal requirement that speed cameras are bright yellow and not hidden in trees. Most are, this one is not. It is an extraordinary (and new) speed limit, so it would ideally have extraordinary signage - or at least signage as good as that in similar situations. That was the evidence that was heard.
Indeed the defendant pleaded guilty (because the signage is the bare minimum required in law). The mitigation included the fact that the signage could be much clearer than it is and can be missed - especially for an extraordinary new limit.
I did not see other notices where I joined the section, and I would not have seen the advance warning notices in Autumn. Unlike yourself I am an infrequent user of that road. Even so, I have used it a great number of times in the past at 70 miles per hour.
You're adamant the signage is sufficient and perfectly visible to all and you surmise (in fact you assert) the magistrate has not decided otherwise. So perhaps, if that is so, you should surmise why so very many motorists are falling foul of this change in the speed limit. Could it be that regular users of this road, mostly people who live in the area, are more prone to poor eyesight, are less observant, or less law abiding? Perhaps, since so many people have attracted multiple tickets for the first time here, we need to surmise that something awful entered the water supply in the last six months that has affected their eyesight.
-
The first picture is 'the point on entry'
-
Bizarrely low. Especially for a road that has been 70mph for YEARS. If you are in the right hand lane with a van (let alone a truck or a couple of lorries) on your left you are not going to see that. (Attachment Link)
Maybe not.
But the sign in your image is one of many repeaters on the stretch and the one shown is about 500 yards from its end (which is just past the BP/McDonalds service area in the distance). At the two points of entry to it (at the beginning of the Crittals Corner flyover and on the slip road from the roundabout) there are pairs of larger "terminal" 40 signs. As well as that, before each of those there are large "easel" style notices warning drivers of the new limit.
-
Bizarrely low. Especially for a road that has been 70mph for YEARS. If you are in the right hand lane with a van (let alone a truck or a couple of lorries) on your left you are not going to see that. [attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Properly signed.
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The most prolific speed camera in the UK last year was on the A40, catching 49,000 people over a year. This one camera on the A20 in Sidcup caught 62,000 in 5 weeks.
That's six million and two-hundred thousand pounds (if only £100 / head)
-
BBC News - Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818174
That report is far more inadequate that the signage.
Mr Foster pleaded guilty to all four charges. He had legal representation and would not have done that had he been arguing that the signage was inadequate. Missing from the report is the small detail that he actually left the court not only with a 28 day ban but also with ten penalty points. This indicates that the court imposed a total of ten points for three of the offences and a 28 day ban for the fourth. Quite why the Magistrates went against their guidance (which suggests they should have imposed points for all four offences thus making him liable to a “totting up” ban) is unknown, but was not (or at least should not have been) because of inadequate signage.
There was no evidence to support that principally because the signage is clear and compliant. I know because I drive that stretch quite often. Not only is the required signage quite clear but there are also notices warning drivers of the new limit which have been in place since the limit was imposed last autumn.
-
BBC News - Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818174
-
You get good free advice from ex Lawyers and Learned people on here.....please raise awareness of the 2 sites to friends and family who may also be suffering.
Suffering what?
its going to be a real interesting time with the Court Cases about to start!!!
Interesting how?
-
AFAIAA/IIRC, if a 20mph SAC has been completed you would be ineligible for a NSAC due to them being the same type of course. For some reason, when they existed a smart motorway course was considered different and offered alongside existing SACs. Similar for Red Light offences and Speeding offences.
But regardless of it's title, a speed awareness course is a speed awareness course and only one can be taken in the qualifying time period.
-
I'm not sure why you think I have intimated that I believe the court would for some reason only considered one offence.
What I have asked is would a court consider them together in the same hearing
As you would get a fixed penalty there would be no need to be in court at all, that’s why ‘combined in court’ only seemed to have one logical meaning.
-
Donostio
I am surprised there are not more people from the Sidcup Area seeking advice from pages like this and Pepipoo.
You get good free advice from ex Lawyers and Learned people on here.....please raise awareness of the 2 sites to friends and family who may also be suffering.
its going to be a real interesting time with the Court Cases about to start!!!
-
Just to emphasise, a fixed penalty is leniency. The police are perfectly entitled to see you prosecuted in court where the prosecution costs alone will be almost £100, and that's before you get to the actual fine and "Victim Surcharge".
-
Your 30-year clean licence is not mitigation. In any event, how would you prove it?
For at least some (possibly most) of those 30 years you must have managed OK without satnav, so you should be able to do so again.
If you were to ignore the advice and go to court, it would cost a lot more than £200.
1) How do I prove what? That I have a clean licence? I don't foresee that being hard to do at all, do you? But as you have suggested it's probably not germane anyway.
2) Yes I have driven without Sat Nav in the past. What is your point? I will still rely on Sat Nav for navigation. If anything I will turn off the speed limit advice entirely so I 100% use signage and my highway code knowledge. Have you somehow got the impression that I have argued that I must rely on a Sat Nav for the speed limit? That is curious.
3) Why are you suggesting that I would ignore the advice of those with experience and knowledge on this site? In my last post I have literally summarised back the that advice that I have got and will be following. I came here to check if there was any value / merit in either questioning the A20 charge or asking for leniency. And I got the answer I needed - even if it's not the answer one might have hoped for.
1. It's easy to prove that you currently have a clean licence. But points drop off after four years: how would you prove it had been clean for the previous 26??
2. It was you who said "I've have been relying to much on sav navs"
3. You asked "So I'm hearing that there's no point in pleading for leniency?". I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out consequences of doing so.
-
Yes, it was the 20mph course I did. I thought it was one chance at a course of any type.
I am not stating any certainties.
Historically it was one of each. The qualification was speed and has one of the same type been done.
Sometime (I think during covid) the only course for any offence that got offered became the NSAC course after they had figured online delivery.
There are some limited reports of people being offered NSAC course for a current offence where they have a completed 20mph or motorway course.
All you can do is wait and see.
6pts isn't the end of the world for insurance, but can be a problem for some corporate.
-
Your 30-year clean licence is not mitigation. In any event, how would you prove it?
For at least some (possibly most) of those 30 years you must have managed OK without satnav, so you should be able to do so again.
If you were to ignore the advice and go to court, it would cost a lot more than £200.
1) How do I prove what? That I have a clean licence? I don't foresee that being hard to do at all, do you? But as you have suggested it's probably not germane anyway.
2) Yes I have driven without Sat Nav in the past. What is your point? I will still rely on Sat Nav for navigation. If anything I will turn off the speed limit advice entirely so I 100% use signage and my highway code knowledge. Have you somehow got the impression that I have argued that I must rely on a Sat Nav for the speed limit? That is curious.
3) Why are you suggesting that I would ignore the advice of those with experience and knowledge on this site? In my last post I have literally summarised back the that advice that I have got and will be following. I came here to check if there was any value / merit in either questioning the A20 charge or asking for leniency. And I got the answer I needed - even if it's not the answer one might have hoped for.
-
You said in one of your other threads you had done a course for a 20mph offence some time ago.
Can you recall if it was a 20mph course? You may be able to find out from your booking/completion documentation.
There used to be a 20mph course, a national course and a motorway course. You could do one of each.
If it was a 20mph course then this offence may be eligible for a course.
Yes, it was the 20mph course I did. I thought it was one chance at a course of any type. Do you have information that I could just get 3 points for the second 20 zone violation and do a course for the first 40mph violation (and so avoid 6 points)?
-
You said in one of your other threads you had done a course for a 20mph offence some time ago.
Can you recall if it was a 20mph course? You may be able to find out from your booking/completion documentation.
There used to be a 20mph course, a national course and a motorway course. You could do one of each.
If it was a 20mph course then this offence may be eligible for a course.
-
So I'm hearing that there's no point in pleading for leniency? And I have to take 6 points and 200 quid.
Your 30-year clean licence is not mitigation. In any event, how would you prove it?
For at least some (possibly most) of those 30 years you must have managed OK without satnav, so you should be able to do so again.
If you were to ignore the advice and go to court, it would cost a lot more than £200.
-
I'm not sure why you think I have intimated that I believe the court would for some reason only considered one offence.
If he didn’t, it would be harder for him to berate you whilst ‘helping’ you.
-
Thanks, that is a helpful reply.
Obviously I'm concerned what 6 points is going to do to my car insurance and my ability to hire cars.
Yeah, I have to accept that it's all lawful, but going eastbound at least I did genuinely miss the 40 signs and have relied on habit and Google maps too much.
It seems others have genuinely done so as well.
It doesn't seem fair these three tickets in 12 months. After 30 years of driving and my efforts to follow the speed limit previously working fine.
Sometimes, Google maps previous experience/habit, and the nature of the road all appear to be at odds with the actual limit. I only go down there sporadically to Kent. And as you know, I've been relying on Google maps far too much.
So I'm hearing that there's no point in pleading for leniency? And I have to take 6 points and 200 quid.
-
I know the stretch very well (I drove along it at 6:30am today). I also know about the publicity regarding the alleged lack of signage and about the rogue "50" sign.
The new limit is perfectly well signed. In fact, coming from the London direction, as well as the large "40" roundels I believe there is still a sign warning "new limit in force due to flooding risk" (or similar) between Frognal Corner and Crittals Corner.
The police statement was to do with the short period when the "rogue" 50 sign was present. This was allegedly erected by an unauthorised party (that stretch has never been subject to a 50mph limit) and the police calculated that it was so far into the stretch that drivers would have been exceeding the speed limit anyway before they reached it (the stretch is enforced by an average speed camera system).
So I don't see that you have any defence.
Neither this latest offence nor your earlier 25 in a 20 should go near a court. You should be offered a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) for each.
-
I'm not sure why you think I have intimated that I believe the court would for some reason only considered one offence.
What I have asked is would a court consider them together in the same hearing and would I have any mitigation by having a 30-year clear record and then being liable having relied (wrongly) on Google maps and being subject to (particularly for this second ticket) changing speed limit from 70 to 50 and then a hurried implementation of a 40
- which may meet the legal requirements (?) but clearly has caught out hundreds of people who are actively trying to follow the speed limit. Sorry if that was not clear in my first post.
-
By 'combined in court' do you mean will the court sentence you for a single offence? Not a hope!
As for lenience, going to court will cost more than a fixed penalty however lenient they are, absent an actual DEFENCE to an allegation (was the limit created correctly, is it signed correctly) you will now have 2 fixed penalties for 3pts/£100 each.
You're going to need to improve your observation obviously (also perhaps knowledge of speed limits and how they are signed), if your car has an adaptive speed limiter then learn to use it perhaps?
Nothing in those links helps you of course.
-
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Metropolitan Police
Date of the offence: - 27/03/2024
Date of the NIP: - 03/04/2024
Date you received the NIP: - 04/04/2024
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A20 Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road (48114821)
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - 1st
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - My vehicle
How many current points do you have? - 0 (but I have a NIP for 25mph in a 20mph zone due to be replied to, AND a I had a previous 25mph-in-a-20mph-zone for which I did the awareness course last year)
I'm reeling. I'm 49 years old - been driving for thirty years without any speeding offences and now I've got 3 within 12 months! With the two live NIPs, will they be combined at court? Is it worth me pleading for lenience as a person who has a 30 year clear record and has switch to primarily checking the streets and not sat nav (which I was doing in error for all three tickets) and switched from Google maps to Wazes as a result of these?
I gather that "A20 Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road" is infamous. It has gone from 70mph, to 50, to 40! There has been lots of noise about the new signage not being clear enough or people not being adequately alerted to the most recent change (the rouge/'unauthorised'50mph was removed before my ticket though). I don't know if these have any basis in law...
Again, I've have been relying to much on sav navs' which are not up to date.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/police-to-push-on-with-a20-speeding-fines-despite-fake-sig-301685/
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24078266.a20-eastbound-sidcup-leads-dozens-speeding-fines/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c84nqxvvq37o
[attachment deleted by admin]