Show Posts
1
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Subject: NIP for 36 mph in a 30 mph zone - Bondgate, Helmsley (Measurement dista
« on: May 19, 2026, 10:15:16 am »
An even bigger issue has just come to light regarding the locus (location) stated on the NIP.
The NIP states the location of the alleged offence as "Bondgate, Helmsley". However, I was actually on a completely different road name Link foot Ln at the time of the measurement (the A170 heading out towards Scarborough, past the terminal signs).
If the police have named the wrong street/location on the official Notice, does this constitute a "fatal flaw" in the prosecution's case? How strictly is the location requirement enforced in court for mobile speed van offences in North Yorkshire?
Thank you all for the swift and very detailed responses.
Here is the Google Street View link to the location of the 40 mph terminal signs (outbound):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wAkaU8M9N1mGAnwMA
Regarding the van's position:
If the van was parked in the layby near Carlton Road, the distance from that layby to the 40 mph signs is indeed roughly 350-355 metres.
However, looking closely at the camera's field of view in the NIP photo, the vehicle is already positioned well into the left-hand bend (which curves past the 40 mph signs towards the open fields).
If the laser was fired at 347.9m, and the layby-to-sign distance is around 352m, that would mathematically put me about 4-5 metres before the sign. But visually, on the photo, the central splitter island and the 40 mph signs themselves are completely behind the camera's frame/view, and the car is already on the banking of the curve.
Could the foreshortening effect of a teleobiektyw lens distort the perspective so heavily that a car already on the physical bend appears to be at 347m, or is it possible the van was parked slightly further back than the Carlton Road layby (e.g., closer to Linkfoot Lane)?
I will try to upload the redacted image via an external hosting site shortly so you can judge the curve perspective yourself.
Regarding the TRO - how can I check if the physical signs match the legal boundary for this specific stretch of the A170?
The NIP states the location of the alleged offence as "Bondgate, Helmsley". However, I was actually on a completely different road name Link foot Ln at the time of the measurement (the A170 heading out towards Scarborough, past the terminal signs).
If the police have named the wrong street/location on the official Notice, does this constitute a "fatal flaw" in the prosecution's case? How strictly is the location requirement enforced in court for mobile speed van offences in North Yorkshire?
Thank you all for the swift and very detailed responses.
Here is the Google Street View link to the location of the 40 mph terminal signs (outbound):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wAkaU8M9N1mGAnwMA
Regarding the van's position:
If the van was parked in the layby near Carlton Road, the distance from that layby to the 40 mph signs is indeed roughly 350-355 metres.
However, looking closely at the camera's field of view in the NIP photo, the vehicle is already positioned well into the left-hand bend (which curves past the 40 mph signs towards the open fields).
If the laser was fired at 347.9m, and the layby-to-sign distance is around 352m, that would mathematically put me about 4-5 metres before the sign. But visually, on the photo, the central splitter island and the 40 mph signs themselves are completely behind the camera's frame/view, and the car is already on the banking of the curve.
Could the foreshortening effect of a teleobiektyw lens distort the perspective so heavily that a car already on the physical bend appears to be at 347m, or is it possible the van was parked slightly further back than the Carlton Road layby (e.g., closer to Linkfoot Lane)?
I will try to upload the redacted image via an external hosting site shortly so you can judge the curve perspective yourself.
Regarding the TRO - how can I check if the physical signs match the legal boundary for this specific stretch of the A170?