-
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. -
-
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? -
-
BBC News - Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818174 -
-
BBC News - Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign
That report is far more inadequate that the signage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818174
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.
-
-
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) -
-
Properly signed.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
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. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
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. -
-
The first picture is 'the point on entry'
-
-
BBC News - Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign
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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818174
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.QuoteThere 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. -
-
Quote
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.QuoteSo 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.QuoteThe 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. -
-
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. -
-
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. -
Agree x 1
View List