Free Traffic Legal Advice

There was a popular misconception many years ago, that there was a requirement for speed cameras to be conspicuous in order for the speeding offence to be prosecuted. This was largely due to Tony Blair saying that that was going to be the case. Surprisingly enough, it was a big fat lie.

What the rules actually were, before they were rescinded many years ago, at first glance at least, that in order for the safety camera partnerships to be able to retain the income from the fixed penalties (and return any surplus they hadn't managed to fiddle to the exchequer), 85% of enforcement sites had to meet the conspicuity requirements. This had no bearing whatsoever on the admissibility of the evidence, it was just a rule regarding keeping the money. Except that the rules were enforced by the safety camera partnerships themselves - if they became aware that they were not complying with the rules, they had the power to report themselves to themselves and then decide whether or not they still ought to keep the money.

Quote from: Lynch004 on February 01, 2026, 02:30:12 am

...was just seeing if there was a quick resolution.

Absent any actual defence (nothing you've said so far hints at one) then the quickest resolution will be a course to avoid the points or a fixed penalty (3 points £100).

Thank you for your time in responding.
I genuinely don't dispute that I was speeding, it is just annoying because I genuinely try to abide by the speed limit. Whilst not an excuse, I was over taking another motor vehicle, my bad.
Cheers

Quote from: andy_foster on February 01, 2026, 06:38:45 am

There was a popular misconception many years ago, that there was a requirement for speed cameras to be conspicuous in order for the speeding offence to be prosecuted. This was largely due to Tony Blair saying that that was going to be the case. Surprisingly enough, it was a big fat lie.

What the rules actually were, before they were rescinded many years ago, at first glance at least, that in order for the safety camera partnerships to be able to retain the income from the fixed penalties (and return any surplus they hadn't managed to fiddle to the exchequer), 85% of enforcement sites had to meet the conspicuity requirements. This had no bearing whatsoever on the admissibility of the evidence, it was just a rule regarding keeping the money. Except that the rules were enforced by the safety camera partnerships themselves - if they became aware that they were not complying with the rules, they had the power to report themselves to themselves and then decide whether or not they still ought to keep the money.

I just question why the Constabularies bother with the signage in the first place if it is not required. The whole 165 miles of my journey has Speed camera warnings/in operation signs apart from the said section of the M50.

Presumably because it's a cheaper way of encouraging people to slow down than having the cameras everywhere.

But why stop encouraging people to slow down on this particular stretch of road? Surely, the signage should still be there?

Signs cost money, so why put them up if you don't have too?

Anyhow, moving on from the Signage. I have a few questions about the evidence on the Constabulary's website.

Can I challenge on any of the following?
Images of Vehicle Reg. are not very clear.
Calibration certificate of Device, just not state that it has been Distance checked at the distance of the actual devices recording. It has been tested upto 150m the evidence states 300m.
There are no training certificates for the Operating Officer.

Thanks

Images of Vehicle Reg. are not very clear.

Since you don't dispute the allegation, they are obviously clear enough to identify your vehicle - which is all they need to do.

To dispute any of the issues you mention you will have to turn down the offer of a  course or fixed penalty (cost of each about £100) and plead not guilty in court. The cost of failure there (which is fairly certain from what you have said) will be at least £850 even if you have a minimal income, and is more likely to exceed £1,000.

Going "fishing" can be an expensive business - especially if you don't catch anything!   

Which going by your logic, why have they bothered putting the signs up along the other 155 miles of my route? 

Who is "they"? I suspect over that 155 mile route you have passed through several police force areas and councils. I think this horse has been flogged enough, let it RIP.