[Snowball]

I think the real problems why road signs are being neglected is because there are so many of them. Accepting that time/costs are finite, then there is almost certainly maintenance attention is going to be percentage based as to how many get repaired/replaced.
Following this logic concludes that councils will attend to the signs on a complaints-received basis. Therefore, if the local tourist board is a lot more vigilant than the police, then it will be the trivia signs that get attention, not the vital road signs. If revenue is the controlling factor, a cynical (surely a fairytale?) appreciation could run as follows:

Speed signs replaced, but tourist attraction signs ignored = posible reduction in two lots of revenue.

Speed signs ignored, but tourist signs maintained = better chance of improving two lots of revenue.

No. Councils wouldn't do things like that, would they?

[wagolynn]

Like most cameras, fixed, mobile or handheld, the camera is well sited if entrapment is the name of the game. Bearing in mind that lots of cameras were sighted in the days when they were painted to blend in. All justified by the erroneous mantra, speed kills. On top of that, magistrates have this unwritten law that the police must be supported no matter what the facts are. Who cares about facts anyway we are only motorists.

[majortom]

I am pretty sure that signs will be cleared only after a complaint is made. The problem is that where a sign is likely to be hidden they should use their brains and mount the sign so that it cannot be obscured. It is not rocket science. As mentioned on this thread, overhead signs, have repeater signs for reinforcement, remove the hedge. They might want to save money, but how much does it cost scraping someone off the tarmac?

[smudger]

Naw! they will probably wait until after a bad accident has happened, then they will go and clear the obscured road signs, before any lawyer or accident investigator finds that it was hidden:rolleyes:

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by smudger879n

Naw! they will probably wait until after a bad accident has happened, then they will go and clear the obscured road signs, before any lawyer or accident investigator finds that it was hidden:rolleyes:

Looks as if our old friend Catch-22 is rearing its head again.
There seems to be a fine line between them wanting to collect fines, and getting us killed. They must have sleepless nights worrying about killing off the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

[AdamB]

Originally Posted by davesdad

Found this site very good for reporting things,have used it a couple of times and they send it direct to the local council

http://www.fixmystreet.com/

****. Avoid. We ignore most emails from this organisation. Why introduce someone else into the equation? You want to speak to your local authority, do so directly. Same goes for Highways Agency.

AdamB
Highways Engineer

[AdamB]

Originally Posted by majortom

Absolutely Snowball. I thought I was doing a service by getting the vegetation cleared, yet I am the only one being punished. I don't want to claim too much credit for that as it just took a few emails. I offered to clear it myself but they wouldn't let me, probably for valid health and safety reasons. It is retty much laziness, but I would also add that if an area is prone to that problem then additional measures or signs should be put in place. W Berks LA said that they hadn't cleared it due to staff shortages, so if that were true, or someone simply forgot then additional measures/signs could inform the driver. It's not rocket science! Furthermore, if just a fraction of the fines revenue collected was diverted to the Parish for that reason then the Parish couls have the signs that they have been asking for - because they have to live there. Where is the logic in denying them extra signs, having hidden signs, no money goes to the Parish and you clock people AFTER they have gone through the village by which time it might be too late!

Most people do not want to speed, so if they are informed then they won't. What is the point of not informing someone.....I just don't get it!

Hmmmmm,

Have you had the penalty reduced on appeal or did you elect to have your case heard at court when a NIP was received and the penalty reduced then? If so why was it a mandatory 6 points?

If you have email/letter from LA (Highway Authority) that clearly stated that vegetation was not cleared purely just due to staff shortages, then i would suggest you have a very strong case for defence. That is providing you have not already had, and lost, an appeal.

AdamB
Highways Engineer

[majortom]

Adam, I received the NIP for doing 51 in a 30 (6 points + fine; or 3 points + fine + course), I couldn't recall where I had been speeding, so the next time I was in the area I went to investigate. Found the nearside sign hidden in a hedge and the offside hidden in a tree. 3 miles of street lights at NSL, 30 signs hidden, bend, small village for say 300m, followed, by 6 miles street lights at NSL. I complained that it was dangerous. Police couldn't give a toss and said it was not their fault. Went the W Berkshire council, who upon investigation cleared a hell of a lot of vegetation. Went back to police, who said they couldn't give a toss and the 'speed awareness course' , whilts it doesn't teach X-Ray vision will be good for me. Police screwed up the course booking so I told them to stuff it and someone needs to bring this issue of dangerous hidden signs to light and that I was going to court.

I included the emails and contact names in my defence statement to the CPS. As soon as I raised the email and photos of vegetation before and after the CPS said they objected and the evidence was inadmissible. The people they collude with (in terms of the revenue share) agreed and it was inadmissible.

The CPS then produced a winter photo with not a leaf in sight. This was not in their declaration of evidence and it was the first time I had seen it. They said this was "more representative of the scenario". This was deemed admissible.

They also argued that the 3/10 mile stretch had street lights and was therefore restricted. Because the road is restricted there is no obligation for 30 signs because a restricted road is by definition 30. I argued that the road immediately prior had street lights at NSL and therefore I had no way of knowing that the speed had changed from NSL to 30 based solely on the street lights.

The magistrates seem to have accepted this argument in part because they reduced the points down from 6 to 4. However because there was a "slow" painted on the road (warning of the bend) and a 30 mph roundel on the road and the road was restricted I was guilty - 4 pts + £150 fine + £200 costs + £15 victim support fee.

The Parish has been trying to get additional signs there since a report was commissioned concluding in Nov 2006. That report for Highways highlighted problems with speed and vegetation and made recommendations for additional speed calming measures and indications for Woolhampton. They are still waiting. The signs were hidden, which is not my fault. I assume the signs are there for a reason and it is not my job to maintain them. Had I ploughed into a kid around that bend because I did not see those signs, then that is a lot of lives ruined because someone couldn't be arsed to clear the sign.

The Parish gets no revenue from speeding motorists iin their village. The revenue is split between Highways (who are supposed to have the sign clear), the CPS who are allowed to lie in court and block evidence, and the HMCS, who allow the CPS to lie and then pass judgement. This syndicate has a financial stake in the conviction and seems to be a conflict of interest.

The Parish are still waiting for the additional measures highlighted in Nov 2006. There is no way I can pay the £365 and I am not allowed to do community service for the Parish because I have not committed burglary or violence. They just want the cash and they are now asking if my parents in their mid-70's can pay the fine for me.

The vegetation is starting to grow back. Tonight I am going to clear it myself. I don't see why Highways should get away with not clearing a sign so that they can get a financial kickback from the syndicate. More importantly I don't want someone to not see the sign and kill someone. Why does it always take someone to be killed before anything is done? It is simple, cut the bloody hedge and/or put some extra signs there. Hardly rocket science.

There is a case, Coombes v DPP, where a hidden sign was accepted as a defence. But that was heading into a 30 that was unrestricted (no street lights). Because I was going from street lights at NSL into street lights at 30, I was going into a restricted road and therefore it is not a defence. Because a restricted road has no legal requirement for a 30 I am therefore, technically, guilty. So hidden signs are, in this case, not a defence.

[majortom]

Adam, perhaps you can answer a query I have?

Since losing the case I did apply to appeal. So I thought it best to try and get the investigation report and subsequent maintenance work report for this vegetation issue. (Having no solicitor in court the first time I think resulted in the guilty verdict as there are many things I know now that I didn't know then and this lying lazy cop and the CPS walked all over me. Couldn't afford a solicitor though. Anyway, I thought if I do more research and leg work I can get enough and try and get a solicitor for the appeal or have a better crack myself.)

At first I couldn't get a reply from the council. As I was saying, they have a financial stake in hidden signs. So I went to the Local Govt Ombudsman. I then did get a reply from W Berkshire. They said that they had sent someone out on 17th Aug 2009 and carried out an investigation. This report goes on to say that the vegetation is now clear and there are no major problems. However there is no report for June 2008 and whilst it is accepted that work was done on 15th Aug 2008 there is no report on the investigation or the work carried out. So they have a report for this year saying it is clear but for some reason there is no report for when the signs were not clear and no report detailing the work that was done and why.

Is that normal that reports are only provided if there is not a problem and reports are not done/provided if there is a problem?

I guess it's not in their interests to give me a report for June-Aug 2008 and I have no chance right?

[majortom]

Adam, this is not a dig as I really appreciate your feedback and to hear things from a different perspective, but why do you guys ignore emails from
http://www.fixmystreet.com/ ? I mean, assuming for a moment they are well-meaning, have some genuine concerns, then if they have spotted something that may have otherwise gone unnoticed then why simply ignore them? Are they simply time wasters and trouble causers who' agenda is to seek to undermine Highways?

[Snowball]

majortom, accepting the facts to be correct as you have stated them, I feel convinced that the police, CPS and the court deliberately went out of their way, and employed corrupt methods, to obtain a "guilty as charged" result.

I find it extremely depressing that our bodies employed in the work of supporting law and order are often acting on a degrading level comparable to that of tinpot governments, who our own parliament decry as corrupt. And all this bias comes down to revenue. Not to mention that many magistrates seem to possess a form of snobbery by showing that their powers to punish elevates them to a God-like level.

If the police really expect the general public to repect them, then they must clean up their act. And the lackadaisical authorities who neglect the vital work of maintaining road signs (they are vital to road safety, otherwise why are they there in the first place?) should be faced with stiff fines; not taken out of the community charge, which is non-productive, but from their own salaries. Also, a few sackings wouldn't go amiss to sharpen their sense of duty.
And the "pressure of work" cuts no ice. That pressure soon disappears when jollies come up for attendance.

Regards, Snowball.

[majortom]

Had a reply from W Berks. I couldn't get a reply at first and received a reply after I went via the Local Govt Ombudsman.





Looks like I have no chance of getting a report on the work carried out. A that is key to my defence it would appear I am screwed. That said, because the road is considered restricted that report wouldn't be a defence either - you are supposed to know that it is restricted because there are street lights. Yet 45m before the hidden 30 signs is an NSL sign on a street light.

Because my original complaint to the council regarding the vegetation has been dealt with I therefore have no complaint and a report is not required. No report = no defence (in terms of mitigating circumstances). Checkmate!

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

majortom, accepting the facts to be correct as you have stated them, I feel convinced that the police, CPS and the court deliberately went out of their way, and employed corrupt methods, to obtain a "guilty as charged" result.

I find it extremely depressing that our bodies employed in the work of supporting law and order are often acting on a degrading level comparable to that of tinpot governments, who our own parliament decry as corrupt. And all this bias comes down to revenue. Not to mention that many magistrates seem to possess a form of snobbery by showing that their powers to punish elevates them to a God-like level.

If the police really expect the general public to repect them, then they must clean up their act. And the lackadaisical authorities who neglect the vital work of maintaining road signs (they are vital to road safety, otherwise why are they there in the first place?) should be faced with stiff fines; not taken out of the community charge, which is non-productive, but from their own salaries. Also, a few sackings wouldn't go amiss to sharpen their sense of duty.
And the "pressure of work" cuts no ice. That pressure soon disappears when jollies come up for attendance.

Regards, Snowball.

Snowball this is getting serious, I find myself agreeing with you.:)

Now if the authority’s strategy was to understand why the law had been broken, rather than the dogmatic you have broken the law, justice would have been done, interestingly, both in this case and in yours. Hence, the general view is ‘I got caught’ meaning ‘they’ are out to get us, nothing to do with road safety.
Back to the Taliban analogy, what they do in the name of their religion in fact is contrary to teachings of that religion.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by majortom

Because my original complaint to the council regarding the vegetation has been dealt with I therefore have no complaint and a report is not required. No report = no defence (in terms of mitigating circumstances). Checkmate!

Firstly I think for your appeal you have what you want, an admission, as near as you will ever get from a civil serpent, that you drew their attention to overgrowth of vegetation and in their opinion you were correct, the required work was carried out.
It is interesting that, we are told observation of speed limits is vital to road safety, yet obstructing growth is left for a further two months. I wonder if there is a way to discover the offending rate on that road through the year. I would expect to see it rise as the trees developed the season’s growth and fall after the work was done.

[Snowball]

majortom, I don't know how you are supposed to recognise a 30 mph limit by the existence of street lights, when these things are also present in 40 mph limits; and in even higher speed limit areas in some instances. The height and spacings of these lamp standards is also crucial to their relationship to speed limits. They are complex, and certainly not practical as a visual check regarding vehicle speeds. As far as I am aware, the siting of the correct signs (black numerals on white background with red outer circle) are the only legal enforcement of a speed limit, apart from the NSL (black slash on white background).

The painted marker (roundel encircling speed limit) carries the same authorisation as a repeater sign; it is not by itself an enforcement of the speed limit.

Far too often, the CPS and courts are taking their own arbitrary opinions of what represents the legal position when a driver is prosecuted.
Speed enforcement is important, nobody is denying that, but bending of the rules by the courts in order to ensure a conviction is definitely not the correct way to deal with speed. Even worse, most of the drivers caught by speed cameras are only marginally over the limit, not really a threat to road safety, and therefore the real dangers are not being addressed.
I am not advocating a lax attitude to speed limits, but the entrapment of drivers (because that's what it comes down to) by using a combination of badly maintained signage and application of "supporting regulations" is on the increase. The police, CPS and the courts are deliberately misinterpreting the regulations to protect a revenue-based assault on drivers.
This isn't surprising, since drivers themselves are developing ever increasing awareness of speed traps, and learning to moderate their driving to meet the standards that the speed cameras are supposedly there to educate.
There will still be some hotheads who fail to learn, but these numbers are dwindling and the police and councils can see their joint safety camera campaigns in danger of losing cash.
So now we are moving rapidly into a situation, if we aren't already there, where promoting road safety is secondary to raising revenue.

[majortom]

Hi Snowball, the RTA clearly states that a restricted road is one with street lighting. A restricted road does not need a 30 sign. I was doing over 30 in a restricted road. To them that means guilty. Safety is not something on the agenda for the court. They are only there to find me guilty or not guilty. Was I speeding or not. If the road was not a restricted road then Coombes v DPP would apply and I would have been not guilty. But because the road was restricted I therefore had to be found guilty. Any issue of safety or morality or whatever is not the business of the court who's job is simply to determine my guilt. I was speeding in a restricted road, therefore guilty. Any other issue is a matter for the Highways Agency. Highways cannot overturn my guilt.

After a lot of letters and refusals from the court I finally got a copy of the notes made during the hearing.

I could scan and post the whole thing, but I think it's quicker to type what is stated as "JJ's Reasons" for the guilty verdict.

"It is the duty of a driver to be aware of the road and it's surroundings. The defendant had 3 signs to make him aware of the change of speed limit - the slow sign on the road, the roundel on the road and the 30mph on the right-hand side of the road. We accept that there may have been some overgrowth which may have partially concealed the 30mph sign on the left - this is disregarding the fact that there were street lamps, which means that the limit is 30mph unless there are destination signs attached to the lamp post. Therefore we find the defendant guilty of speeding."







If a van goes past the offside sign....

[majortom]

Also had a response from an MP. He has written to Jack Straw asking whether I can do community service in the Parish where I offended as an alternative to the fine.

I guess I know the answer to that - a government with no cash, who couldn't give a toss for the safety of the Parish.....hmmm....

[Snowball]

To be a restricted road, the street lamps must not be more than 200 yards apart. Hope you checked them.

Snowball.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

To be a restricted road, the street lamps must not be more than 200 yards apart. Hope you checked them.

Snowball.

I thought that snowball but could not find it written anywhere.

[majortom]

Yeah, I think it's 185m. The problem is that they are within that distance apart in the NSL.

And if you look at this pic, ome of the ones in the restricted stretch are hidden by large trees.





Here is what they typically look like in the NSL




Would be nice if a lazy cop, or a CPS liar, or a magistrate, or omeone from Highways could come on to give the opposite side of the argument and to explain how they would know the limit had changed.

I was told by a lying cop that they carry lopping equipment in their vans. They always carry out a thorough investigation before carrying out speed enforcement and if there is an issue with vegetation they clear it. Anyone ever seen a cop clearing vegetation with their loppers?

[Snowball]

go onto google, and type in
speed limit regulations
Then click on
www.abd.org.uk

read first page under
Legal requirements to install and maintain speed limit signs.

[majortom]

aah yeah, it's 200m in England & Wales and 185m in Scotland

I hear ya, believe me. Like you I just don't understand it. That link goes on to say...

"Where no system of street lighting"


The RTA on

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=2223862


81 (1) It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.

82 (1) a) in England and Wales, there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart;


However it goes onto say (and this is where Coombes was found not guilty)

85 (1) For the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on any road, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, to erect and maintain traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose.

85 (2) In the case of any other road, it is the duty of the local traffic authority
(a) to erect and maintain traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Secretary of State for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above, and


However, when I put that case forward I was told it didn't apply, because a restricted road is 30 by default, doesn't need 30 signs because it has street lighting and therefore no need for a 30 sign etc. They (CPS and cops) were laughing in court when saying it, said I didn't know The Highway Code and shouldn't be driving.


Believe me, I hear only too well the point you are making, makes perfect sene to me, but not to those *******s.

[majortom]

85 (5) In any proceedings for a contravention of section 81 of this Act, where the proceedings relate to driving on a road provided with [F343 such a system of street or carriageway lighting], evidence of the absence of traffic signs displayed in pursuance of this section to indicate that the road is not a restricted road for the purposes of that section shall be evidence that the road is a restricted road for those purposes.


I think it's saying that the absence of a 30 sign with street lighting means that the road is 30. Therefore the absence of the 30 sign is not a defence.

[wagolynn]

Hmm, you represented yourself then. A very risky strategy, I am confident that if you had legal representation you had a sound case you should have won. In the playground, they (cops/cps) would have been called bullies simply because they are.

[majortom]

Agreed Wagolynn. Unfortnately no money. No money = no solicitor = no defence. Learnt so much since and even defending myself I think I would have a fighting chance now. It really threw me when they rejected the evidence from the council and then allowed the police's winter scene. It also threw me when they used photos that I took at different angles, that I thought was to how a more accurate view. e.g. they would take a photo taken from the side of the road (that actually showed the offside sign more clearly) and mocked them saying that cars do not travel at the side of the road. There was one that was a bit out of focus because I had a lorry up my ****. There was one that was pointing to a 'no waiting' sign, where the narrative explained that a 30 repeater sign could be placed underneath. They simply laughed and said I didn't know the difference between a 30 sign and 'no waiting'.

e.g. I found this, only after...


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/70276--f.htm

41. Traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions
(1) For the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on any road, the Department shall erect and maintain traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose.

43. Contravening speed limit
(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any person who contravenes a speed limit fixed by or under any enactment (including this Part) is guilty of an offence.

(2) Where a restricted road leads directly into or out of an unrestricted road which is a public road, it shall be a good defence for any person charged with an offence under this Article for exceeding the speed limit applicable to the restricted road to prove that he entered on the restricted road from the unrestricted road and that at the time when he did so adequate guidance was not given by means of traffic signs required to be erected under Article 41 as to the place where the restriction began.

(3) It shall be a good defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article for contravening an order under Article 38 or 40 to prove that he entered on the road on which the offence is alleged to have been committed from a road on which no speed limit was in force or in respect of which a different speed limit was in force and that at the time of his entry he did not know and had no reasonable means of knowing that a speed limit was in force in respect of the road on which he entered.

[wagolynn]

No legal cover with your motor insurance then? Shame because the more you dig the more cast iron your defence becomes.

Not that it helps you but I had a work college who defended himself, self confident chap in a nice way, he said the cps/cops belittled him but one magistrate supported him as much as he could, asking the right questions etc. He won. His case was, he was caught (35 in 30 zone) with a hand held unit, but the cop operating it was hiding behind a bus shelter and parked cars and not wearing a high-vis jacket.

Then the police complain that the public are not supporting them...

[majortom]

Yeah, was made a laughing stock in court. But no money = no solicitor. No choice I'm afraid. With no solicitor a fair trial is not possible and in the case of motoring offences it's a case of guilty until proven innocent. Legal cover on my insurance only covers legal issues arising from an accident, theft etc. to do with the car, as opposed to me as an individual. With motoring offences the Crown, with their unlimited funds will fight tooth and nail to prevent a not guilty verdict. If the found me not guilty they would have been obliged to revoke previous tickets and they will do anything for that not to happen. They know that if you appeal to Crown Court and then to High Court. Typically it would have to go to High Court and that can cost £10,000's. For the CPS it costs them nothing (it cost us), so there is not the same risk. For us it's your house and life over. They now this and that is why they found me guilty on a "slow" and a roundel. Even if that has no legal standing it means I have to appeal and that can cost £1000's i.e. they know at some point I'm going to cave in.

[majortom]

Found this

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/...smchapter3.pdf

Says that a 30 sign coming from NSL should be visible from 115m.

Course my problem is that a restricted road does not need a 30 sign.

[majortom]

I have to say, I will never ever help the police again. not just because of this. Have been broken into 3 times and they did nothing. My 13 year old at a golf tournament with a neighbour, lost the neighbour. I had told them (as I was as a kid) if lost ask a policeman. He asked 6 that day but none would help. One wouldn't help because she (the WPC) was eating a doughnut. He was about to hitch hike 60 miles home when fortunately he found the neighbour. Have been told off by the police for calling them at 3am when a neighbour's alarm was going off. They asked me to go and investigate and when I put it to them that they were the cops and the concept is the cops are trained and paid to catch the bad guys I was told off and accused of calling at 3am just to cause trouble. Another of my kids beaten up on his own by a gang and cops wouldn't do anything. There are other instances. Basically I cannot remember a time when the cops have actually helped. I used to think I was on their side and criminals were on the other. Now we have one set of criminals on one side the cops, just another set of criminals on the other. I will never ever help the cops or authorities again.

[wagolynn]

But they always know best they are the professionals, whilst we the motorists are the criminals.
Shame about all the people you killed by accidently going over 30...

One of my son’s school mates joined the police force; it was horrifying to see how he changed over time. In conversation with him, his utter contempt for the public was breath taking. He changed; from a lad I would have been proud to be his dad, to a legalised prejudiced bully. Perhaps as he gained more experience he may have changed, that I don’t know.

I did notice some police at work clearing up some drunks in town, in my opinion the police were out for a fight. Yes, I know drunks are a problem, but it is also easy to outwit them because they are drunk.

Anyway you are not on your own in your disenchantment with the law and law enforcers. Better luck in the future.