|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: allan tracyallan tracy Date: Feb 7, 2008 14:18
A colleague, who now faces a driving ban, claims that he has seen a
solicitor who has agreed to take on an appeal against his latest (one
too many) fixed speed camera notification.
He claims that a more recently sighted traffic sign obscured the speed
camera warning sign.
So, are the highways authority required to provide adequate visible
warnings in this way?
Also, if so, what constitutes an adequately visible warning as surely
it’s quite possible, in this situation, that the camera warning sign
would have been adequately visible had he not been breaking the speed
limit in the first place?
|
| |
|
| | 10 Comments |
|
|
Author: MrcheerfulMrcheerful Date: Feb 7, 2008 14:22
allan tracy wrote:
> A colleague, who now faces a driving ban, claims that he has seen a
> solicitor who has agreed to take on an appeal against his latest (one
> too many) fixed speed camera notification.
>
> He claims that a more recently sighted traffic sign obscured the speed
> camera warning sign.
>
> So, are the highways authority required to provide adequate visible
> warnings in this way?
>
> Also, if so, what constitutes an adequately visible warning as surely
> it
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: IanIan Date: Feb 7, 2008 14:57
On 7 Feb, 22:18, allan tracy hotmail.com> wrote:> A colleague, who now faces a driving ban, claims that he has seen a
> solicitor who has agreed to take on an appeal against his latest (one
> too many) fixed speed camera notification.
>
> He claims that a more recently sighted traffic sign obscured the speed
> camera warning sign.
So he's going to try claiming, is he, that there is no need to obey
the law unless detection equipment is notified in advance?
Ian
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: Feb 7, 2008 15:04
allan tracy wrote:
> A colleague, who now faces a driving ban, claims that he has seen a
> solicitor who has agreed to take on an appeal against his latest (one
> too many) fixed speed camera notification.
>
> He claims that a more recently sighted traffic sign obscured the speed
> camera warning sign.
>
> So, are the highways authority required to provide adequate visible
> warnings in this way?
>
> Also, if so, what constitutes an adequately visible warning as surely
> it
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: allan tracyallan tracy Date: Feb 7, 2008 15:08
>
> Why not tell him about the alternative? Don't speed. He's been caught, tough
> shit.
>
Well he is the sort of arrogant twat that deserves it.
Let's put it this way - the whole office is wearing a rather wry smile
at the moment.
Having said that he stands to lose his company car (luckily not his
job).
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: Feb 7, 2008 15:22
allan tracy wrote:
>> Why not tell him about the alternative? Don't speed. He's been
>> caught, tough shit.
>>
>
> Well he is the sort of arrogant twat that deserves it.
>
> Let's put it this way - the whole office is wearing a rather wry smile
> at the moment.
>
> Having said that he stands to lose his company car (luckily not his
> job).
If he doesn't need the company car to do his job, he can do without his
licence for a few weeks.
Ask him if he's ever heard the phrase, "If you can't do the time, don't do
the crime".
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Feb 7, 2008 15:30
>
> A colleague, who now faces a driving ban, claims that he has seen a
> solicitor who has agreed to take on an appeal against his latest (one
> too many) fixed speed camera notification.
>
> He claims that a more recently sighted traffic sign obscured the speed
> camera warning sign.
>
ROFL...good luck.
> So, are the highways authority required to provide adequate visible
> warnings in this way?
>
No. They're only placed in areas where the camera funds go to the SCP
instead of the Govt. I doubt you'll find the lack of signage a reason
to get off.
--
Conor
|
| Show full article (0.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Alex HeneyAlex Heney Date: Feb 7, 2008 16:10
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:18:42 -0800 (PST), allan tracy
hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>A colleague, who now faces a driving ban, claims that he has seen a
>solicitor who has agreed to take on an appeal against his latest (one
>too many) fixed speed camera notification.
>
>He claims that a more recently sighted traffic sign obscured the speed
>camera warning sign.
>
>So, are the highways authority required to provide adequate visible
>warnings in this way?
>
No.
It is a requirement of most (I think all) of the "safety camera
partnership" schemes that allow the revenue generated to be kept.
But there is no requirement in law for any warnings whatsoever.
|
| Show full article (0.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DogpoopDogpoop Date: Feb 7, 2008 23:32
allan tracy typed:
> A colleague, who now faces a driving ban, claims that he has seen a
> solicitor who has agreed to take on an appeal against his latest (one
> too many) fixed speed camera notification.
LOL, he'll pay through the nose, hopefully for nothing.
> He claims that a more recently sighted traffic sign obscured the speed
> camera warning sign.
If that's his defence he wants fucking.
Sideways.
> So, are the highways authority required to provide adequate visible
> warnings in this way?
No.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: PlusnetPlusnet Date: Feb 8, 2008 19:08
>
> A colleague, who now faces a driving ban, claims that he has seen a
> solicitor who has agreed to take on an appeal against his latest (one
> too many) fixed speed camera notification.
>
> He claims that a more recently sighted traffic sign obscured the speed
> camera warning sign.
>
> So, are the highways authority required to provide adequate visible
> warnings in this way?
>
> Also, if so, what constitutes an adequately visible warning as surely
> it=3Fs quite possible, in this situation, that the camera warning sign
> would have been adequately visible had he not been breaking the speed
> limit in the first place?
>
Seems a good idea.
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
