Motoring offence, crossing red x on motorway

TadleyBaggie

soolin wrote: »

(I know there is a plural for forum but I can't remember it). ?

It's "forums"...the commonly used "fora" just means "square" in Latin.

Car_54

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

It's "forums"...the commonly used "fora" just means "square" in Latin.

Not unless Latin has changed since I studied it 50-odd years ago.

The Latin "forum" is a city's main square, and the plural is indeed "fora".

However, we speak English, not Latin, so either forums or fora is fine

dacouch

For the benefit of anyone who has not read the OP's thread on Pepipoo.

"I knew the lane might be closed. What I actually did was bypassing the queue (not nice, I know) using the slip roads, left the motorway at a junction then return on it. The slip road was open and met the motorway just before the gantry where allegedly commited the offence.
I have 2 contradicting information about the position of the gantry of which the officer makes reference in her statement."

This further information was volunteered after the OP posted "It was heavy traffic, difficult to find a gap in between the slow moving lorries and I was driving very slow."

Posters asked why the OP would need to drive slowly and find a gap between slow moving lorries as this would indicate lane one was empty and thus clearly closed

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=111875&st=0

Dakota_Deville

Hi

A question re RED X's on motorways.

When the RED X lights up, and you are not able to jum/move safely into another lane, how long before the RED X becomes active? IE, you are driving along legally as you approach the gantry the RED X appears and you have no chance to safely change langes, is there a 30 second/etc grace period?

Thanks again!

unforeseen

If there is, I would expect the maximum grace period to be until the next gantry is visible so, assuming that they are a mile apart ( I don't know their separation) then 30 secs would seem fair.

ETA


From Avon & Somerset Constabulary: there is a one minute grace period after a change in the information displayed on AMIs.

Marbo

Why the police officer doesn't use driver's location signposts to pinpoint the location of the alleged offence and uses instead some gantries references that are not visible on the road, aren't marked on the gantries? I looked for those reference numbers on the gantry , I've used Google Street View to look on the front, underneath and on the back and didn't found them.

Billy_Bullocks

Marbo wrote: »

Why the police officer doesn't use driver's location signposts to pinpoint the location of the alleged offence and uses instead some gantries references that are not visible on the road, aren't marked on the gantries? I looked for those reference numbers on the gantry , I've used Google Street View to look on the front, underneath and on the back and didn't found them.

They use marker post numbers clear for all to see.

soolin

Marbo wrote: »

Why the police officer doesn't use driver's location signposts to pinpoint the location of the alleged offence and uses instead some gantries references that are not visible on the road, aren't marked on the gantries? I looked for those reference numbers on the gantry , I've used Google Street View to look on the front, underneath and on the back and didn't found them.

Immaterial and you are really clutching at straws now.

The fact that you are unwilling to say why this is so important to risk huge costs going to court does rather suggest that you are likely to be on points already and worried about a possible future totting ban.

Seriously, if the people on the other forum are advising you to cut your losses here do please listen to them.

Car_54

Marbo wrote: »

Why the police officer doesn't use driver's location signposts to pinpoint the location of the alleged offence and uses instead some gantries references that are not visible on the road, aren't marked on the gantries? I looked for those reference numbers on the gantry , I've used Google Street View to look on the front, underneath and on the back and didn't found them.

She has given the junction numbers, and it is perfectly clear from your previous posts that you know exactly where the offence took place. You have therefore not been disadvantaged.

facade

What you are trying to do is get off on a technicality.
Which is fine if you can, but you are looking in the wrong place.

When you plead not guilty you have to reveal your defence, which seems to be "The officer could not have seen me pass beneath a red X at gantry 1234 (because I went under it at gantry 1235)"
You can't jump up in court like Perry Mason and get the case dismissed because you are actually Donald John Trump of The White-house, and the charges are against John Donald Trump who doesn't exist.(This is called an "Ambush defence" and they simply ask for an adjournment to respond)

All that will happen is they will correct the typo. You can't claim that you are mystified/confused by the summons, as you know full well you went under a red cross on the M1 at that time.

Although we read in the press about serial killers "getting off" because of a typo, it just isn't that simple.

The sort of technicality that would get you off is if the signage is somehow not compliant with regulations.