speed camera van in SHUT LAYBY

BananaRepublic

As we seem to be having a rantathon here, I'll join in.

I often see speed vans along the route I take to and from work. I can't say I have any issues with them, and it makes me angry when motorists flash their lights to warn me in advance. The vans are doing a good job, they are not along fast roads, but in villages and near hazards. People who get caught speeding in the local villages deserve to be fined, and repeat offenders deserve to be banned.

However, I do have issues with speed cameras in areas where risks are low, and traffic is high, they seem to be there to make money, or at least to just appear to be doing something. Clearly this depends on the local authority and police force. Some are sensible, some are not.

I'm sure the OP could get off if the police were using the wrong colour cones. I recommend he contact Nick "I here to allow scumbags to avoid speeding fines" Freeman who will use that defence.

bilball_baggins

To clarify. The layby was shut due to road works and a contra flow. I was doing 48 in a 40 by not paying attention to my speed.

a.turner

bilball_baggins wrote: »

To clarify. The layby was shut due to road works and a contra flow. I was doing 48 in a 40 by not paying attention to my speed.

John Smith.

AdrianC

bilball_baggins wrote: »

I was doing 48 in a 40

Then the fine won't be "quite hefty". If you aren't offered a course (or aren't eligible), then it's firmly FP territory - it's only 2mph above the lower guideline for enforcement.

[Deleted User]

bilball_baggins wrote: »

To clarify. The layby was shut due to road works and a contra flow. I was doing 48 in a 40 by not paying attention to my speed.

So it was shut for another reason, and yet the police disregarded that. I suppose it's only to be expected. "We can't have road works getting in the way of our major revenue stream".

a.turner

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

So it was shut for another reason, and yet the police disregarded that. I suppose it's only to be expected. "We can't have road works getting in the way of our major revenue stream".

Don't speed through road works and theses no revenue to collect.

Still you're 90% guess was a little way off.

[Deleted User]

a.turner wrote: »

Don't speed through road works and theses no revenue to collect.

Still you're 90% guess was a little way off.

I think that's another example of Straw Man. I said 90% of posts make some sort of assumption. In the absence of any other information from the OP, it was a reasonable assumption. Further info from him has now shown it to be wrong, and I'm sure you couldn't contain yourself as a result.

TooManyPoints

Just to move away from the slanging match for a moment (and there's me thinking this forum was to help people with questions they pose!) perhaps I could return to the OP:

You ask if they "have a case to answer". I don't quite know what you mean but I assume you mean does their action render your detection invalid? Of course the answer is "No".

You should be offered a Speed Awareness Course for that speed, provided you have not done one for an offence that occurred in the three years prior to this one and this latest offence did not occur in Scotland (where courses are not - yet - offered). This will cost you around £100 and half a day of your time. If you don't qualify for that or you don't fancy it, a Fixed Penalty of £100 and three points will be the alternative. These are the best offers you will get; don't even think of letting the matter get to court.

Presumably you have a "request to provide the driver's details". Make sure you complete and return that in the 28 days allowed (failure to do so is a separate offence which carries a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code which will see your insurance premiums rocket for up to five years). When you receive your offer(s) make sure you accept within the time allowed and if it is the fixed penalty you take do not forget to submit your driving licence with your payment. Failure to do so will see the matter dealt with in court.

Regrettably I won't get involved with the argument about camera vans, lay-bys, winkers and parasites but I hope I have helped you with your question.

Car_54

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

That would be Chris Grayling :rotfl: - explains a lot. Here's what the DVLA say in a recent article:

The DVLA told The Sunday Times that it is allowed to disclose details of a vehicle's keeper under data protection laws, and that without such data-sharing motorists would be able to drive or park anywhere they wanted, without being responsible for their actions.

They are ALLOWED to - they are not obliged to. That they do, is a decision taken by the senior civil servants in the DVLA. If they were to stop doing this, an entire rogue industry, which brings misery to millions, would disappear overnight. As I say, I cannot think of a better description than 'parasite' for an organisation like the DVLA. Not only are they parasites, they are also buffoons and very thick.

Anyway, this thread was about that other bunch of parasites, the revenue camera operators skulking in coned-off lay-bys, thereby denying genuine users access to the facility.

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, says
"27.—(1) The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use ...(e) by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him."
So DVLA are indeed obliged to provide data to anyone who satisfies the SoS's requirements: they have no option.

a.turner

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

I think that's another example of Straw Man. I said 90% of posts make some sort of assumption. In the absence of any other information from the OP, it was a reasonable assumption. Further info from him has now shown it to be wrong, and I'm sure you couldn't contain yourself as a result.

86% of your last 27 posts were incorrect assumptions.