Average speed camera zone with no signage

SergeantBaker

diystarter7 said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

diystarter7 said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

diystarter7 said:

diystarter7 said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

Car_54 said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

Taken from this website https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/ask-the-police/question/Q642

"There is nothing in law that states that any speed camera device, whether fixed or mobile, must be marked in any way, signed or at a particular position. There are codes of practice and best practice guides that are set by police forces themselves but these are policies rather than law."

The first sentence is absolutely correct - no signs are ever needed.
The second is a bit puzzling. Signs are not the responsibility of the police, so why would they need codes of practice etc.?

That's a very fair point, actually.  Given that the source is a legitimate police website rather than some random tabloid newspaper or Facebook or whatever, one would hope that the information could be relied upon!  Would the police "advise" the council/highways authority as to whether they thought signage should or shouldn't be provided in a particular location?  No idea, just speculating.

Hi

Was there not the case of the motorway gantry cams being painted in grey initially ie same colour as the gantry and then they were forced to paint them yellow. Why was that the case?

I vaugley recall reading someone getting off with speeding as their was no warning - I could be wrong but about 90+% sure

Thanks

Hi

Just done my own research and I was right re grey cams being made to paint them yellow and you do need signs otherwise the AA state, "motorists feel they are being conned."

Thnaks

I don't disagree about them needing to be painted yellow, but can you point me in the direction of where it says "you do need signs"?  Every source I've managed to find says that signage is "recommended" or "advised", but that it is not a legal requirement.

Hi mate

It's all in the link.

It may not be the law or it may be but it is expected hence the conformity!

Thanks

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318030/Grey-speed-cameras-turned-yellow-safety-drive.html

Thanks

Firstly, even that article refers to signage being "guidelines" rather than law.  Secondly, anything in that particular publication you linked to should be taken with a pinch - nay, a bucketful - of salt.

Ultimately, the OP's question was whether a speed camera is enforceable if there are no signs to warn of its presence.  The answer is unequivocally "yes".

Hi again

The truth is the cams were changed from grey to yellow, therefore it does not matter if it is guidelines or not.

True what you said about the OP's question but whenever there is a challenge like this in court, the defender wins.

Therefore, "guidelines" or not is irrelevant as I have proven what happened to the grey cams and I'm absolutely more than certain I could easily come up with a news article where a speeder was found not guilty due to lack of singage

Thanks 

Go on then.

But don't use lack of speed limit signs or wrong font. 

Manxman_in_exile

I think the question whether speed cameras must be (1) signed and/or (2) conspicuous - eg yellow - was asked on pepipoo and the basic answer was "No" to both.  Speed cameras and warnings - FightBack Forums (pepipoo.com)

I think the Daily Fail article cited by @diystarter7 is basically the same as this .gov.uk "News story" End of the road for grey speed cameras - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

But like a lot of items on .gov.uk I'm not sure it's accurate rather than just various government spokesmen and motoring organisations saying what they think motorists want to hear.

If you look at the actual guidance referred to in the "News Story" it actually says after para 49.  "This camera signing, visibility and conspicuity guidance has no bearing on the enforcement of offences. Non­ compliance with this guidance does not provide any mitigation of, or defence for, an alleged offence committed under current UK law."    Use of speed and red-light cameras for traffic enforcement: guidance on deployment, visibility and signing (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Admittedly that guidance is from 2007, but there's nothing on that website to suggest it's been changed since then.  (I'd be happy to be corrected...)

I drive on the basis that although most speed cameras are probably signed and painted yellow, that they don't have to be to catch you speeding and provide evidence acceptable enough in court to convict you.

Grey_Critic

OK none of us want to get a speeding ticket but the absence of signage is immaterial. If anyone who drives is not aware that there are Speed Cameras both permanent and temporary on virtually every main road has problems. Yes there are roads where signage is poor and overgrowth often hides what signage  there is but life for the motorist is never fair.

All that this topic is doing is trying to find an excuse not to pay or be prosecuted yet most ideas will not work and the odd loophole will be quickly closed - the very simple answer is do not speed.

Of course plod and the system will quickly find some other excuse to get you. Remember it is all about THE MONEY.

diystarter7

Grey_Critic said:

OK none of us want to get a speeding ticket but the absence of signage is immaterial. If anyone who drives is not aware that there are Speed Cameras both permanent and temporary on virtually every main road has problems. Yes there are roads where signage is poor and overgrowth often hides what signage  there is but life for the motorist is never fair.

All that this topic is doing is trying to find an excuse not to pay or be prosecuted yet most ideas will not work and the odd loophole will be quickly closed - the very simple answer is do not speed.

Of course plod and the system will quickly find some other excuse to get you. Remember it is all about THE MONEY.

Hiya

Many thanks for the post that I could have easily posted. Thank you.

I agree with everything other than slightly disagreeing with the highlighted bit. The reason for this is, the cops/cocuil states cams are 2safety cams." We all know that is in part at best totally rubbish. If they are "safety cams" and at certain junctions, chang from a B road turning into a village, dangerous turning etc they are. If they are really safety cam, people that are unfimilar with the area, coming off a 70/60mph etc limit near a dangerous junction etc, well-marked cams do indeed heads-up a few that otherwise may be decent, laful drivers but just missed a sign


FYI, I've never ever had a parking ticket let alone a speeding/etc ticket, points on licence etc

I lobbied my clown of an MP with two jobs once to ensure the speed cams, even the newer smaller ones should hace large yello boards on them if they reall are £Safety cams," but the useless MP was not that interested so I campaign against them come next GE

Again, great post and you can apply your scenarios to most parking etc

Thanks

alleycat`

Thanks to everyone taking the time to reply.

I want to be clear i wasn't trying to get out of anything, I've not received a NIP nor do i expect to receive one.

I've been driving a long time now and this is the first time I've, personally, ever come across this.

I found it counter intuitive to have a setup which is clearly in place to protect the work force but to not actually put up clear and visible signage. My view would be that the signs act as a better safety function/deterrent than a set of cameras you cannot see in the dark.

Apparently the "law" doesn't agree. C'est la Vie.

jon81uk

alleycat` said:

I think this is why i asked the question. 

This particular stretch of works has been in place for many, many months now (Ouse bridge for anyone who's interested). The cameras are only a recent addition to works that haven't fundamentally changed very much.

This is probably the first time I've ever come across works where "no" warning signage is in place at all.  At night, as it's an unlit stretch of motorway, you can't see the cameras (the speed limit signs are, mostly, lit). In practice it would seem to undermine the function they're installed for (protect the workforce and to mitigate against the "assumed" lower impact resistance of the temporary barriers).

It shouldn't matter if you can see the cameras, if there are workers there or not, the important thing is that the speed limit signage is clear. You state the speed limit signage is lit.
If there is clear signage and you are doing no more than the limit then nothing else should be of concern.

ontheroad1970

diystarter7 said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

diystarter7 said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

diystarter7 said:

diystarter7 said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

Car_54 said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

Taken from this website https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/ask-the-police/question/Q642

"There is nothing in law that states that any speed camera device, whether fixed or mobile, must be marked in any way, signed or at a particular position. There are codes of practice and best practice guides that are set by police forces themselves but these are policies rather than law."

The first sentence is absolutely correct - no signs are ever needed.
The second is a bit puzzling. Signs are not the responsibility of the police, so why would they need codes of practice etc.?

That's a very fair point, actually.  Given that the source is a legitimate police website rather than some random tabloid newspaper or Facebook or whatever, one would hope that the information could be relied upon!  Would the police "advise" the council/highways authority as to whether they thought signage should or shouldn't be provided in a particular location?  No idea, just speculating.

Hi

Was there not the case of the motorway gantry cams being painted in grey initially ie same colour as the gantry and then they were forced to paint them yellow. Why was that the case?

I vaugley recall reading someone getting off with speeding as their was no warning - I could be wrong but about 90+% sure

Thanks

Hi

Just done my own research and I was right re grey cams being made to paint them yellow and you do need signs otherwise the AA state, "motorists feel they are being conned."

Thnaks

I don't disagree about them needing to be painted yellow, but can you point me in the direction of where it says "you do need signs"?  Every source I've managed to find says that signage is "recommended" or "advised", but that it is not a legal requirement.

Hi mate

It's all in the link.

It may not be the law or it may be but it is expected hence the conformity!

Thanks

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318030/Grey-speed-cameras-turned-yellow-safety-drive.html

Thanks

Firstly, even that article refers to signage being "guidelines" rather than law.  Secondly, anything in that particular publication you linked to should be taken with a pinch - nay, a bucketful - of salt.

Ultimately, the OP's question was whether a speed camera is enforceable if there are no signs to warn of its presence.  The answer is unequivocally "yes".

Hi again

The truth is the cams were changed from grey to yellow, therefore it does not matter if it is guidelines or not.

True what you said about the OP's question but whenever there is a challenge like this in court, the defender wins.

Therefore, "guidelines" or not is irrelevant as I have proven what happened to the grey cams and I'm absolutely more than certain I could easily come up with a news article where a speeder was found not guilty due to lack of singage

Thanks 

They were changed to yellow by guidance.  It does not and will not override the law if it reaches court.  The court does not measure for this, they only measure against the law as it stands.  

If CPS or the police can be persuaded that the lack of yellow paint makes the prosecution 'not in the public interest' that is their decision to make, not the courts.  The courts decide on points of law, not policy.  I'd suggest doing more proper research before suggesting that people can go into court using this line of defence.

diystarter7

jon81uk said:

diystarter7 said:

jon81uk said:

alleycat` said:

I think this is why i asked the question. 

This particular stretch of works has been in place for many, many months now (Ouse bridge for anyone who's interested). The cameras are only a recent addition to works that haven't fundamentally changed very much.

This is probably the first time I've ever come across works where "no" warning signage is in place at all.  At night, as it's an unlit stretch of motorway, you can't see the cameras (the speed limit signs are, mostly, lit). In practice it would seem to undermine the function they're installed for (protect the workforce and to mitigate against the "assumed" lower impact resistance of the temporary barriers).

It shouldn't matter if you can see the cameras, if there are workers there or not, the important thing is that the speed limit signage is clear. You state the speed limit signage is lit.
If there is clear signage and you are doing no more than the limit then nothing else should be of concern.

Hi

Please read the OP and their latest post. They are advocating what the gov preaches "safety" and I've posted examples where grey cam were forced to be changed to yellow cams. The OP was just highlighting a concern and concern shared by many me included, IE, if speed cams as "safety cams" as often touted by the gov, to increase safety, why not indeed make them more visible in areas where safety is of concern.

Many thanks

Again, why should that matter to the average motorist. The amended speed limit is what is improving safety, so the speed limit signage by itself should be enough for most people. The knowledge of a camera should not affect peoples driving style or how safe they are behaving.

Hi again

The highlighted bit, It should not matter but it does. Di you read fully my previous post and what thr gov states re speed cams aka by the proper name of SAFTEY CAMS.  This is why they are painted yell and I gave you a good example of highways forced to change them from grey to yellow, why was that?

FYI, and I reiterate for your benefit, in the over 40 years of driving and always having cars inc some very cable ones, I've never had a speeding or any other ticket. Before the implementation of 5/20mph speed limits  drove within the limits of what I could see as a speed limit is just that a LIMIT and not the max speed you need to travel at.

As the cams are Safet Cams - often sited where there it is deemed a higher risk - it is indeed and would be excellent practice to highlight the safety cams so people like us that are new to an area are helped with warning from dropping quickly form miles of possible 70mph to 30/etc.

Should you still disagree with the OP and me, that is indeed your prerogative but the point of safety cams is just that so why not highly the tiny cams.

Many thanks

jon81uk

diystarter7 said:

jon81uk said:

diystarter7 said:

jon81uk said:

alleycat` said:

I think this is why i asked the question. 

This particular stretch of works has been in place for many, many months now (Ouse bridge for anyone who's interested). The cameras are only a recent addition to works that haven't fundamentally changed very much.

This is probably the first time I've ever come across works where "no" warning signage is in place at all.  At night, as it's an unlit stretch of motorway, you can't see the cameras (the speed limit signs are, mostly, lit). In practice it would seem to undermine the function they're installed for (protect the workforce and to mitigate against the "assumed" lower impact resistance of the temporary barriers).

It shouldn't matter if you can see the cameras, if there are workers there or not, the important thing is that the speed limit signage is clear. You state the speed limit signage is lit.
If there is clear signage and you are doing no more than the limit then nothing else should be of concern.

Hi

Please read the OP and their latest post. They are advocating what the gov preaches "safety" and I've posted examples where grey cam were forced to be changed to yellow cams. The OP was just highlighting a concern and concern shared by many me included, IE, if speed cams as "safety cams" as often touted by the gov, to increase safety, why not indeed make them more visible in areas where safety is of concern.

Many thanks

Again, why should that matter to the average motorist. The amended speed limit is what is improving safety, so the speed limit signage by itself should be enough for most people. The knowledge of a camera should not affect peoples driving style or how safe they are behaving.

Hi again

The highlighted bit, It should not matter but it does. Di you read fully my previous post and what thr gov states re speed cams aka by the proper name of SAFTEY CAMS.  This is why they are painted yell and I gave you a good example of highways forced to change them from grey to yellow, why was that?

FYI, and I reiterate for your benefit, in the over 40 years of driving and always having cars inc some very cable ones, I've never had a speeding or any other ticket. Before the implementation of 5/20mph speed limits  drove within the limits of what I could see as a speed limit is just that a LIMIT and not the max speed you need to travel at.

As the cams are Safet Cams - often sited where there it is deemed a higher risk - it is indeed and would be excellent practice to highlight the safety cams so people like us that are new to an area are helped with warning from dropping quickly form miles of possible 70mph to 30/etc.

Should you still disagree with the OP and me, that is indeed your prerogative but the point of safety cams is just that so why not highly the tiny cams.

Many thanks

How does painting the camera yellow help warn me the speed limit is changing from 70 to 30? A yellow box doesn't indicate what speed limit applies.

Oh and the painted yellow thing is only because the AA moaned and "felt" motorists were being conned. Nothing to do with safety, just motorists wanting to speed and get away with it.

Where does the governement not refer to them as speed cameras?
Speeding penalties - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Speed camera locations - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Speed camera data - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Speed cameras on Smart motorways - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

TfL use the term safety camera but not the government
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/safety-enforcement-cameras

ontheroad1970

diystarter7 said:

jon81uk said:

diystarter7 said:

jon81uk said:

alleycat` said:

I think this is why i asked the question. 

This particular stretch of works has been in place for many, many months now (Ouse bridge for anyone who's interested). The cameras are only a recent addition to works that haven't fundamentally changed very much.

This is probably the first time I've ever come across works where "no" warning signage is in place at all.  At night, as it's an unlit stretch of motorway, you can't see the cameras (the speed limit signs are, mostly, lit). In practice it would seem to undermine the function they're installed for (protect the workforce and to mitigate against the "assumed" lower impact resistance of the temporary barriers).

It shouldn't matter if you can see the cameras, if there are workers there or not, the important thing is that the speed limit signage is clear. You state the speed limit signage is lit.
If there is clear signage and you are doing no more than the limit then nothing else should be of concern.

Hi

Please read the OP and their latest post. They are advocating what the gov preaches "safety" and I've posted examples where grey cam were forced to be changed to yellow cams. The OP was just highlighting a concern and concern shared by many me included, IE, if speed cams as "safety cams" as often touted by the gov, to increase safety, why not indeed make them more visible in areas where safety is of concern.

Many thanks

Again, why should that matter to the average motorist. The amended speed limit is what is improving safety, so the speed limit signage by itself should be enough for most people. The knowledge of a camera should not affect peoples driving style or how safe they are behaving.

Hi again

The highlighted bit, It should not matter but it does. Di you read fully my previous post and what thr gov states re speed cams aka by the proper name of SAFTEY CAMS.  This is why they are painted yell and I gave you a good example of highways forced to change them from grey to yellow, why was that?

FYI, and I reiterate for your benefit, in the over 40 years of driving and always having cars inc some very cable ones, I've never had a speeding or any other ticket. Before the implementation of 5/20mph speed limits  drove within the limits of what I could see as a speed limit is just that a LIMIT and not the max speed you need to travel at.

As the cams are Safet Cams - often sited where there it is deemed a higher risk - it is indeed and would be excellent practice to highlight the safety cams so people like us that are new to an area are helped with warning from dropping quickly form miles of possible 70mph to 30/etc.

Should you still disagree with the OP and me, that is indeed your prerogative but the point of safety cams is just that so why not highly the tiny cams.

Many thanks

All these opinions are absolutely no use to the OP in court.  It is, in my opinion financially dangerous advice to have on the forums that others might heed to defend a speeding charge on this basis.  *It would be expensive - the guidance for starting point for contested trials is £620 plus the fine plus victim surcharge.