Speeding Advice / Entrapment

Okell

Alondonboy said:

vacheron said:

Just FYI the gantry cameras on the M62 will not activate for the first 3 minutes after an aspect change to prevent motorists from being penalised for exactly this reason, so there is no way that a change from 60-50-60 which was less than 3 minutes between aspect changes would have resulted in the enforcement camera activating.

The cameras also capture, but disregard, the 20 seconds prior to an aspect change, even though the camera will flash. This is why many motorists reported being flashed, but then not receiving any prosecutions in the post.

The cameras also test their flasher module every 24-48 hours, usually around 3am, which has also probably freaked out its fair share of innocent motorists too! 

My reason for knowing this is I designed the LED signals on the M62 ATM project and spent 2 years doing all the compatibility testing with the camera systems (which we do NOT manufacture before anyone lynches me)!

To clarify, I'm not saying one individual sign changed from 60>50>60, I'm stating that they were all at 60 with little traffic then one was 50 then the next 60. Just no need for the drop other than to trap people.

But you have no clue why the limit changed, do you?  All you know is that you didn't react quickly enough.**

The clue is in the phrase "variable speed limit" - it can change at a moment's notice.

I'd suggest that if you know you are on a section of motorway that is subject to a varialble speed limit, then relying on some sort of cruise control is asking for trouble - particularly if it's from your satnav.  How would your satnav know about instantaneous speed limit changes?

** Although there is a delay between a change being notified and it being enforced

user1977

Alondonboy said:

vacheron said:

Just FYI the gantry cameras on the M62 will not activate for the first 3 minutes after an aspect change to prevent motorists from being penalised for exactly this reason, so there is no way that a change from 60-50-60 which was less than 3 minutes between aspect changes would have resulted in the enforcement camera activating.

The cameras also capture, but disregard, the 20 seconds prior to an aspect change, even though the camera will flash. This is why many motorists reported being flashed, but then not receiving any prosecutions in the post.

The cameras also test their flasher module every 24-48 hours, usually around 3am, which has also probably freaked out its fair share of innocent motorists too! 

My reason for knowing this is I designed the LED signals on the M62 ATM project and spent 2 years doing all the compatibility testing with the camera systems (which we do NOT manufacture before anyone lynches me)!

To clarify, I'm not saying one individual sign changed from 60>50>60, I'm stating that they were all at 60 with little traffic then one was 50 then the next 60. Just no need for the drop other than to trap people.

Sorry, why is 60>50>60 any more of a "trap" than 60>50>50 would be? You slow down at the first 50, don't you?

Hoenir

user1977 said:

Alondonboy said:

vacheron said:

Just FYI the gantry cameras on the M62 will not activate for the first 3 minutes after an aspect change to prevent motorists from being penalised for exactly this reason, so there is no way that a change from 60-50-60 which was less than 3 minutes between aspect changes would have resulted in the enforcement camera activating.

The cameras also capture, but disregard, the 20 seconds prior to an aspect change, even though the camera will flash. This is why many motorists reported being flashed, but then not receiving any prosecutions in the post.

The cameras also test their flasher module every 24-48 hours, usually around 3am, which has also probably freaked out its fair share of innocent motorists too! 

My reason for knowing this is I designed the LED signals on the M62 ATM project and spent 2 years doing all the compatibility testing with the camera systems (which we do NOT manufacture before anyone lynches me)!

To clarify, I'm not saying one individual sign changed from 60>50>60, I'm stating that they were all at 60 with little traffic then one was 50 then the next 60. Just no need for the drop other than to trap people.

Sorry, why is 60>50>60 any more of a "trap" than 60>50>50 would be? You slow down at the first 50, don't you?

Seems not if there's little visible traffic. 

TooManyPoints

I'm stating that they were all at 60 with little traffic then one was 50 then the next 60. Just no need for the drop other than to trap people.

As far as you know. There could be any number of reasons for a reduced limit of which you might not be aware, 

This is incorrect. You can nominate yourself as driver online with a digital signature. No need to send by post.

As above, all forces that I know of require a “wet” signature. There is a very good reason for this. The s172 response is usually the only evidence that police have to prove who was driving. If a digital signature (by which I assume you mean a name typed into a form) was to be accepted it could lead to considerable difficulties in the event of a prosecution in court. For example:

My wife could be the Registered Keeper of a car which I am entitled to drive. I could commit a speeding offence. I could intercept the post, respond to the s172 request  purporting to be her, name her as the driver over an electronic “signature”.

She gets prosecuted in court and pleads not guilty (not least because she had no idea she had been accused of an offence). In court the police produce the s172 response, alleged to have been “signed” by her. The police have no evidence that she did sign it and the usual signature comparisons cannot be undertaken because it is simply a typed name.  Consequently they have no evidence she was driving (which is hardly surprising because she wasn’t).

If, for example, you are covered by Norfolk & Suffolk constabularies then, yes, they will accept a driver's self-nomination online.  (I got caught last year)

I find that very surprising. Especially as both forces’ websites say this about what to do if you receive a s172 notice:

You need to complete the appropriate sections of the notice and return it to the address shown on the form within 28 days.

“Return it to the address...” clearly suggests the requirement is  a physical form sent by post. All the individual forces I have looked at give similar information. Some go further and state definitively that online or e-mail submissions (where the signatory admits to being the driver) are not permitted. Of course I cannot say all forces make similar conditions but those I’ve checked seem to. 

This is not surprising because what we are talking about here are essentially unsigned statements. Whilst unsigned statement may be admissible in court there would have to be a good reason for the lack of signature and their veracity would still be open to challenge. There is simply no reason for the police to risk such complications.

Mildly_Miffed

Alondonboy said:

To clarify, I'm not saying one individual sign changed from 60>50>60, I'm stating that they were all at 60 with little traffic then one was 50 then the next 60. Just no need for the drop other than to trap people.

So this one said 50 from the first moment it was first visible in the distance... but you thought you'd drive under it at 60 anyway?

vacheron

Alondonboy said:

vacheron said:

Just FYI the gantry cameras on the M62 will not activate for the first 3 minutes after an aspect change to prevent motorists from being penalised for exactly this reason, so there is no way that a change from 60-50-60 which was less than 3 minutes between aspect changes would have resulted in the enforcement camera activating.

The cameras also capture, but disregard, the 20 seconds prior to an aspect change, even though the camera will flash. This is why many motorists reported being flashed, but then not receiving any prosecutions in the post.

The cameras also test their flasher module every 24-48 hours, usually around 3am, which has also probably freaked out its fair share of innocent motorists too! 

My reason for knowing this is I designed the LED signals on the M62 ATM project and spent 2 years doing all the compatibility testing with the camera systems (which we do NOT manufacture before anyone lynches me)!

To clarify, I'm not saying one individual sign changed from 60>50>60, I'm stating that they were all at 60 with little traffic then one was 50 then the next 60. Just no need for the drop other than to trap people.

OK, that clarifies things, but i can assure you that nothing is done "to trap people".

Highways England's mandate is to maximise capacity on the UK motorway network. This can be done by smoothing the flow of traffic, preventing "stop start" traffic, and reducing accidents by smoothing the average speed of traffic and reducing it in times of excessive occupancy during and immediately after and accidents and incidents.

Much of this is completely automated by the use of inductive loop detectors in the road at regular intervals to measure the length and speed of every vehicle and automated algorithms and the MIDAS System (Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling) will then set the signs automatically, to ensure that evertyone gets to where they need to be as quickly and smoothly as possible. 

The issue is that this only works if people follow the rules, and unfortunately for some people, the only way to ensure that they do this is to penalise them if they do not. If everyone did this there would be no need for enforcement cameras. 

Also, IIRC, out of the 40-50 gantries we commissioned on the M62 when the system was first rolled out, only 4 actually contained real cameras (the rest are dummy boxes), unless this has changed, you must have been unlucky to have passed under the very small percentage of gantries which are actually capable of capturing your vehicle.   

Okell

TooManyPoints said:

... I find that very surprising. Especially as both forces’ websites say this about what to do if you receive a s172 notice:

You need to complete the appropriate sections of the notice and return it to the address shown on the form within 28 days.

“Return it to the address...” clearly suggests the requirement is  a physical form sent by post. All the individual forces I have looked at give similar information. Some go further and state definitively that online or e-mail submissions (where the signatory admits to being the driver) are not permitted. Of course I cannot say all forces make similar conditions but those I’ve checked seem to. 

This is not surprising because what we are talking about here are essentially unsigned statements. Whilst unsigned statement may be admissible in court there would have to be a good reason for the lack of signature and their veracity would still be open to challenge. There is simply no reason for the police to risk such complications.

Well I was surprised too.

I'd always understood - from Pepipoo - that if you were nominating yourself then you had to return the paper form and you also had to have signed it.

My wife was the RK and she nominated me.  I then got my own request and when I went online I saw that it was possible for me to nominate myself online, which I did.  I then got the offer of a course, which I accepted.

I kept a screenshot of the acknowledgement of my nomination.  The acknowledgement repeated the following form of words from the page I nominated myself on:

"By typing your name into the box below you are signing to ADMIT to being the driver at the time of the alleged offence.  You will receive an offer for the penalty options that are available to you once the admission has been processed.  Once you have received the offer, if you do not comply, this admission will form part of a notice for court proceedings for the alleged offence".

FWIW I agree with you that I'd be surprised if such a digital "signature" was admissible in court, or - if it were admissable - what it would actually prove apart from the fact that someone had typed in someone's name.

But perhaps Norfolk & Suffolk Constabularies aren't too bright...  Didn't FTLA report on a case a couple of months ago where they had attempted to prosecute somebody in the magistrates court for a decriminalised parking offence in Gt Yarmouth or Lowestoft and had to issue a grovelling apology to the motorist?    [Edit: it's here Why a lawyer is giving his fee to charity after stopping a wrongly issued Norfolk fine. (ftla.uk) ]

 


(The annoying thing in my case is that I was flashed by a camera about quarter of a mile from my home that's been there for over 20 years!  I was in a rush... I was in a bad mood... I wasn't concentrating... ) 

TooManyPoints

",,,what it would actually prove apart from the fact that someone had typed in someone's name."

Nothing at all. I'm not doubting you for one minute and like you it, I think it seems Norfolk & Suffolk Plod are not too bright. I would not be surprised if they get egg on their face quite soon. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already!

Alondonboy

So have been away for a few days and returned home to the offer of the course which I will likely take. Have searched all over head unit but cannot find saved dashcam footage, likely wiped over now anyway so no real argument without it and difficult to establish exactly what happened timescale wise. I guess I'll just put it down to experience.

Alondonboy

Car_54 said:

Alondonboy said:

TooManyPoints said:

I do think this is unfair, especially with the increasingly poor postal service. It's unfair to double the penalty just because you are slower with paperwork, more older people use mail and will not pay online.

There is no "doubling of the penalty" involved with speeding offences.

The recipient of the request for driver's details has 14 28 days to respond. The penalty for failing to do so is a charge of "failing to provide driver's details".  However, many police forces provide a reminder (though they have no obligation to do so) and usually allow another seven days after that. Even then they will no usually begin proceedings immediately and will usually accept a late nomination. The only time it becomes an issue is if the speeding offence is close to "timing out" (six months after the date of the offence).

As far as using mail goes, it is obligatory for the driver to return his response signed and on paper. E-mail  or online responses are only permitted where the recipient of the request is nominating somebody else as the driver. This is because the signed response forms part of the evidence to support a speeding prosecution in court. It is all the police have to prove who was driving and an e-mail or online response is not acceptable as evidence.

As far as this example goes, the OP has received the request and has all the information he needs to respond to it (and did have when he first saw the request). He has no reason to delay his response and the police cannot be said to be "turning the screw".

'it is obligatory for the driver to return his response signed and on paper. E-mail  or online responses are only permitted where the recipient of the request is nominating somebody else'

This is incorrect. You can nominate yourself as driver online with a digital signature. No need to send by post.

Do you have any evidence for that? If so, what police force? And could a digital signature be relied upon in court?

I had a (very) recent NIP from the Met which didn't give the option

Mine was with Manchester Police