Court backlogs for speeding hearings

LTL4083

Just wanted to throw a question out there for those who chose to have a hearing rather than take the 3 points...how long did it take for you to get a court date?

I got filmed by a mobile gun doing 43 in a 30 just before Xmas 2023, didn't even see the officer and wasn't pulled over. I did respond to the letter from West Yorks police and said I was driving, but didn't reply to the conditional offer of 3 points and £100 fine as I feel I can argue my case (Won't get into why as it's not really relevant). Since then I've heard nothing.

Definitely not been issued the points and it's been over a year now, I'm a bit stumped as to why I've not had a summons. Is it normal for it to take this long? I can't imagine it's been forgotten or lost in the system, but maybe it has? The courts can't still be using covid as an excuse surely?

Keep_pedalling

The police have six months to bring a prosecution so it looks like you got very lucky and can forget it now. 

facade

They must produce Court papers for speeding within 6 months of the offence.

It can take another month or so for the paperwork to process and you to receive it.

If you have received nothing and you haven’t been awarded points from a court case conducted in your absence then it would appear that they didn't proceed for some reason. 

Okell

Personally I think I'd contact W. Yorks police to confirm that they didn't raise a charge before the 6 months expired

I appreciate that if the OP has checked his licence online and he has no conviction then he is probably in the clear after over a year, but if it was me I'd want to know for sure that post hadn't gone astray and that there wasn't a nasty surprise waiting for me that I would have to deal with.

If the police hadn't already started proceedings by June last year it's too late now so I don't see what the OP has to lose by asking?

Aretnap

Indeed, there's nothing to lose by chasing this up. If proceedings haven't been started it's too late to start them now, so there is no risk that he will remind the police to restart the process. OTOH if they have been started then they will catch up with him sooner or later, so he would be better off knowing about them sooner.

LightFlare

Only because I’m curious (prob not the only one) but would love to know the OPs argument against the 43 in a 30 

It could be something that could aid others in the same location for eg

kinger101

LightFlare said:

Only because I’m curious (prob not the only one) but would love to know the OPs argument against the 43 in a 30 

It could be something that could aid others in the same location for eg

Somehow doubt it will be a credible defence.

LTL4083

kinger101 said:

LightFlare said:

Only because I’m curious (prob not the only one) but would love to know the OPs argument against the 43 in a 30 

It could be something that could aid others in the same location for eg

Somehow doubt it will be a credible defence.

It probably isn't credible but here goes. It's a country lane, national speed limit applies.


About a mile down, just before you get to Honley, there are these two signs. The one on the left is obscured by trees, and pretty much washed out anyway. I can see downhill there's a built area and was thinking it's 30 or maybe even 20, but didn't see the sign on the right (it was a really grey, windy, overcast day and I just didn't pick it up against the background of the village, too busy concentrating on keeping the car on the road!). No other signs up until that point.



Basically at the bottom of the hill there was an officer with a speed gun filming pretty much immediately from when I've passed where these signs are until I get to the built up area. I'm slowing the entire time (ironically looking for a 30 sign that I've already passed)

My (admittedly flimsy) argument would have been that I was already well under the NSL, slowing throughout, the signs would be classed as having critical defects under the Standards for Highways guidance and therefore illegible, so can't be read at 75-90m away, and as such, it only becomes a restricted road when streetlights appear and less than 200 yards apart (which doesn't happen until the start of the village itself, as that's when there's actually pavement for pedestrians to walk on), by which time I'm not doing 43, I'm doing 29 (and you can see this on the video footage)...so I wasn't speeding.

Not sure whose responsibility it is to ensure signs are cleaned/replaced but I daresay the local constabulary are making a nice little earner off it as they've been in that state for nearly 10 years (Only went that way as there'd been a crash on the M62 and it was partially closed...won't be going that way again!), and I'm sure unsuspecting drivers will just take the fine and the points. I was already annoyed that the upper limit for speed awareness courses is 42 and they clocked me at 43, but it would appear I've dodged a bullet.

From the Traffic Signs Manual:

'1.9.3.It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs. The distance which should be kept clear of obstructions to the sight line, whether caused by foliage, other signs or street furniture, is known as the clear visibility distance. The higher the prevailing traffic speeds, the greater this distance needs to be. It is important therefore that sight lines are properly maintained so that the intended warning is not compromised.'

'1.14.1.Over a period of years, signs gradually become faded and their retroreflective properties diminish. This will reduce both conspicuity and legibility, by day and by night. Excessively discoloured or faded signs (e.g. white backgrounds which have become grey or brown, or red borders faded to pink) and signs where the legend or graphic is peeling cannot be fully effective and need to be replaced. Guidance can be found in TD 25, in Volume 8 of DMRB'

Car_54

Two points.

1. Was that photo taken on the day of the offence?

2. The Traffic Signs Manual is not law, but guidance for highway authorities.

user1977

I could maybe see the point about the sign on the left if there wasn't also the one on the right (and I think I'm correct in saying that there only needs to be one, on either side).

Car_54

user1977 said:

I could maybe see the point about the sign on the left if there wasn't also the one on the right (and I think I'm correct in saying that there only needs to be one, on either side).

Correct. But it's recommended that there be two, precisely because one might be obscured, exactly as the OP found.