Palindrome gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

In this case the road was continuing without any apparent change in
surroundings or street lighting (that could be seen at night), yet
with different stretches at 40 and 30 and even 50.

As it happens, I *thought* it was a 40 zone. But any sensible
motorist, seeing a camera, asks themselves why it was put *there*. No
sign of any road change, pedestrian crossing, etc - the logical reason
was that the speed limit had recently changed.

I'd assume there were plenty of signs, then, otherwise you wouldn't
have known there were lots of changes...?

Anyone can miss a set of signs on a strange road, at night, with no
other traffic around. It could take a km or more to notice that the
roundels aren't there any more.

However, the question is, what do you do when you see a speedcam ahead,
when you are driving on a strange road, at night, with no other traffic
around? Where the speed limit on the road has been going up and down for
no apparent reason?

Well, if I'd not noticed all the signage changing the limit frequently, I
wouldn't know that the limit had been going up and down, would I?

If I'd seen multiple changes of limit, I'd know that the limit was
changing frequently, so be more aware of the signs...

Anyway - you really only need to remember the last couple of hundred
yards-worth. Can you see repeaters ahead? No? Have you just passed some
repeaters? No? Are there streetlights, then? Bingo. You know the
enforcable limit.

"Aidy" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

What you obviously don't understand is that a NIP is an *intent* to
prosecute. It's quite a simple process yet you are not alone is
misunderstanding it.

You'd think that the name would be a clue, wouldn't you?

"Notice of INTENTION TO PROSECUTE" (abbreviated to NIP)

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:38:23 +0100, "Aidy"
wrote:

Excuse me, he admitted guilt immediately *on being provided with the
evidence
requested* - a perfectly reasonable request.

Let's say you kill someone....is it perfectly reasonable to only admit the
offence when presented with evidence?

That would depend on the circumstances. Killing someone is not
necessarily an offence at all, and so it would be best to not only see
what evidence there is, but also find out what the law is so that you
can decide whether or not you are guilty.

I do not habitually speed, but I cannot say that I *never* break the
speed limit. Unless I recall the particular event pretty well, I
would want to ensure that I had in fact been speeding at the time and
place alleged.

The last time I received a NIP for speeding, I could not recall
travelling along the road in question at the time stated, so I
requested to see the evidence. I did not get to see the photograph,
but the NIP was cancelled together with a letter of apology due to the
fact that the photograph apparently showed an "ambiguous situation" -
whatever that means.

--
Cynic

On 23 Jul 2008 09:25:52 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Palindrome gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

In this case the road was continuing without any apparent change in
surroundings or street lighting (that could be seen at night), yet with
different stretches at 40 and 30 and even 50.

As it happens, I *thought* it was a 40 zone. But any sensible motorist,
seeing a camera, asks themselves why it was put *there*. No sign of any
road change, pedestrian crossing, etc - the logical reason was that the
speed limit had recently changed.

I'd assume there were plenty of signs, then, otherwise you wouldn't have
known there were lots of changes...?

The point Sue is making is that it is possible for even a good driver
to fail to notice a 30 limit sign for all sorts of perfectly good
reasons. As you cannot be 100% certain that the limit has not
recently changed without you spotting the sign, it is prudent unless
you are 100% certain about the speed limit to assume the lowest
feasable limit applies when seeing a speed camera.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:21:15 +0100, "mentalguy2004"
wrote:

You say "But, if there is no other traffic, I have to be really, really sure
what the limit is, to go through a speedcam at over 30". Does that mean you
will go through at 40 if there *is* other traffic also doing 40?

Of course. In that case the fact that the other traffic is not
triggering the speed camera makes it certain that it is safe to pass
it at that speed.

--
Cynic

On 23 Jul 2008 06:35:15 GMT, Adrian wrote:

What a pile of sanctimoneous twaddle. It is quite possible to
inadvertently exceed the speed limit in a 30mph zone because there are
no repeater signs. All it takes is for the initial sign which announces
the start of the 30mph zone to be obscured by a bus, an artic or even
vegetation. If you don't know the area it's easy to miss this.

How about the streetlighting? Does that all hide, too?

I'm not sure of your point. What's the streetlighting got to do with
knowing the *posted* speed limit on a road?

You are travelling along a road with street lighting. There are
reapeater signs at intervals telling you that there is a 40MPH speed
limit in force. You become aware that you have not seen a repeater
sign for some time. At exactly what point, if any, will you decide
that the road has become a 30MPH limit?

As Sue said, the initial sign indicating the start of the 30 limit may
have been obscured, or you may have failed to see it for a number of
perfectly understandable reasons.

--
Cynic

Aidy wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that at this preliminary stage, the
refusal to admit guilt would be held against the accused?

Refusal to admit guilt is always held against anyone convicted.

I think you misread what i wrote. If the accused only admits guilt after the
evidence is disclosed to them, is that held against them?


What you obviously don't understand is that a NIP is an *intent* to
prosecute. It's quite a simple process yet you are not alone is
misunderstanding it. You are not being prosecuted, just told that
they intend to prosecute. It is only when you *are* being prosecuted
that you have the right to see evidence against you.

Its a convuluted mechanism to avoid having to disclose evidence. In the way
that a parking ticket is considered a 'charge' and not a 'fine'.

Gaz

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:49:19 +0100, "Aidy"
wrote:

The presence of street lighting means nothing.

Wow. I strongly suggest you brush up on the law as it seems you are one of
the hoard of drivers on the road completely ignorant of the speed they are
supposed to be going at any given time. If you don't know the limit of the
road you are on you shouldn't be driving, it's that simple.

If you believe that every road with street lighting has the same speed
limit, it is *you* who is ignorant.

--
Cynic

"Aidy" wrote in message
...
The presence of street lighting means nothing.

If you don't know the limit of the road you are on you shouldn't be
driving, it's that simple.

Rubbish. I've seen quite a few examples of non-existent or contradictory
signage. As someone who habitually obeys the speedlimit, and always looks
for evidence of what the limit is, I well know the truth of this. One
particularly bad example I can think of was a stretch of dual carriageway in
Coventry, limit 60, repeater signs and enforced by fixed camera. On the
slip road there was a NSL sign. The first 60 repeater sign was *after* the
camera. When I first encountered that road, it was pure luck that I did go
past the camera at 70 and thus get a ticket. So don't **** down my back and
tell me it's raining!.

I think you misread what i wrote. If the accused only admits guilt after
the evidence is disclosed to them, is that held against them?

You're muddying the waters. In the situation we are discussing there is no
"accused". You are referring to steps further down the legal process.

Its a convuluted mechanism to avoid having to disclose evidence. In the
way that a parking ticket is considered a 'charge' and not a 'fine'.

No, it's a courtesy and benefit to allow everyone (the driver, the police
and the courts) to deal with what is a trivial matter in an easy way.
However many people fail to see this as a benefit and, given an inch, want
to take a mile. No-one is convoluting to avoid anything. If you want "due
process" then follow the steps and be treated like every other person
accused of an offence, deny the charges and go to court and see the
evidence. Why do you think drivers should be given a benefit that people
accused of other offences are not? Don't want to do the time....don't do
the crime.