On 2007-01-19 08:11:33 +0000, "dennis@home"
said:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

I often wondered how many tickets were issued that were faulty.


I would just change the charge to one of dangerous driving then.

Faulty tickets can be, and are issued in their tens of thousands...

Notable recent cases include over 60,000 issued in London due to
incorrect alignment of the SPECS system on the embankment. Eventually a
driver pointed out to them that the signs indicating the reduction in
speed to 20mph were placed directly below the SPECS cameras which were
looking down distance down the road. Hence the cameras were sampling
vehicle speed between two fixed points, but half the length monitored
was actually a 30mph road.

Another case involved a motorist being "caught" by a fixed temporary
camera on a dual carriageway. He had to go to court to point out that
although the temporary speed reduction was signed on the main road, it
was not indicated on the slip road that he joined via. Hence the last
sign he went through advised NSL on entry to the road.

Another was a motorcyclist accused of doing 40 in a 30 zone. The rider
challenged the prosecution and demanded to see the evidence. After many
many months of refusals, eventually the police produced the photos
taken by the camera. They indicated the maximum speed was only 26mph
based on the distance travelled over the marked section of road. It
transpires that they had simply issued tickets based the the readings
taken by the Doppler sensor in the camera - and not actually checked
the photos in more detail than required to acquire the registration
number of the vehicle. (this case also illustrated beyond any doubt
that the cameras do make mistakes)


But all of the above are valid mistakes.

No they aren't. Either there are rules for the location and order of
road signs or there aren't.
One can't have it both ways.

Claiming that the first sign wasn't bigger than the rest is just being a pratt.

No it isn't. Either there was a larger first sign or there wasn't.
If it doesn't matter to have a larger first sign, why is it done?


They should be charged with dangerous driving for driving too fast
through the road works and endangering other users.

That's nonsense. The motorist didn't know what the speed restriction
was, or even whether there was one. Presence of road works does not
imply a specific speed restriction and unless you were there and know
the circumstances, it isn't possible to know what the speed was, let
alone whether it constituted dangerous driving.


Speeding is the just the easy option.

That may be true, but if this is going to be used as a means of
measuring whether somebody is driving safely, then those who would seek
to use it must set up the measurement and notification correctly. If
they don't, then they must expect to be challenged on it.