Dash Cam saves the day (eventually) (7 Viewers)

[FZ]

Thought I would post this up as these personal friends of mine have been through the wringer over a possible and incorrect speeding offence in their 2013 Autosleeper Lancashire when returning home from a trip.

They asked me to 'spread the news around' so here it is although it doesnt go much into the stress that they have gone through, not to mention the expense of fighting the 'alleged offense'!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3wpq1n8e61o

 

[pappajohn]

And who is going to pay his £12000 legal expenses.....hopefully west yorks plod.

 

[dunnah01]

But he was speeding. What did the dash cam show - was the signage missing or just too vague?

 

[FZ]

Missing signage which is why they didn’t want to acknowledge his dash cam footage as that proved the signs were not appropriate

 

[HKF]

But he was speeding. What did the dash cam show - was the signage missing or just too vague?

It says. "Mr Anderson was able to produce dash cam footage that showed there were no road signs present indicating the temporary speed limit."

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sonny]

But he was speeding. What did the dash cam show - was the signage missing or just too vague?

He was not speeding

 

[dunnah01]

It says. "Mr Anderson was able to produce dash cam footage that showed there were no road signs present indicating the temporary speed limit."

So why did his lawyer have to resort to the more dubious "There's no hard and fast rule to state how far apart or close together signage needs to be,". That has a whiff of loophole tbh

 

[HKF]

So why did his lawyer have to resort to the more dubious "There's no hard and fast rule to state how far apart or close together signage needs to be,". That has a whiff of loophole tbh

I've no idea.

 

[Pausim]

I suspect the authorities would have had to repay many fines and rescind many points if it had gone to Court and he had been found not guilty. They had probably been bluffing all along, they only pulled the case the day before the hearing which to me speaks volumes. He has been treated very shabbily.

A friend of mine got a speeding fine refunded 5 years after she had paid it. Another motorist contested a fine and proved that the speed camera in question was not positioned where the legal documents said it was. All the speeding cases for several years had to be cancelled.

 

[15isto2]

"Mr Smith, a road traffic lawyer, said his client "stuck to his guns and turned out to be right"."
If I was paying 12k in legal fees I would want my solicitor to be a bit more convinced of my case

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Googlebot]

So why did his lawyer have to resort to the more dubious "There's no hard and fast rule to state how far apart or close together signage needs to be,". That has a whiff of loophole tbh

That’s a bit harsh IMO, why produce footage of an alleged offence if you thought you were guilty. If even as you say, he got off on a loophole, then he still didn’t commit any offence.

It’s much easier to pay the fine and have the points than spend 12k fighting it. Especially if you are guilty, which he wasn’t.