"Unfair" Fine for using bus lane?

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm guessing that the government have a few scientists of their own and due consideration is given to where speed cameras are places. I drive and am not a fan of the yellow boxes but at the end of the day if I break the law and I get caught then I accept the punishment. My only speeding fine was on the M25 in the 1990's. I managed to do 59Mph though a 50Mph zone. At the time I was quite proud of it as usually 50Mph was an unachievable speed.

Try this guy. The whole thing came to a head only last year....it's cost him thousands!
http://www.examiner....86081-20291820/

 

[Walter Mitty]

So his argument is that although the lane is operational till 9:30, they only informed people that it'd be enforced by camera till 9:00
The camera says after 9:00 so it shouldn't be used as evidence.....

Knowing Sheff Council and the drubbing they got with the Wicker bus gate, they'll probably fold on this one.

Looking at the evidence objectively it is clear that Sheffield City Council's press release clearly states that the bus lane on Queens Road is operational in the morning between 7.30 am & 9.00am, however, the Traffic Regulation Order states it is operational between 8am & 9.30am. The press release states that the bus lane is operational in the evening between 4.00pm & 6.30pm, however, the Traffic Regulation Order states that it is operational between 4.30pm & 6.30pm.
According to Streetview the signage on the bus lane states that it is operational 7.30am - 9.30am & 4.30 - 6.30pm. The signage must reflect the times stipulated within the TRO (a legal document made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which, as I'm sure everyone will know, is a 'Statutory Instrument') in order to make enforcement of bus lane contraventions under The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations Act 2005 possible. The signage does not comply with the Traffic Signs and Regulations & General Directions 2002 as the stated times on the signs do not match the TR Order. Simples - to those with a modicum of intelligence that is

 

[Jezston]

This thread ended two months ago.

 

[DrSquirrel]

This thread reopened a few hours ago, live with it.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

This thread still hasn't ended.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

He's correct, the council cannot diverge from the TRO. I've fought several tickets and won every time.

If I'm to be expected to follow the letter of the law, then so must the council. They often make amateurish mistakes, for instance, look at the speed limit signage around Castle Donington:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=don...id=NA4TK2T2OiMmyZSu0Xrx6g&cbp=12,56.1,,0,3.05

Completely unenforceable.

 

[Wankelschrauben]

The Parrot Of Doom!!!!!

How did you claim against the X5 driver go???

 

[PoliceMadAd]

To add, along one side of a road near me, there are two signs stating parking restrictions, about 20ft apart. 8am-6pm i think, Mon-Sat. However, plonked in the middle, is another sign. No parking at any time. There are also double yellow lines. It looks as though the 8-6 are the originals, what would you say/do if you were challenged parking there, outside the 8am-6pm limit?

 

[Mad at urage]

To add, along one side of a road near me, there are two signs stating parking restrictions, about 20ft apart. 8am-6pm i think, Mon-Sat. However, plonked in the middle, is another sign. No parking at any time. There are also double yellow lines. It looks as though the 8-6 are the originals, what would you say/do if you were challenged parking there, outside the 8am-6pm limit?

Double yellow lines - no parking. I wouldn't park there, regardless.

Near me there are 30mph signs that were obviously either side of the road once. The original post is still there but one has migrated to the same side of the road as its mate, albeit 20 yards upstream. This very likely makes the limit unenforceable if anyone wanted to contest it, but I still slow down to 30 as I pass them.

What makes "I know I shouldn't be here but you can't enforce it" acceptable? It's like that prat 'Danny' in the vid so badly used by CTC. Is this the same sickening sense of entitlement that leads to looting "because you can't stop me" ?

 

[dellzeqq]

Try this guy. The whole thing came to a head only last year....it's cost him thousands!
http://www.examiner....86081-20291820/

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/loca...bill-for-a-60-speeding-ticket-86081-21153477/ I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing is hilarious. 'Speed cameras don't work on curves because light travels in a straight line'. Go straight to court and pay £15,000

 

[Tynan]

http://www.examiner....86081-21153477/ I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing is hilarious. 'Speed cameras don't work on curves because light travels in a straight line'. Go straight to court and pay £15,000

His argument I imagine will be that the camera measures his speed coming directly towards it while the car is in fact traveling on a curve so covering more distance in the same period of time ...

hang on, now I type that it's an argument that he was going faster than the camera recorded isn't it?

I like that even on his own best estimate he's still over the limit

 

[PBancroft]

He's correct, the council cannot diverge from the TRO. I've fought several tickets and won every time.

If I'm to be expected to follow the letter of the law, then so must the council. They often make amateurish mistakes, for instance, look at the speed limit signage around Castle Donington:

http://maps.google.c...12,56.1,,0,3.05

Completely unenforceable.

Personally I think it should be reasonable to expect people to follow the intent of the law.

If the council have diverged from the TRO then it needs to be addressed and corrected. If the driver is in breach of both the TRO and the signage (and I don't know if he was in this case), that should be addressed too.

In my opinion getting out of fines for technicality is a bit low, but maybe that's just me.

 

[benb]

http://www.examiner....86081-21153477/ I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing is hilarious. 'Speed cameras don't work on curves because light travels in a straight line'. Go straight to court and pay £15,000

That article is ridiculously sympathetic.

Vikki and Iain Fielden were hit with the huge costs – 250 times their original fine – after their appeal was rejected at Bradford Crown Court.

The two costs are unrelated to each other.
The defendant chose to contest the conviction, as is their right.
They lost, so costs (substantially reduced, I might add, so still leaving the taxpayer with a hefty bill) were awarded.

So why the spurious attempt to paint the costs as "unfair" in relation to the original fine?

Maybe next time she'll:

• think twice before breaking the speed limit
• not waste everyone's time with a ridiculous defence

I'll just add that he must be a poor physicist to argue that a speed camera is not effective on a bend because light travels in a straight line!
You'd have be travelling extremely fast for that to make more than 0.00000000001% difference to the recorded speed (light travels at c. 186,000 miles/second)

 

[Walter Mitty]

Personally I think it should be reasonable to expect people to follow the intent of the law.

If the council have diverged from the TRO then it needs to be addressed and corrected. If the driver is in breach of both the TRO and the signage (and I don't know if he was in this case), that should be addressed too.

In my opinion getting out of fines for technicality is a bit low, but maybe that's just me.

According to what is written on a Sheffield forum discussing this subject the TRO was made in 1998 under the Experimental Traffic Scheme section of the RTR Act. If that is so the TRO expired 18 months later presumably in 2000 sometime. Therefore the driver could not have been in breach of a TRO as one didn't exist.

 

[400bhp]

That article is ridiculously sympathetic.

That is an absolute great example of someone[the physicist] who;

a) has a high IQ but no common sense, and

b) someone who has an over inflated opinion of oneself

Stick to lecturing.