|
The Mail On Sunday, June 19, 2005
By Andrew Baxter and Martin Delgado
Thousands of drivers caught speeding could have their fines refunded after a motorist won a landmark legal ruling that a camera trap cannot be operated on a road without street lights.
Lawyers said that ‘hundreds' more roads might be similarly affected because councils have failed to observe complex rules on the positioning of signs and cameras.
A test case against computer systems manager Phil Walker collapsed last week when magistrates heard the 30mph limit was not enforceable because the A153 at Anwick, Lincolnshire, was not lit at night.
It means that 2,637 drivers penalised for speeding since a Truvelo camera was installed there in July 2002 are likely to be repaid their £60 fine plus costs, and have their penalty points wiped from their licence.
The fiasco has landed the police and local council with a bill for nearly £200,000 and opened the way to a flood of appeals against speeding convictions all over the country.
There could also be claims for damages from drivers who have lost their licences – and their jobs – after being snapped by the rogue camera.
Speed cameras are required by law to be visible to passing traffic. But magistrates at Spalding ruled that neither the lighting nor the speed limit signs on the road in Anwick complied with the regulations.
Mr Walker's lawyer, Clive Burton, told the court that the village's 30mph zone could only be legally enforced if street lamps were installed and speed limit signs displayed at regular intervals.
This would allow that section of the busy trunk route to be classed as a ‘restricted' road under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulations Act.
The Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence after accepting there were not enough signs and the only lights in the village were pavement lamps to make the road safer to pedestrians.
Mr Walker, 53, from Tamworth, West Midlands, said he was ‘delighted' at his acquittal on a charge for doing 38mph in his blue Vauxhall Astra. “I was determined they weren't going to get away with it. They should hold their hands up and pay back everyone who has been fined,” he said.
Mr Burton, who is already dealing with several similar cases in other parts of the country, said: “Anwick village isn't a one-off at all. There are hundreds more roads where the law has been incorrectly applied and motorists wrongly punished. There is a trend in the placing of speed cameras to select sites dictated not by considerations of dangers caused by speeding, but rather by calculations of penalty income for the camera partnerships.”
Last month North Wales Police – headed by speed camera zealot Richard Brunstrom – agreed to pay back fines to 1,136 motorists caught by a mobile camera unit after it was discovered that temporary 40mph signs on the A483 Wrexham bypass had been wrongly positioned.
A similar bunger in February this year led to 2,467 drivers receiving refunds after a court ruled that signs on the A303 at Folly Bottom, near Amesbury, Wiltshire, did not comply with regulations.
The controversial camera at Anwick is one of 72 sites in Lincolnshire, where 25,000 speeding vehicles were snapped last year.
Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership project manager Steve Batchelor said it had been switched off following Mr Walker's challenge.
He added: “In view of evidence presented, the county council is seeking clarification on the legality of the speed limit at Anwick.”
Paul Smith, founder of the campaign group Safe Speed, said wrongly convicted drivers should be compensated. “Speed limit enforcement has become slipshod. This just goes to show the folly of relying on speed cameras. We have to give responsibility for speed enforcement back to police officers using skill and discretion.”
Other Roads Under The Spotlight
To comply with regulations, speed camera warning signs must be set out in a particular format and displayed separately from any other information, such as geographical place names.
Speed limit ‘repeater' signs must be attached to full-height lamp standards and not fixed to low-level pavement lighting designed for pedestrians.
Roads identified by motoring law experts as possibly having incorrectly positioned signs and inadequate lighting, thereby raising questions, include:
The A379 at Starcross, Devon, A6007 at Codnor, Derbyshire, A52 at Wyberton, near Boston, Lincolnshire, A6 bypass at Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire, Gedling Road, Nottingham, Worsall Road at Yarn, Cleveland, and A41 at Telford, Shropshire.
|
