I read some previous threads on the speed cams at Tower Bridge, but they
didn't quite answer a query I have, I wondered if any of the experts on
these groups might no. I received a NIP (notice of intended prosecution)
not long ago for doing 32mph and it defines the speed limit there as 20. I
did to be fair see these signs, but always understood that 30 was the legal
minimum speed limit in the UK, and that therefore signs indicating 20 were
advisory. Is this still true? Does anyone think I can challenge the NIP or
the automatic penalty offer of a delightful 3 points that will inevitably
follow on this type of ground? Anyone know of cases where people have
challenged the Tower Bridge cameras?

thanks
James

Careful driver of Vectra SRI 2.2 (really!)

James wrote:
I read some previous threads on the speed cams at Tower Bridge, but
they didn't quite answer a query I have, I wondered if any of the
experts on these groups might no. I received a NIP (notice of
intended prosecution) not long ago for doing 32mph and it defines the
speed limit there as 20. I did to be fair see these signs, but always
understood that 30 was the legal minimum speed limit in the UK, and
that therefore signs indicating 20 were advisory. Is this still true?
Does anyone think I can challenge the NIP or the automatic penalty
offer of a delightful 3 points that will inevitably follow on this
type of ground? Anyone know of cases where people have challenged the
Tower Bridge cameras?

Not advisory, mandatory. It's only 30 unless otherwise notified. Pay up and
take advantage of the generous cash discount. Try and challenge it and
you'll lose. The restriction is there for a reason.

In message , James
writes

I read some previous threads on the speed cams at Tower Bridge, but they
didn't quite answer a query I have, I wondered if any of the experts on
these groups might no. I received a NIP (notice of intended prosecution)
not long ago for doing 32mph and it defines the speed limit there as 20. I
did to be fair see these signs, but always understood that 30 was the legal
minimum speed limit in the UK, and that therefore signs indicating 20 were
advisory. Is this still true?

If it ever has been, which I doubt, it is certainly not the case now. If
the signs were legal, then 20 is the limit.

There are many, many places where 20mph is now the limit if signed -
outside schools, in various inner-town areas, and in the whole of
certain defined areas such as the roads within Richmond Park.

Welcome to the new world - swallow hard and accept it, unless you can
afford a lawyer who is able successfully to argue that the signs were
not legal or the camera faulty. Since the Tower Bridge limit has
apparently been there for half a century, I think it unlikely:

http://www.speedcheck.co.uk/pressStory19.htm

--
Paul Terry

James ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

I received a NIP (notice of intended
prosecution) not long ago for doing 32mph and it defines the speed
limit there as 20. I did to be fair see these signs, but always
understood that 30 was the legal minimum speed limit in the UK

You understood wrong.

and that therefore signs indicating 20 were advisory. Is this still true?

It's as true as it ever has been.

Does anyone think I can challenge the NIP or the automatic penalty
offer of a delightful 3 points that will inevitably follow on this
type of ground?

You most certainly can challenge it. You might not get very far. Well,
except court. You'll certainly get there.

Anyone know of cases where people have challenged the
Tower Bridge cameras?

On the grounds that they saw the signs but didn't think they applied to
them, m'lud?

Anyway - I hate to break this to you, but 3230, so you'd still be pleading
guilty to speeding. The 10% +/- 2mph leeway IS "advisory".

Adrian wrote in
44.170:

On the grounds that they saw the signs but didn't think they applied
to them, m'lud?

Anyway - I hate to break this to you, but 3230, so you'd still be
pleading guilty to speeding. The 10% +/- 2mph leeway IS "advisory".

Tee hee. On which planet is that rule enforced properly? Is that for
example on the M40 where I would estimate about 40% of all drivers do 90+
most of the time?

Some of you "we hate speed" people on this group are such *******. I bet
when you finish lecturing people on here you go to the shops in your BMW
and speed round the supermarket car parks like half the other ****s do.

"James" wrote in message
...

Some of you "we hate speed" people on this group are such *******. I bet
when you finish lecturing people on here you go to the shops in your BMW
and speed round the supermarket car parks like half the other ****s do.

That's hardly a very fair response to people who have just given you
sensible, swift advice. Where did they say they hated speed? They just told
you how the law stands, that's all. Just because you didn't like what you
were told, doesn't mean you have to slag off the people who told you.

And supermarket car parks are private property - I would imagine you can go
around them as fast as you like.

Ian

"Ian F." wrote in
:

"James" wrote in message
...

Some of you "we hate speed" people on this group are such *******. I
bet when you finish lecturing people on here you go to the shops in
your BMW and speed round the supermarket car parks like half the
other ****s do.

That's hardly a very fair response to people who have just given you
sensible, swift advice. Where did they say they hated speed? They just
told you how the law stands, that's all. Just because you didn't like
what you were told, doesn't mean you have to slag off the people who
told you.

And supermarket car parks are private property - I would imagine you
can go around them as fast as you like.

Tee hee. Shows how "expert" you are. The old laws about doing what you like
on private property in a car no longer apply, as you will see on any TV
traffic cops show, where they for example routinely follow criminals into
supermarket car parks and arrest them, hassle them for invalid tax disks,
etc. A recent example of Road Wars (Sky One) showed them doing a driver on
a country private estate road for being a disqualified driver.

But I wasn't peeed off with the advice, which was sound, just the tone you
always get around here of hypocritical finger wagging every time someone
brings up a small misdemeanour. I was tired, it was midnight and I crossed
a deserted Tower Bridge at the outrageous and indeed _criminal_ excess
speed of 12mph. Get out the birch twigs.

In message , James
writes

Adrian wrote in
. 244.170:

Anyway - I hate to break this to you, but 3230, so you'd still be
pleading guilty to speeding. The 10% +/- 2mph leeway IS "advisory".

Tee hee. On which planet is that rule enforced properly?

In places such as Tower Bridge that have speed cameras - as you would
have realised if you'd managed to read the original post properly.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote in
:

In message , James
writes

Adrian wrote in
.244.170:

Anyway - I hate to break this to you, but 3230, so you'd still be
pleading guilty to speeding. The 10% +/- 2mph leeway IS "advisory".

Tee hee. On which planet is that rule enforced properly?

In places such as Tower Bridge that have speed cameras - as you would
have realised if you'd managed to read the original post properly.

Oh sure - you get busted if you cross TB at 22mph! Peh-leaze. Do any of you
know it all ****s ever drive a ****ing car on a real ****ing road?

Paul Terry wrote in
ine:

In message , James
writes

Since the Tower Bridge limit has apparently been there for half a century,
I think it unlikely:

I too thought that until recently (maybe about five years ago) the lowest
*enforceable* speed limit was 30, which was why councils splattered roads
with speed humps and chicanes to try to impose a physical as opposed to
legal restriction.

But I know that 20 limits are now enforceable. The main road from
Beaconsfield to Slough is mainly 30 but has 20 limits for about 50 yards
either side of every traffic light junction over a half-mile stretch - I
think there are four of them. It's tedious driving along a road which is
wide and straight, and has service roads either side so through traffic and
stopping traffic is kept separate, so even 30 is a bit slow and 20 is
painfully slow. I cannot help thinking that traffic which has priority is
being penalised for the sins of pedestrians and othe drivers who fail to
observe the traffic lights - but this seems to be morally acceptible in this
Brave New World.

I'd like to see much more use of repeater signs where slow speed limits
apply: on every single lamp-post and painted on the road - and maybe even as
flashing number-in-a-red-circle signs which light up if you're over the
limit. Hopefully if you're observant you'll see the first sign at the start
of the restriction, but I find I need it drummed into my head constantly to
avoid me speeding up subconsciously to a speed that feels appropriate.