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.

Brimstone wrote:
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.



*LMFAO*

Yeah, the reason is to RIP YOU OFF for being a car driver and not
wanting to ride next to exploding pakistanis on public transport

Stealth taxes, CLASS WAR, Social engineering

There's no justification for a 20mph limit here at all

**** the *******s off

It's high time the car driving public, like 20,000,000 voters, showed
these nutty communist ****ers that we wont be spanked for their pimp
money any more

It's quite simple - do as the signs say, and you don't get "stealth taxed".
It's not rocket science.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Brimstone wrote:
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.



*LMFAO*

Yeah, the reason is to RIP YOU OFF for being a car driver and not
wanting to ride next to exploding pakistanis on public transport

Stealth taxes, CLASS WAR, Social engineering

There's no justification for a 20mph limit here at all

**** the *******s off

It's high time the car driving public, like 20,000,000 voters, showed
these nutty communist ****ers that we wont be spanked for their pimp
money any more

*LMFAO*

Yeah, the reason is to RIP YOU OFF for being a car driver and not
wanting to ride next to exploding pakistanis on public transport

Stealth taxes, CLASS WAR, Social engineering

There's no justification for a 20mph limit here at all

**** the *******s off

It's high time the car driving public, like 20,000,000 voters, showed
these nutty communist ****ers that we wont be spanked for their pimp
money any more

Might be fun if they did, but the 20 limit on Tower Bridge is there
only for structural reasons - the old bridge will fall apart if average
speeds get too high.

The 20 MPH limit is also there to protect the large number of tourists that
step out into the road with camera in hand without looking.

pay up

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.