East Lancs driver successfully challenges speeding tickets in court

Businessman John Brewin who successfully contested his speeding fines

Businessman John Brewin who successfully contested his speeding fines

First published in News Blackburn Citizen: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A BUSINESSMAN clocked driving at 40mph and 42mph in a ‘30mph zone’ had his speeding tickets thrown out in court.

John Brewin was caught by a mobile speed camera unit in Lower Eccleshill Road, Darwen, in November last year and again in January.

MORE TOP STORIES:

But after choosing to contest the penalties, he defended himself in court and argued that they were not legal.

Mr Brewin, 62, who owns online trading company Blakeholme Ltd on the former East Lancashire Warehousing site in Lower Eccleshill Road, said after setting the precedent he felt more people caught in the road may try to appeal.

Speaking after the hearing at Blackburn Magistrates’ Court he said: “I questioned the speed restriction status of an unlit section of the road.

“Under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, a road can only be classed as ‘restricted’ if there is street lighting on it with lamp-posts not more than 200 yards apart, or if a Traffic Regulation Order has been made by the local authority designating the road as restricted.

“During the court hearing I requested that the prosecution produce a traffic order showing the road’s restricted status.

“After a lunchtime recess consultation, the Crown prosecutor failed to produce such an order and the charges were dropped.”

Mr Brewin did point out that although the necessary traffic order could not be produced in time, it did not mean one did not exist and said anyone trying to defend themselves on the back of his case should be wary of that. A Blackburn with Darwen Council spokesman said speeding fines were not its responsibility and so it would not be looking into other speeding tickets given in the road.

After further research, evidence that a traffic regulation order existed in Lower Eccleshill Road, dating back to 1999, was discovered. Allan Whipp from the East Lancashire Advanced Motorists, said: “If a driver knows it’s a 30mph limit, irrespective of street lamps, they should not exceed that speed.

“Usually it is the other way, with street lamps indicating a road has a 30mph limit, but no lamp-posts doesn’t mean it is not a 30mph zone.”

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:26am Wed 3 Sep 14

HarryBosch says...

Looking quite smug in the photo, but speed limits are there for a reason - to keep us ALL safe. If a speed limit is posted, stick to it!
Looking quite smug in the photo, but speed limits are there for a reason - to keep us ALL safe. If a speed limit is posted, stick to it! HarryBosch
  • Score: 46

11:59am Wed 3 Sep 14

flogemandwhipem says...

Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger.
Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger. flogemandwhipem
  • Score: 45

12:12pm Wed 3 Sep 14

darwenTower says...

flogemandwhipem wrote:
Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger.
Did he place anyone in danger though?
[quote][p][bold]flogemandwhipem[/bold] wrote: Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger.[/p][/quote]Did he place anyone in danger though? darwenTower
  • Score: -30

12:18pm Wed 3 Sep 14

thoroughbred says...

Arrogant B@@@ard!
No respect for the law or lives of others.
Arrogant B@@@ard! No respect for the law or lives of others. thoroughbred
  • Score: 25

12:44pm Wed 3 Sep 14

GracesDad says...

darwenTower wrote:
flogemandwhipem wrote:
Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger.
Did he place anyone in danger though?
What kind of dumbass question is that?

Are you saying it is ok to speed as long as you are not putting anybody in danger?
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flogemandwhipem[/bold] wrote: Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger.[/p][/quote]Did he place anyone in danger though?[/p][/quote]What kind of dumbass question is that? Are you saying it is ok to speed as long as you are not putting anybody in danger? GracesDad
  • Score: 21

12:54pm Wed 3 Sep 14

darwenTower says...

GracesDad wrote:
darwenTower wrote:
flogemandwhipem wrote:
Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger.
Did he place anyone in danger though?
What kind of dumbass question is that?

Are you saying it is ok to speed as long as you are not putting anybody in danger?
Kindly curb your language.

I'm suggesting that the speed he was doing might have been approriate for the road.
Just because the authorities like to rule every minutae of our lives doesn't make them right.

So come on dumbass, who did he put in danger?
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flogemandwhipem[/bold] wrote: Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger.[/p][/quote]Did he place anyone in danger though?[/p][/quote]What kind of dumbass question is that? Are you saying it is ok to speed as long as you are not putting anybody in danger?[/p][/quote]Kindly curb your language. I'm suggesting that the speed he was doing might have been approriate for the road. Just because the authorities like to rule every minutae of our lives doesn't make them right. So come on dumbass, who did he put in danger? darwenTower
  • Score: -21

1:18pm Wed 3 Sep 14

GracesDad says...

darwenTower wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
darwenTower wrote:
flogemandwhipem wrote:
Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger.
Did he place anyone in danger though?
What kind of dumbass question is that?

Are you saying it is ok to speed as long as you are not putting anybody in danger?
Kindly curb your language.

I'm suggesting that the speed he was doing might have been approriate for the road.
Just because the authorities like to rule every minutae of our lives doesn't make them right.

So come on dumbass, who did he put in danger?
Anybody who was in the vicinity of his vehichle as he was hurtling down the road at a third more than the speed limit allows.

Are you really so stupid that you think nobody is being endangered by that kind of behaviour? There are concealed entrances all down that road where HGV's are pulling out. Not to mention cyclists, pedestrians and other road users.

You have absolutley no justification for suggesting that driving 40% above the speed limit may have "been appropriate for the road".

And for the record, I said your question was dumbass rather than you.
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flogemandwhipem[/bold] wrote: Yet another self-satisfied moron with no principles who think speed limits are there for everyone else but themselves, free to carry on putting peoples' lives in danger.[/p][/quote]Did he place anyone in danger though?[/p][/quote]What kind of dumbass question is that? Are you saying it is ok to speed as long as you are not putting anybody in danger?[/p][/quote]Kindly curb your language. I'm suggesting that the speed he was doing might have been approriate for the road. Just because the authorities like to rule every minutae of our lives doesn't make them right. So come on dumbass, who did he put in danger?[/p][/quote]Anybody who was in the vicinity of his vehichle as he was hurtling down the road at a third more than the speed limit allows. Are you really so stupid that you think nobody is being endangered by that kind of behaviour? There are concealed entrances all down that road where HGV's are pulling out. Not to mention cyclists, pedestrians and other road users. You have absolutley no justification for suggesting that driving 40% above the speed limit may have "been appropriate for the road". And for the record, I said your question was dumbass rather than you. GracesDad
  • Score: 20

1:32pm Wed 3 Sep 14

darwenTower says...

Hurtling! You are hilarious.
I'm pretty sure the speed limit on that road has been higher in the past without event.

Again you are worrying about problems that aren't there. If it was up to people like you the country would grind to a halt while we eliminate every possible element of risk.
Hurtling! You are hilarious. I'm pretty sure the speed limit on that road has been higher in the past without event. Again you are worrying about problems that aren't there. If it was up to people like you the country would grind to a halt while we eliminate every possible element of risk. darwenTower
  • Score: -15

1:45pm Wed 3 Sep 14

GracesDad says...

darwenTower wrote:
Hurtling! You are hilarious.
I'm pretty sure the speed limit on that road has been higher in the past without event.

Again you are worrying about problems that aren't there. If it was up to people like you the country would grind to a halt while we eliminate every possible element of risk.
Your attitude towards road safety is alarming and I sincerely hope that you do not hold a valid drivers licence as the roads are a **** sight safer with clowns like you not using them. I hope none of your loved ones are ever hurt by a speeding motorist....you'd be singing a different story then!!!
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: Hurtling! You are hilarious. I'm pretty sure the speed limit on that road has been higher in the past without event. Again you are worrying about problems that aren't there. If it was up to people like you the country would grind to a halt while we eliminate every possible element of risk.[/p][/quote]Your attitude towards road safety is alarming and I sincerely hope that you do not hold a valid drivers licence as the roads are a **** sight safer with clowns like you not using them. I hope none of your loved ones are ever hurt by a speeding motorist....you'd be singing a different story then!!! GracesDad
  • Score: 22

2:23pm Wed 3 Sep 14

darwenTower says...

I've held a license for over 20 years and have full no claims. I haven't had an accident since I was in my early 20's (when I was driving the way those in their early 20s often do). Sadly it is many years since I was a twentysomething.

You are obsessing over the term 'speeding'. Someone in an office somewhere has decided that road should have a limit of 30 on it. That doesn't make it dangerous to drive on it at 40mph as is attested by the fact that hundreds of motorists do the same day in day out, hence the mobile speed camera being there.

Have you ever seen a speed camera outside a school? I haven't. They are always placed on back roads where a large number of people are likely to be operating above 30mph.

If you think Lower Eccleshill road is dangerous when cars on there are travelling at above 30 I strongly suggest you avoid the place at all costs.
Though the fact that I can't remember the last accident on there should provide some comfort.
I've held a license for over 20 years and have full no claims. I haven't had an accident since I was in my early 20's (when I was driving the way those in their early 20s often do). Sadly it is many years since I was a twentysomething. You are obsessing over the term 'speeding'. Someone in an office somewhere has decided that road should have a limit of 30 on it. That doesn't make it dangerous to drive on it at 40mph as is attested by the fact that hundreds of motorists do the same day in day out, hence the mobile speed camera being there. Have you ever seen a speed camera outside a school? I haven't. They are always placed on back roads where a large number of people are likely to be operating above 30mph. If you think Lower Eccleshill road is dangerous when cars on there are travelling at above 30 I strongly suggest you avoid the place at all costs. Though the fact that I can't remember the last accident on there should provide some comfort. darwenTower
  • Score: 4

4:32pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Chuck-Norris says...

Congratulations - you must be very pleased with yourself -
Congratulations - you must be very pleased with yourself - Chuck-Norris
  • Score: 7

4:36pm Wed 3 Sep 14

darwenTower says...

Chuck-Norris wrote:
Congratulations - you must be very pleased with yourself -
Can't grumble too much.

Seriously though, the country is full of people worrying themselves sick about unmuzzled dogs and people making good progress on a backroad.

Meanwhile the Tories are trying to sell our motorways to the Chinese, multinational food companies are trying to monopolise the food chain. I could go on at length about things worth worrying about. Get some perspective.
[quote][p][bold]Chuck-Norris[/bold] wrote: Congratulations - you must be very pleased with yourself -[/p][/quote]Can't grumble too much. Seriously though, the country is full of people worrying themselves sick about unmuzzled dogs and people making good progress on a backroad. Meanwhile the Tories are trying to sell our motorways to the Chinese, multinational food companies are trying to monopolise the food chain. I could go on at length about things worth worrying about. Get some perspective. darwenTower
  • Score: 1

4:49pm Wed 3 Sep 14

CapitaBackHander says...

So the story is that he broke the speed limit but because the CPS is useless he got away with it. A huge amount of speeding fines could be contested because they are just cash cows and Nik Freeman type could pull them apart - I.e. pointing gun non stop at every car and not forming a personal opinion they are speeding. Unqualified operators.
The article itself says there is an order so he should have been made to look a fool. You don't defend yourself in court for this reason!
Why has he gone to the paper OR agreed for them to run the story.

Some nonsense wrote above re risk but the limit is there for a reason.
So the story is that he broke the speed limit but because the CPS is useless he got away with it. A huge amount of speeding fines could be contested because they are just cash cows and Nik Freeman type could pull them apart - I.e. pointing gun non stop at every car and not forming a personal opinion they are speeding. Unqualified operators. The article itself says there is an order so he should have been made to look a fool. You don't defend yourself in court for this reason! Why has he gone to the paper OR agreed for them to run the story. Some nonsense wrote above re risk but the limit is there for a reason. CapitaBackHander
  • Score: 4

4:52pm Wed 3 Sep 14

GracesDad says...

darwenTower wrote:
Chuck-Norris wrote:
Congratulations - you must be very pleased with yourself -
Can't grumble too much.

Seriously though, the country is full of people worrying themselves sick about unmuzzled dogs and people making good progress on a backroad.

Meanwhile the Tories are trying to sell our motorways to the Chinese, multinational food companies are trying to monopolise the food chain. I could go on at length about things worth worrying about. Get some perspective.
Tell me how speeding drivers or dangerous dogs are not more pressing immediate issues than ANYTHING that the Tories are doing?

You live in cloud-cuckoo land if you think that anything political affects the safety of normal everyday people here in the North-West. Do you honestly think that I give a sh*t about the government selling roads to the Chinese??????? How will that make my life worse?

You are seriously out of touch with reality!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chuck-Norris[/bold] wrote: Congratulations - you must be very pleased with yourself -[/p][/quote]Can't grumble too much. Seriously though, the country is full of people worrying themselves sick about unmuzzled dogs and people making good progress on a backroad. Meanwhile the Tories are trying to sell our motorways to the Chinese, multinational food companies are trying to monopolise the food chain. I could go on at length about things worth worrying about. Get some perspective.[/p][/quote]Tell me how speeding drivers or dangerous dogs are not more pressing immediate issues than ANYTHING that the Tories are doing? You live in cloud-cuckoo land if you think that anything political affects the safety of normal everyday people here in the North-West. Do you honestly think that I give a sh*t about the government selling roads to the Chinese??????? How will that make my life worse? You are seriously out of touch with reality!!!!! GracesDad
  • Score: -6

5:46pm Wed 3 Sep 14

darwenTower says...

LMAO, you'd still rather worry about things that aren't happening rather than things that are!
Media driven outrage at it's best.

I've been on that road twice this afternoon. The traffic was travelling at a shade over 40 around Goose House and a shade under 40 round the corner and down the hill.

NOTHING HAPPENED - it's the same every single day.
I was on Roman Road also, that is a 40 limit so the traffic was doing 40 legally on there, are you happy with that? Not much difference by the looks of it to me, there's even a kids recreation place on there! "Won't somebody please think of the children!!!"

I'd rather be on a road with Mr Brewin than with people who are so nervous and incompetent behind the wheel that they think that it's impossible to drive a car safely at 40mph.

If you want a debate on road safety though, what about the elderly? Diabetics? People with young kids almost certainly distracting them? People of low IQ? Mental health problems?
LMAO, you'd still rather worry about things that aren't happening rather than things that are! Media driven outrage at it's best. I've been on that road twice this afternoon. The traffic was travelling at a shade over 40 around Goose House and a shade under 40 round the corner and down the hill. NOTHING HAPPENED - it's the same every single day. I was on Roman Road also, that is a 40 limit so the traffic was doing 40 legally on there, are you happy with that? Not much difference by the looks of it to me, there's even a kids recreation place on there! "Won't somebody please think of the children!!!" I'd rather be on a road with Mr Brewin than with people who are so nervous and incompetent behind the wheel that they think that it's impossible to drive a car safely at 40mph. If you want a debate on road safety though, what about the elderly? Diabetics? People with young kids almost certainly distracting them? People of low IQ? Mental health problems? darwenTower
  • Score: 12

5:53pm Wed 3 Sep 14

doggydog says...

darwenTower wrote:
LMAO, you'd still rather worry about things that aren't happening rather than things that are!
Media driven outrage at it's best.

I've been on that road twice this afternoon. The traffic was travelling at a shade over 40 around Goose House and a shade under 40 round the corner and down the hill.

NOTHING HAPPENED - it's the same every single day.
I was on Roman Road also, that is a 40 limit so the traffic was doing 40 legally on there, are you happy with that? Not much difference by the looks of it to me, there's even a kids recreation place on there! "Won't somebody please think of the children!!!"

I'd rather be on a road with Mr Brewin than with people who are so nervous and incompetent behind the wheel that they think that it's impossible to drive a car safely at 40mph.

If you want a debate on road safety though, what about the elderly? Diabetics? People with young kids almost certainly distracting them? People of low IQ? Mental health problems?
people like you think is safe to ignore the speed limit does not make it right. Its 30 for a reason! Just coz you ignore the law does not make it right nor your justifaction for ignoring it. I pray you get caught over and over again!
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: LMAO, you'd still rather worry about things that aren't happening rather than things that are! Media driven outrage at it's best. I've been on that road twice this afternoon. The traffic was travelling at a shade over 40 around Goose House and a shade under 40 round the corner and down the hill. NOTHING HAPPENED - it's the same every single day. I was on Roman Road also, that is a 40 limit so the traffic was doing 40 legally on there, are you happy with that? Not much difference by the looks of it to me, there's even a kids recreation place on there! "Won't somebody please think of the children!!!" I'd rather be on a road with Mr Brewin than with people who are so nervous and incompetent behind the wheel that they think that it's impossible to drive a car safely at 40mph. If you want a debate on road safety though, what about the elderly? Diabetics? People with young kids almost certainly distracting them? People of low IQ? Mental health problems?[/p][/quote]people like you think is safe to ignore the speed limit does not make it right. Its 30 for a reason! Just coz you ignore the law does not make it right nor your justifaction for ignoring it. I pray you get caught over and over again! doggydog
  • Score: -4

6:01pm Wed 3 Sep 14

darwenTower says...

"people like you think is safe to ignore the speed limit does not make it right. Its 30 for a reason! Just coz you ignore the law does not make it right nor your justifaction for ignoring it. I pray you get caught over and over again!"

And what is that reason?

You seriously think that the state's interference in every minute detail of our lives is for our own benefit? If you do I genuinely pity you.
"people like you think is safe to ignore the speed limit does not make it right. Its 30 for a reason! Just coz you ignore the law does not make it right nor your justifaction for ignoring it. I pray you get caught over and over again!" And what is that reason? You seriously think that the state's interference in every minute detail of our lives is for our own benefit? If you do I genuinely pity you. darwenTower
  • Score: 12

6:19pm Wed 3 Sep 14

phil kernot says...

The law is there for a reason to serve justice ,,, justice was done because the council never had the facts ,,, but law is ruled by facts ... So if you think he should have been found guilty your wrong for that reason ,,,, some speed cameras have been proved to just generate money ,, that's why loads have been removed ,, there was one on the a666 but it was hidden by the council so it was just purely to generate money ,,,
The law is there for a reason to serve justice ,,, justice was done because the council never had the facts ,,, but law is ruled by facts ... So if you think he should have been found guilty your wrong for that reason ,,,, some speed cameras have been proved to just generate money ,, that's why loads have been removed ,, there was one on the a666 but it was hidden by the council so it was just purely to generate money ,,, phil kernot
  • Score: 9

6:29pm Wed 3 Sep 14

doylerf says...

phil kernot wrote:
The law is there for a reason to serve justice ,,, justice was done because the council never had the facts ,,, but law is ruled by facts ... So if you think he should have been found guilty your wrong for that reason ,,,, some speed cameras have been proved to just generate money ,, that's why loads have been removed ,, there was one on the a666 but it was hidden by the council so it was just purely to generate money ,,,
So what if it is a cash generator. Think of it as voluntary taxation, you speed and choose to pay. Put more traps up, let it support policing and reduce the burden from council tax.
[quote][p][bold]phil kernot[/bold] wrote: The law is there for a reason to serve justice ,,, justice was done because the council never had the facts ,,, but law is ruled by facts ... So if you think he should have been found guilty your wrong for that reason ,,,, some speed cameras have been proved to just generate money ,, that's why loads have been removed ,, there was one on the a666 but it was hidden by the council so it was just purely to generate money ,,,[/p][/quote]So what if it is a cash generator. Think of it as voluntary taxation, you speed and choose to pay. Put more traps up, let it support policing and reduce the burden from council tax. doylerf
  • Score: -3

7:54pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Mikeee47 says...

well done Geezer! maybe more will contest their NIPs
Councils imposing their OWN law is unacceptable
Come the revolution
well done Geezer! maybe more will contest their NIPs Councils imposing their OWN law is unacceptable Come the revolution Mikeee47
  • Score: 4

7:57pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Mikeee47 says...

Just for the record how many do gooders spouting sh1t3 about speeding ask yourself 1 question how many have you crept above the Legal limit?
HYPOCRITES!!!
Just for the record how many do gooders spouting sh1t3 about speeding ask yourself 1 question how many have you crept above the Legal limit? HYPOCRITES!!! Mikeee47
  • Score: 12

8:33pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Copperhead says...

Excellent news !
Great to read about someone winning their case against the anti-car, money-stealing, thieving and grabbing time-servers in the town hall.
Speed limits are generally far too low in the UK - they have been lowered simply to turn the carriageway into a cash generator.
Anti-car left-wing zealots infest the town hall/county hall/whitehall and do their best to get us onto bicycles or buses whether we want to or not.
Motorists would be better served if all the money raised in taxation of the road user was actually spent on improving our third-world status roads rather than on public sector salaries, pensions and benefits for immigrants.
Excellent news ! Great to read about someone winning their case against the anti-car, money-stealing, thieving and grabbing time-servers in the town hall. Speed limits are generally far too low in the UK - they have been lowered simply to turn the carriageway into a cash generator. Anti-car left-wing zealots infest the town hall/county hall/whitehall and do their best to get us onto bicycles or buses whether we want to or not. Motorists would be better served if all the money raised in taxation of the road user was actually spent on improving our third-world status roads rather than on public sector salaries, pensions and benefits for immigrants. Copperhead
  • Score: 9

8:56pm Wed 3 Sep 14

J F D I says...

Congratulations on your victory - a lot of speed limits around town are questionable. The A666 leaving Darwen towards Bolton needs the limit increasing as soon as you pass the Cemetery. 30mph is too slow for the road and now they've put two islands in the road to make it difficult to overtake at Woodlea Chase.
Congratulations on your victory - a lot of speed limits around town are questionable. The A666 leaving Darwen towards Bolton needs the limit increasing as soon as you pass the Cemetery. 30mph is too slow for the road and now they've put two islands in the road to make it difficult to overtake at Woodlea Chase. J F D I
  • Score: 2

10:42pm Wed 3 Sep 14

CapitaBackHander says...

phil kernot wrote:
The law is there for a reason to serve justice ,,, justice was done because the council never had the facts ,,, but law is ruled by facts ... So if you think he should have been found guilty your wrong for that reason ,,,, some speed cameras have been proved to just generate money ,, that's why loads have been removed ,, there was one on the a666 but it was hidden by the council so it was just purely to generate money ,,,
Just to correct you - he was guilty. He didn't dispute he was speeding, he claimed no TRO but there was! He was lucky, CPS did a poor job.
[quote][p][bold]phil kernot[/bold] wrote: The law is there for a reason to serve justice ,,, justice was done because the council never had the facts ,,, but law is ruled by facts ... So if you think he should have been found guilty your wrong for that reason ,,,, some speed cameras have been proved to just generate money ,, that's why loads have been removed ,, there was one on the a666 but it was hidden by the council so it was just purely to generate money ,,,[/p][/quote]Just to correct you - he was guilty. He didn't dispute he was speeding, he claimed no TRO but there was! He was lucky, CPS did a poor job. CapitaBackHander
  • Score: 2

10:46pm Wed 3 Sep 14

CapitaBackHander says...

J F D I wrote:
Congratulations on your victory - a lot of speed limits around town are questionable. The A666 leaving Darwen towards Bolton needs the limit increasing as soon as you pass the Cemetery. 30mph is too slow for the road and now they've put two islands in the road to make it difficult to overtake at Woodlea Chase.
That should be 40MPH as in a slow down from 50mph to 30mph. The island (one on the entry to 50mph!) can only have been agreed by morons. Might as well put double (need re painting anyway) white lines from at least Woodlea to Green Arms Road. The area needs active traffic policing - speed isn't the issue, bad driving is and these islands do nothing but encourage appalling overtaking prior or on bridges/bends! Innocent people will get killed now - not your guilty drink/drug drivers as has been the case!
[quote][p][bold]J F D I[/bold] wrote: Congratulations on your victory - a lot of speed limits around town are questionable. The A666 leaving Darwen towards Bolton needs the limit increasing as soon as you pass the Cemetery. 30mph is too slow for the road and now they've put two islands in the road to make it difficult to overtake at Woodlea Chase.[/p][/quote]That should be 40MPH as in a slow down from 50mph to 30mph. The island (one on the entry to 50mph!) can only have been agreed by morons. Might as well put double (need re painting anyway) white lines from at least Woodlea to Green Arms Road. The area needs active traffic policing - speed isn't the issue, bad driving is and these islands do nothing but encourage appalling overtaking prior or on bridges/bends! Innocent people will get killed now - not your guilty drink/drug drivers as has been the case! CapitaBackHander
  • Score: 4

10:47pm Wed 3 Sep 14

CapitaBackHander says...

Mikeee47 wrote:
well done Geezer! maybe more will contest their NIPs
Councils imposing their OWN law is unacceptable
Come the revolution
You miss the point - he was totally wrong to contest it! I question how many people can actually read!
[quote][p][bold]Mikeee47[/bold] wrote: well done Geezer! maybe more will contest their NIPs Councils imposing their OWN law is unacceptable Come the revolution[/p][/quote]You miss the point - he was totally wrong to contest it! I question how many people can actually read! CapitaBackHander
  • Score: -2

11:01pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Hendog says...

How predictable, the usual do-gooders, who have never broken a speed limit in their life with their fake morality.
I suppose everybody on here has never slipped to 71mph, heaven forbid, the increased air resistance blows you off your soap box.
Nobody is arguing that we should be doing 40 around schools and residential areas but come on, these speed limits are put in place as a result of accidents, the majority of which are people who drove in excess of the old speed limit, 40-50mph and/or under the influence of alcohol.
If these roads are so unsafe, surely money should be invested in improving, lighting, road marking, etc.
How predictable, the usual do-gooders, who have never broken a speed limit in their life with their fake morality. I suppose everybody on here has never slipped to 71mph, heaven forbid, the increased air resistance blows you off your soap box. Nobody is arguing that we should be doing 40 around schools and residential areas but come on, these speed limits are put in place as a result of accidents, the majority of which are people who drove in excess of the old speed limit, 40-50mph and/or under the influence of alcohol. If these roads are so unsafe, surely money should be invested in improving, lighting, road marking, etc. Hendog
  • Score: 4

11:41pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Mikeee47 says...

CapitaBackHander wrote:
Mikeee47 wrote:
well done Geezer! maybe more will contest their NIPs
Councils imposing their OWN law is unacceptable
Come the revolution
You miss the point - he was totally wrong to contest it! I question how many people can actually read!
your innocent until proven guilty in this country, and it's your right to defend that, It's the CPSs job to prove your guilt, they couldn't, didn't.

Would you protest your innocence and defend yourself until with doubt your proven guilty?
He was well within his right to contest it, he knew the law and took it on, not being frightened of the bully boy tactics of the APCO telling you "if you go to court and lose you'll get more points and bigger fine" utter Bo110x.
[quote][p][bold]CapitaBackHander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeee47[/bold] wrote: well done Geezer! maybe more will contest their NIPs Councils imposing their OWN law is unacceptable Come the revolution[/p][/quote]You miss the point - he was totally wrong to contest it! I question how many people can actually read![/p][/quote]your innocent until proven guilty in this country, and it's your right to defend that, It's the CPSs job to prove your guilt, they couldn't, didn't. Would you protest your innocence and defend yourself until with doubt your proven guilty? He was well within his right to contest it, he knew the law and took it on, not being frightened of the bully boy tactics of the APCO telling you "if you go to court and lose you'll get more points and bigger fine" utter Bo110x. Mikeee47
  • Score: 3

1:01am Thu 4 Sep 14

john brewin says...

Just a little fact-straightening in the light of some of the comments posted here. At the time of both alleged offences, the relevant signage – a 30 sign at the top of Lower Eccleshill Road and the sole repeater sign halfway down the hill were virtually invisible to motorists. The 30 sign was obscured by a tree branch (since removed) and its face covered in green algae. The repeater sign was attached to a damaged (badly bent) post and facing away from the carriageway (a brand new replacement repeater sign can be seen in the newspaper picture). For this reason I believed that the deployment of an enforcement camera in that location was unfair to drivers and chose to challenge both NIPs rather than attend the speed awareness course offered or pay a fixed penalty. The prosecution were advised in March 2014 of the nature of my defence(s) which included the state of signage, the ‘restricted’ or otherwise status of the road, the inaccuracy of the speed measurement and the legality or otherwise of type approval of the speed measuring device. Having failed to provide information requested, the CPS were directed by the court on 4th July to disclose documentation including any traffic order which existed in respect of Lower Eccleshill Road. This they failed to do, instead leaving their researches until the hearing. The case was therefore decided on the prosecution’s inability to produce a piece of evidence regarding an issue of which they were made aware some six months previously. I will not dignify the more outlandish anonymous posts above but for the record I have driven on UK and European roads with only a couple of minor no-blame incidents for 45+ years and hold a clean driving licence.
Just a little fact-straightening in the light of some of the comments posted here. At the time of both alleged offences, the relevant signage – a 30 sign at the top of Lower Eccleshill Road and the sole repeater sign halfway down the hill were virtually invisible to motorists. The 30 sign was obscured by a tree branch (since removed) and its face covered in green algae. The repeater sign was attached to a damaged (badly bent) post and facing away from the carriageway (a brand new replacement repeater sign can be seen in the newspaper picture). For this reason I believed that the deployment of an enforcement camera in that location was unfair to drivers and chose to challenge both NIPs rather than attend the speed awareness course offered or pay a fixed penalty. The prosecution were advised in March 2014 of the nature of my defence(s) which included the state of signage, the ‘restricted’ or otherwise status of the road, the inaccuracy of the speed measurement and the legality or otherwise of type approval of the speed measuring device. Having failed to provide information requested, the CPS were directed by the court on 4th July to disclose documentation including any traffic order which existed in respect of Lower Eccleshill Road. This they failed to do, instead leaving their researches until the hearing. The case was therefore decided on the prosecution’s inability to produce a piece of evidence regarding an issue of which they were made aware some six months previously. I will not dignify the more outlandish anonymous posts above but for the record I have driven on UK and European roads with only a couple of minor no-blame incidents for 45+ years and hold a clean driving licence. john brewin
  • Score: 1

6:44am Thu 4 Sep 14

auntiepax says...

If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road?
Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!!
If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road? Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!! auntiepax
  • Score: 3

8:00am Thu 4 Sep 14

Chugger says...

darwenTower wrote:
LMAO, you'd still rather worry about things that aren't happening rather than things that are!
Media driven outrage at it's best.

I've been on that road twice this afternoon. The traffic was travelling at a shade over 40 around Goose House and a shade under 40 round the corner and down the hill.

NOTHING HAPPENED - it's the same every single day.
I was on Roman Road also, that is a 40 limit so the traffic was doing 40 legally on there, are you happy with that? Not much difference by the looks of it to me, there's even a kids recreation place on there! "Won't somebody please think of the children!!!"

I'd rather be on a road with Mr Brewin than with people who are so nervous and incompetent behind the wheel that they think that it's impossible to drive a car safely at 40mph.

If you want a debate on road safety though, what about the elderly? Diabetics? People with young kids almost certainly distracting them? People of low IQ? Mental health problems?
Im with DarwenTower, it's like I've woken up in an alternate universe populated by health n safety. He asked why they don't use them outside schools, he's questioned why that particular stretch of road, how many accidents have there been there? Everyone just seems hell bent on making sound like a psycho behind a wheel. Also noting the food chain issue - which does bother me. You guys who never speed, are you sure you never speed? Come on, don't be telling me porkies.. even the police sometimes suffer the consequences of the laws they uphold.. speeding and not to mention drink driving.
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: LMAO, you'd still rather worry about things that aren't happening rather than things that are! Media driven outrage at it's best. I've been on that road twice this afternoon. The traffic was travelling at a shade over 40 around Goose House and a shade under 40 round the corner and down the hill. NOTHING HAPPENED - it's the same every single day. I was on Roman Road also, that is a 40 limit so the traffic was doing 40 legally on there, are you happy with that? Not much difference by the looks of it to me, there's even a kids recreation place on there! "Won't somebody please think of the children!!!" I'd rather be on a road with Mr Brewin than with people who are so nervous and incompetent behind the wheel that they think that it's impossible to drive a car safely at 40mph. If you want a debate on road safety though, what about the elderly? Diabetics? People with young kids almost certainly distracting them? People of low IQ? Mental health problems?[/p][/quote]Im with DarwenTower, it's like I've woken up in an alternate universe populated by health n safety. He asked why they don't use them outside schools, he's questioned why that particular stretch of road, how many accidents have there been there? Everyone just seems hell bent on making sound like a psycho behind a wheel. Also noting the food chain issue - which does bother me. You guys who never speed, are you sure you never speed? Come on, don't be telling me porkies.. even the police sometimes suffer the consequences of the laws they uphold.. speeding and not to mention drink driving. Chugger
  • Score: 2

9:01am Thu 4 Sep 14

john brewin says...

auntiepax wrote:
If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road?
Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!!
When you presume, you suppose something without proof. If you assumed then you have done so incorrectly. At the time of the alleged offences I was in the process of relocating my business to Darwen and was not familiar with the road. Other visiting drivers using the same stretch of road that day and any other 'enforcement' day prior to the signs being maintained would also have been unfairly penalised.
[quote][p][bold]auntiepax[/bold] wrote: If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road? Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!![/p][/quote]When you presume, you suppose something without proof. If you assumed then you have done so incorrectly. At the time of the alleged offences I was in the process of relocating my business to Darwen and was not familiar with the road. Other visiting drivers using the same stretch of road that day and any other 'enforcement' day prior to the signs being maintained would also have been unfairly penalised. john brewin
  • Score: 3

9:52am Thu 4 Sep 14

GracesDad says...

john brewin wrote:
auntiepax wrote:
If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road?
Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!!
When you presume, you suppose something without proof. If you assumed then you have done so incorrectly. At the time of the alleged offences I was in the process of relocating my business to Darwen and was not familiar with the road. Other visiting drivers using the same stretch of road that day and any other 'enforcement' day prior to the signs being maintained would also have been unfairly penalised.
What really bothers me about your actions is that you had clearly been caught driving approximatley 40% above the speed limit yet you chose to challenge the conviction based on nothing more than technicalities.

In my opinion, you should have swallowed your arrogant pride and taken the punishment like a man, but no, you chose instead to waste the taxpayers money by challenging the courts to prove you wrong.

A better Magistrates court would have won the case and you would have been left looking a bit stupid.

I believe in Karma and that someday you will get your comeuppance for your actions.

That is all.
[quote][p][bold]john brewin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]auntiepax[/bold] wrote: If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road? Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!![/p][/quote]When you presume, you suppose something without proof. If you assumed then you have done so incorrectly. At the time of the alleged offences I was in the process of relocating my business to Darwen and was not familiar with the road. Other visiting drivers using the same stretch of road that day and any other 'enforcement' day prior to the signs being maintained would also have been unfairly penalised.[/p][/quote]What really bothers me about your actions is that you had clearly been caught driving approximatley 40% above the speed limit yet you chose to challenge the conviction based on nothing more than technicalities. In my opinion, you should have swallowed your arrogant pride and taken the punishment like a man, but no, you chose instead to waste the taxpayers money by challenging the courts to prove you wrong. A better Magistrates court would have won the case and you would have been left looking a bit stupid. I believe in Karma and that someday you will get your comeuppance for your actions. That is all. GracesDad
  • Score: -2

10:32am Thu 4 Sep 14

gazzandste says...

J F D I wrote:
Congratulations on your victory - a lot of speed limits around town are questionable. The A666 leaving Darwen towards Bolton needs the limit increasing as soon as you pass the Cemetery. 30mph is too slow for the road and now they've put two islands in the road to make it difficult to overtake at Woodlea Chase.
Maybe your right, but look how many accidents there have been at the bottom of Woodlea chase. The whole of the A666 should have a lower speed limit on it. The amount of drivers that take a chance to speed past another vehicle think they are on a motorway.
[quote][p][bold]J F D I[/bold] wrote: Congratulations on your victory - a lot of speed limits around town are questionable. The A666 leaving Darwen towards Bolton needs the limit increasing as soon as you pass the Cemetery. 30mph is too slow for the road and now they've put two islands in the road to make it difficult to overtake at Woodlea Chase.[/p][/quote]Maybe your right, but look how many accidents there have been at the bottom of Woodlea chase. The whole of the A666 should have a lower speed limit on it. The amount of drivers that take a chance to speed past another vehicle think they are on a motorway. gazzandste
  • Score: -2

10:48am Thu 4 Sep 14

john brewin says...

GracesDad wrote:
john brewin wrote:
auntiepax wrote:
If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road?
Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!!
When you presume, you suppose something without proof. If you assumed then you have done so incorrectly. At the time of the alleged offences I was in the process of relocating my business to Darwen and was not familiar with the road. Other visiting drivers using the same stretch of road that day and any other 'enforcement' day prior to the signs being maintained would also have been unfairly penalised.
What really bothers me about your actions is that you had clearly been caught driving approximatley 40% above the speed limit yet you chose to challenge the conviction based on nothing more than technicalities.

In my opinion, you should have swallowed your arrogant pride and taken the punishment like a man, but no, you chose instead to waste the taxpayers money by challenging the courts to prove you wrong.

A better Magistrates court would have won the case and you would have been left looking a bit stupid.

I believe in Karma and that someday you will get your comeuppance for your actions.

That is all.
If I had 'clearly been caught driving above the speed limit' I would not have challenged. Fortunately we live in a democracy where we have the right to question authority and test our views through due legal process. Courts do not 'win' cases - they decide on facts and evidence placed before them by a prosecution (in this case experienced lawyers and police camera operators) and a defence (in this case a layman with no legal training). The prosecution chose to pursue legal action and were paid out of the public purse. The defence cost to the taxpayer was nil.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]john brewin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]auntiepax[/bold] wrote: If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road? Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!![/p][/quote]When you presume, you suppose something without proof. If you assumed then you have done so incorrectly. At the time of the alleged offences I was in the process of relocating my business to Darwen and was not familiar with the road. Other visiting drivers using the same stretch of road that day and any other 'enforcement' day prior to the signs being maintained would also have been unfairly penalised.[/p][/quote]What really bothers me about your actions is that you had clearly been caught driving approximatley 40% above the speed limit yet you chose to challenge the conviction based on nothing more than technicalities. In my opinion, you should have swallowed your arrogant pride and taken the punishment like a man, but no, you chose instead to waste the taxpayers money by challenging the courts to prove you wrong. A better Magistrates court would have won the case and you would have been left looking a bit stupid. I believe in Karma and that someday you will get your comeuppance for your actions. That is all.[/p][/quote]If I had 'clearly been caught driving above the speed limit' I would not have challenged. Fortunately we live in a democracy where we have the right to question authority and test our views through due legal process. Courts do not 'win' cases - they decide on facts and evidence placed before them by a prosecution (in this case experienced lawyers and police camera operators) and a defence (in this case a layman with no legal training). The prosecution chose to pursue legal action and were paid out of the public purse. The defence cost to the taxpayer was nil. john brewin
  • Score: 4

12:51pm Thu 4 Sep 14

CapitaBackHander says...

john brewin wrote:
Just a little fact-straightening in the light of some of the comments posted here. At the time of both alleged offences, the relevant signage – a 30 sign at the top of Lower Eccleshill Road and the sole repeater sign halfway down the hill were virtually invisible to motorists. The 30 sign was obscured by a tree branch (since removed) and its face covered in green algae. The repeater sign was attached to a damaged (badly bent) post and facing away from the carriageway (a brand new replacement repeater sign can be seen in the newspaper picture). For this reason I believed that the deployment of an enforcement camera in that location was unfair to drivers and chose to challenge both NIPs rather than attend the speed awareness course offered or pay a fixed penalty. The prosecution were advised in March 2014 of the nature of my defence(s) which included the state of signage, the ‘restricted’ or otherwise status of the road, the inaccuracy of the speed measurement and the legality or otherwise of type approval of the speed measuring device. Having failed to provide information requested, the CPS were directed by the court on 4th July to disclose documentation including any traffic order which existed in respect of Lower Eccleshill Road. This they failed to do, instead leaving their researches until the hearing. The case was therefore decided on the prosecution’s inability to produce a piece of evidence regarding an issue of which they were made aware some six months previously. I will not dignify the more outlandish anonymous posts above but for the record I have driven on UK and European roads with only a couple of minor no-blame incidents for 45+ years and hold a clean driving licence.
Like I said poor work by the CPS. Well done to you, you got away with it - that is what has happened and you know that.
I personally wouldn't have argued anything re a 30mph repeater sign as I always assumed if no sign and lights then 30mph applies - this was a nice case for you re no lights and shocking work by CPS. That said working with councils is shocking, I asked Trafford for TRO re yellow lines and was told if we gave you a parking ticket then it exists!! Lies.
[quote][p][bold]john brewin[/bold] wrote: Just a little fact-straightening in the light of some of the comments posted here. At the time of both alleged offences, the relevant signage – a 30 sign at the top of Lower Eccleshill Road and the sole repeater sign halfway down the hill were virtually invisible to motorists. The 30 sign was obscured by a tree branch (since removed) and its face covered in green algae. The repeater sign was attached to a damaged (badly bent) post and facing away from the carriageway (a brand new replacement repeater sign can be seen in the newspaper picture). For this reason I believed that the deployment of an enforcement camera in that location was unfair to drivers and chose to challenge both NIPs rather than attend the speed awareness course offered or pay a fixed penalty. The prosecution were advised in March 2014 of the nature of my defence(s) which included the state of signage, the ‘restricted’ or otherwise status of the road, the inaccuracy of the speed measurement and the legality or otherwise of type approval of the speed measuring device. Having failed to provide information requested, the CPS were directed by the court on 4th July to disclose documentation including any traffic order which existed in respect of Lower Eccleshill Road. This they failed to do, instead leaving their researches until the hearing. The case was therefore decided on the prosecution’s inability to produce a piece of evidence regarding an issue of which they were made aware some six months previously. I will not dignify the more outlandish anonymous posts above but for the record I have driven on UK and European roads with only a couple of minor no-blame incidents for 45+ years and hold a clean driving licence.[/p][/quote]Like I said poor work by the CPS. Well done to you, you got away with it - that is what has happened and you know that. I personally wouldn't have argued anything re a 30mph repeater sign as I always assumed if no sign and lights then 30mph applies - this was a nice case for you re no lights and shocking work by CPS. That said working with councils is shocking, I asked Trafford for TRO re yellow lines and was told if we gave you a parking ticket then it exists!! Lies. CapitaBackHander
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Thu 4 Sep 14

darwenTower says...

I think that most of the complainants on here are jealous that the guy has a spine and didn't just roll over.
I think that most of the complainants on here are jealous that the guy has a spine and didn't just roll over. darwenTower
  • Score: 1

3:37pm Thu 4 Sep 14

greenscreener says...

john brewin wrote:
Just a little fact-straightening in the light of some of the comments posted here. At the time of both alleged offences, the relevant signage – a 30 sign at the top of Lower Eccleshill Road and the sole repeater sign halfway down the hill were virtually invisible to motorists. The 30 sign was obscured by a tree branch (since removed) and its face covered in green algae. The repeater sign was attached to a damaged (badly bent) post and facing away from the carriageway (a brand new replacement repeater sign can be seen in the newspaper picture). For this reason I believed that the deployment of an enforcement camera in that location was unfair to drivers and chose to challenge both NIPs rather than attend the speed awareness course offered or pay a fixed penalty. The prosecution were advised in March 2014 of the nature of my defence(s) which included the state of signage, the ‘restricted’ or otherwise status of the road, the inaccuracy of the speed measurement and the legality or otherwise of type approval of the speed measuring device. Having failed to provide information requested, the CPS were directed by the court on 4th July to disclose documentation including any traffic order which existed in respect of Lower Eccleshill Road. This they failed to do, instead leaving their researches until the hearing. The case was therefore decided on the prosecution’s inability to produce a piece of evidence regarding an issue of which they were made aware some six months previously. I will not dignify the more outlandish anonymous posts above but for the record I have driven on UK and European roads with only a couple of minor no-blame incidents for 45+ years and hold a clean driving licence.
Well John, you have now had your 15 minutes of fame.

Thanks to the LT showing us all the car you drive and the Reg number, I'm sure all our correspondents will be keen to give you a real thumbs up, or whatever hand gesture they feel appropriate, when they see you out and about on our roads.

:-)
[quote][p][bold]john brewin[/bold] wrote: Just a little fact-straightening in the light of some of the comments posted here. At the time of both alleged offences, the relevant signage – a 30 sign at the top of Lower Eccleshill Road and the sole repeater sign halfway down the hill were virtually invisible to motorists. The 30 sign was obscured by a tree branch (since removed) and its face covered in green algae. The repeater sign was attached to a damaged (badly bent) post and facing away from the carriageway (a brand new replacement repeater sign can be seen in the newspaper picture). For this reason I believed that the deployment of an enforcement camera in that location was unfair to drivers and chose to challenge both NIPs rather than attend the speed awareness course offered or pay a fixed penalty. The prosecution were advised in March 2014 of the nature of my defence(s) which included the state of signage, the ‘restricted’ or otherwise status of the road, the inaccuracy of the speed measurement and the legality or otherwise of type approval of the speed measuring device. Having failed to provide information requested, the CPS were directed by the court on 4th July to disclose documentation including any traffic order which existed in respect of Lower Eccleshill Road. This they failed to do, instead leaving their researches until the hearing. The case was therefore decided on the prosecution’s inability to produce a piece of evidence regarding an issue of which they were made aware some six months previously. I will not dignify the more outlandish anonymous posts above but for the record I have driven on UK and European roads with only a couple of minor no-blame incidents for 45+ years and hold a clean driving licence.[/p][/quote]Well John, you have now had your 15 minutes of fame. Thanks to the LT showing us all the car you drive and the Reg number, I'm sure all our correspondents will be keen to give you a real thumbs up, or whatever hand gesture they feel appropriate, when they see you out and about on our roads. :-) greenscreener
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Thu 4 Sep 14

john brewin says...

greenscreener wrote:
john brewin wrote:
Just a little fact-straightening in the light of some of the comments posted here. At the time of both alleged offences, the relevant signage – a 30 sign at the top of Lower Eccleshill Road and the sole repeater sign halfway down the hill were virtually invisible to motorists. The 30 sign was obscured by a tree branch (since removed) and its face covered in green algae. The repeater sign was attached to a damaged (badly bent) post and facing away from the carriageway (a brand new replacement repeater sign can be seen in the newspaper picture). For this reason I believed that the deployment of an enforcement camera in that location was unfair to drivers and chose to challenge both NIPs rather than attend the speed awareness course offered or pay a fixed penalty. The prosecution were advised in March 2014 of the nature of my defence(s) which included the state of signage, the ‘restricted’ or otherwise status of the road, the inaccuracy of the speed measurement and the legality or otherwise of type approval of the speed measuring device. Having failed to provide information requested, the CPS were directed by the court on 4th July to disclose documentation including any traffic order which existed in respect of Lower Eccleshill Road. This they failed to do, instead leaving their researches until the hearing. The case was therefore decided on the prosecution’s inability to produce a piece of evidence regarding an issue of which they were made aware some six months previously. I will not dignify the more outlandish anonymous posts above but for the record I have driven on UK and European roads with only a couple of minor no-blame incidents for 45+ years and hold a clean driving licence.
Well John, you have now had your 15 minutes of fame.

Thanks to the LT showing us all the car you drive and the Reg number, I'm sure all our correspondents will be keen to give you a real thumbs up, or whatever hand gesture they feel appropriate, when they see you out and about on our roads.

:-)
LT gave me the option to delete the plate but I have no reason to do so or hide my identity on here. Gesture away - it's a free country.
[quote][p][bold]greenscreener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]john brewin[/bold] wrote: Just a little fact-straightening in the light of some of the comments posted here. At the time of both alleged offences, the relevant signage – a 30 sign at the top of Lower Eccleshill Road and the sole repeater sign halfway down the hill were virtually invisible to motorists. The 30 sign was obscured by a tree branch (since removed) and its face covered in green algae. The repeater sign was attached to a damaged (badly bent) post and facing away from the carriageway (a brand new replacement repeater sign can be seen in the newspaper picture). For this reason I believed that the deployment of an enforcement camera in that location was unfair to drivers and chose to challenge both NIPs rather than attend the speed awareness course offered or pay a fixed penalty. The prosecution were advised in March 2014 of the nature of my defence(s) which included the state of signage, the ‘restricted’ or otherwise status of the road, the inaccuracy of the speed measurement and the legality or otherwise of type approval of the speed measuring device. Having failed to provide information requested, the CPS were directed by the court on 4th July to disclose documentation including any traffic order which existed in respect of Lower Eccleshill Road. This they failed to do, instead leaving their researches until the hearing. The case was therefore decided on the prosecution’s inability to produce a piece of evidence regarding an issue of which they were made aware some six months previously. I will not dignify the more outlandish anonymous posts above but for the record I have driven on UK and European roads with only a couple of minor no-blame incidents for 45+ years and hold a clean driving licence.[/p][/quote]Well John, you have now had your 15 minutes of fame. Thanks to the LT showing us all the car you drive and the Reg number, I'm sure all our correspondents will be keen to give you a real thumbs up, or whatever hand gesture they feel appropriate, when they see you out and about on our roads. :-)[/p][/quote]LT gave me the option to delete the plate but I have no reason to do so or hide my identity on here. Gesture away - it's a free country. john brewin
  • Score: -1

8:42pm Thu 4 Sep 14

auntiepax says...

john brewin wrote:
auntiepax wrote:
If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road?
Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!!
When you presume, you suppose something without proof. If you assumed then you have done so incorrectly. At the time of the alleged offences I was in the process of relocating my business to Darwen and was not familiar with the road. Other visiting drivers using the same stretch of road that day and any other 'enforcement' day prior to the signs being maintained would also have been unfairly penalised.
If you are not familiar with the roads then fair enough but surely you would go a bit slower just in case. Surely you had enough time between November and January to spot a sign.
[quote][p][bold]john brewin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]auntiepax[/bold] wrote: If your business is based in that area i presume you know it is a 30mph road? Shame on you as those speeds are way over the limit!![/p][/quote]When you presume, you suppose something without proof. If you assumed then you have done so incorrectly. At the time of the alleged offences I was in the process of relocating my business to Darwen and was not familiar with the road. Other visiting drivers using the same stretch of road that day and any other 'enforcement' day prior to the signs being maintained would also have been unfairly penalised.[/p][/quote]If you are not familiar with the roads then fair enough but surely you would go a bit slower just in case. Surely you had enough time between November and January to spot a sign. auntiepax
  • Score: 1

8:44pm Thu 4 Sep 14

camel says...

Well done that man, I don't condone speeding but he went along to court and took them on and got off, I can remember an off duty police officer getting off a speeding charge up on Teesside because the speed camera signs on the lamp-posts did not have a black border around them which they should have,
Well done that man, I don't condone speeding but he went along to court and took them on and got off, I can remember an off duty police officer getting off a speeding charge up on Teesside because the speed camera signs on the lamp-posts did not have a black border around them which they should have, camel
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree