DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 108209--------------------------------------------------
M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: Lynch004
Date: January 31, 2026, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Morning,
Basically, I have received a NIP for Speeding - exceed 70mph
Motorway limit - Manned equipment. Vehicle speed 80mph.
The stretch of the M50 in question has no Speed Camera/warning
signage. Haven driven this stretch of road a few times since,
the manned camera appears to be a Male operating out of a Grey
people carrier, on the opposite side of the road, with no Hi-Viz
signage, both personally or on vehicle.
Happy to scan and post correspondence, was just seeing if there
was a quick resolution.
Many thanks
Lynch
#Post#: 108214--------------------------------------------------
Re: M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: February 1, 2026, 12:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There was a popular misconception many years ago, that there was
a requirement for speed cameras to be conspicuous in order for
the speeding offence to be prosecuted. This was largely due to
Tony Blair saying that that was going to be the case.
Surprisingly enough, it was a big fat lie.
What the rules actually were, before they were rescinded many
years ago, at first glance at least, that in order for the
safety camera partnerships to be able to retain the income from
the fixed penalties (and return any surplus they hadn't managed
to fiddle to the exchequer), 85% of enforcement sites had to
meet the conspicuity requirements. This had no bearing
whatsoever on the admissibility of the evidence, it was just a
rule regarding keeping the money. Except that the rules were
enforced by the safety camera partnerships themselves - if they
became aware that they were not complying with the rules, they
had the power to report themselves to themselves and then decide
whether or not they still ought to keep the money.
#Post#: 108228--------------------------------------------------
Re: M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: February 1, 2026, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Lynch004 link ---
>
> ...was just seeing if there was a quick resolution.
>
--- End Quote ---
Absent any actual defence (nothing you've said so far hints at
one) then the quickest resolution will be a course to avoid the
points or a fixed penalty (3 points £100).
#Post#: 108334--------------------------------------------------
Re: M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: Lynch004
Date: February 1, 2026, 10:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JustLoveCars link ---
>
> [quote author=Lynch004 link=topic=9763.msg108209#msg108209
date=1769913012]
> ...was just seeing if there was a quick resolution.
>
--- End Quote ---
Absent any actual defence (nothing you've said so far hints at
one) then the quickest resolution will be a course to avoid the
points or a fixed penalty (3 points £100).
[/quote]
Thank you for your time in responding.
I genuinely don't dispute that I was speeding, it is just
annoying because I genuinely try to abide by the speed limit.
Whilst not an excuse, I was over taking another motor vehicle,
my bad.
Cheers
#Post#: 108335--------------------------------------------------
Re: M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: Lynch004
Date: February 1, 2026, 11:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> There was a popular misconception many years ago, that there
was a requirement for speed cameras to be conspicuous in order
for the speeding offence to be prosecuted. This was largely due
to Tony Blair saying that that was going to be the case.
Surprisingly enough, it was a big fat lie.
>
> What the rules actually were, before they were rescinded many
years ago, at first glance at least, that in order for the
safety camera partnerships to be able to retain the income from
the fixed penalties (and return any surplus they hadn't managed
to fiddle to the exchequer), 85% of enforcement sites had to
meet the conspicuity requirements. This had no bearing
whatsoever on the admissibility of the evidence, it was just a
rule regarding keeping the money. Except that the rules were
enforced by the safety camera partnerships themselves - if they
became aware that they were not complying with the rules, they
had the power to report themselves to themselves and then decide
whether or not they still ought to keep the money.
>
--- End Quote ---
Nothing like a bit of self regulation ;D
The Journey I take M5, M50, A40 has a couple of Camera Vans on
its route, The locations of which I am familiar with. So for me
to receive the NIP without any expectance really did surprise
me, the camera was definitely discreet,
Also, the 20+ miles of the M50 has no Speed Camera signs
displayed.
As I have mentioned, I am not excusing the fact I was speeding,
obviously I would ideally like to avoid the fine and points but
hey ho. I just question why the Constabularies bother with the
signage in the first place if it is not required. The whole 165
miles of my journey has Speed camera warnings/in operation signs
apart from the said section of the M50.
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji848.png
#Post#: 108486--------------------------------------------------
Re: M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: davidmcn
Date: February 2, 2026, 6:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Lynch004 link ---
>
> [quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9763.msg108214#msg108214
date=1769927925]
> There was a popular misconception many years ago, that there
was a requirement for speed cameras to be conspicuous in order
for the speeding offence to be prosecuted. This was largely due
to Tony Blair saying that that was going to be the case.
Surprisingly enough, it was a big fat lie.
>
> What the rules actually were, before they were rescinded many
years ago, at first glance at least, that in order for the
safety camera partnerships to be able to retain the income from
the fixed penalties (and return any surplus they hadn't managed
to fiddle to the exchequer), 85% of enforcement sites had to
meet the conspicuity requirements. This had no bearing
whatsoever on the admissibility of the evidence, it was just a
rule regarding keeping the money. Except that the rules were
enforced by the safety camera partnerships themselves - if they
became aware that they were not complying with the rules, they
had the power to report themselves to themselves and then decide
whether or not they still ought to keep the money.
>
--- End Quote ---
I just question why the Constabularies bother with the signage
in the first place if it is not required. The whole 165 miles of
my journey has Speed camera warnings/in operation signs apart
from the said section of the M50.
[/quote]Presumably because it's a cheaper way of encouraging
people to slow down than having the cameras everywhere.
#Post#: 108621--------------------------------------------------
Re: M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: Lynch004
Date: February 3, 2026, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I just question why the Constabularies bother with the signage
in the first place if it is not required. The whole 165 miles of
my journey has Speed camera warnings/in operation signs apart
from the said section of the M50.
[/quote]
Presumably because it's a cheaper way of encouraging people to
slow down than having the cameras everywhere.
[/quote]
I appreciate your point is probably a good assessment. But why
stop encouraging people to slow down on this particular stretch
of road? Surely, the signage should still be there?
Anyhow not trying to justify my speeding, I am just surprised
that they are not a legal obligation.
#Post#: 108622--------------------------------------------------
Re: M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: FuzzyDuck
Date: February 3, 2026, 7:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Lynch004 link ---
>
> But why stop encouraging people to slow down on this
particular stretch of road? Surely, the signage should still be
there?
>
--- End Quote ---
Signs cost money, so why put them up if you don't have too?
#Post#: 108623--------------------------------------------------
Re: M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: Lynch004
Date: February 3, 2026, 7:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FuzzyDuck link ---
>
> [quote author=Lynch004 link=topic=9763.msg108621#msg108621
date=1770167062]
> But why stop encouraging people to slow down on this
particular stretch of road? Surely, the signage should still be
there?
>
--- End Quote ---
Signs cost money, so why put them up if you don't have too?
[/quote]
Which going by your logic, why have they bothered putting the
signs up along the other 155 miles of my route? ;D
#Post#: 108626--------------------------------------------------
Re: M50 Bow Lane - speeding exceeding 70mph
DIR By: Lynch004
Date: February 3, 2026, 7:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyhow, moving on from the Signage. I have a few questions about
the evidence on the Constabulary's website.
Can I challenge on any of the following?
Images of Vehicle Reg. are not very clear.
Calibration certificate of Device, just not state that it has
been Distance checked at the distance of the actual devices
recording. It has been tested upto 150m the evidence states
300m.
There are no training certificates for the Operating Officer.
Thanks
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page