NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

[suitangi]

Hello All,

The NIP was unfortunately received within 14 days of the alleged offence.

Signs/LEDs enforcing the 50 MPH limit on the M62 aren't recalled, and maybe there was some type of incident five or ten minutes prior that required the speed limit to be lowered, but the person in the control room didn't increase it back to 70 or even 60, when it was perhaps considered safe to do so (as far as I was aware, the speed limit at the time was the usual 70). I know that proving this might be somewhat difficult.

I measured the distance of the speed interval marking on the speedometer 40-50-60 etc., and it's about 6 or 7mm! I know that this is kind of irrelevant

The traffic was good and free flowing. The photographic evidence on their web pages are really of poor quality (three images all 4x3cm at 100% view on the web page), but they depict very few other vehicles in the carriageway, clear weather and a dry road surface. Some text on their pages states: "Please note that the quality of photographs viewed on this site may differ from the originals seen within the Central Ticket Office, as we have the ability to enhance the images.".

Whilst I kind of realise that nominating myself as driver and paying something like £75-90 to a Speed Awareness Course provider would probably be the safest route, I would love to somehow use the system to quash this thing.

Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of S172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are interesting. My Mum is the insurance's policyholder and I am named driver, but I am the RK & Owner of the vehicle. I wonder if I could write a letter to the Police stating this and telling them that the journey was shared and that we don't remember who was driving, and then asking them if they can provide better quality images of the vehicle so that we can help identify who the driver was.

Edit: Last night, I sent a FoI request asking how many vehicles/motorists were captured speeding during the apparent 50 MPH speed limit, and received a reply this morning stating:

"Unfortunately we are unable to provide you with this information as it is exempt by virtue of Section 31 – Law Enforcement. Please see appendix A for the full legislative explanation.

Appendix A

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, state under Section 1(a) of the Act, whether it holds the requested information and, if held, then communicate that information to the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is unsuitable for release.
Importantly the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

DECISION

This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with Section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which:-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The reason that we are unable to provide you with this information is covered by the following exemption(s):

Section 31(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement

This is a prejudice and qualified based exemption and as such there is a requirement to provide harm and conduct a public interest test.

Harm
The presence of speed cameras has had a positive impact upon road safety. It is widely known that speed cameras are not always active and the Police rely on the perception by drivers that a camera may be active and would therefore influence drivers to adjust their speed so as to not contract a fine. Variable speed cameras are present in a small number of locations across West Yorkshire. If we were to disclose the number of speed enforcement notices issued, the camera deployment pattern which results in variable speed cameras being operational could be identified which diminishes their road safety effectiveness. It would encourage speeding and individuals would gamble on the chance that the cameras may or may not be operational. This would endanger the life of drivers, other road uses and pedestrians. It would also result in an increased Police presence requirement in certain areas which would impact on resources. The impact of the deterrent effect of variable speed cameras would undermine police enforcement of the statutory speed limit and would therefore hinder law enforcement.

The recent ICO Decision Notice Ref FS50653192 has similarities and provides a supporting rationale. Details can be found via the below link: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve...fs50653192.pdf


Public Interest Test

Factors favouring disclosure
Disclosure would contribute to openness, transparency and accountability which are principal objectives of the FOIA. It would also inform the public how West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership tackles the issue of road safety and confirm when speed is being enforced at camera locations.

Factors favouring non-disclosure
Disclosure would enable the public to establish when speed is being enforced at variable speed camera sites and when excessive speed is likely to result in a fine or not. It would encourage drivers to exceed the speed limit and break the law, undermining the deterrent effect of variable speed cameras, making roads more unsafe and putting lives at risk. Police resources would have to be diverted from elsewhere to deal with the impact. This would compromise law enforcement and hinder the prevention and detection of crime at variable cameras sites and other areas.

Balancing Test
When balancing, I must weigh the strongest reason for disclosure, which in this case is transparency, against the strongest reason for non-disclosure, which in this case is law enforcement and risk to life which is paramount. One of the core functions of policing is the prevention and detection of crime and by releasing this information there is a danger that crime would increase, putting lives at risk therefore I will not be disclosing this information."

[wales01man]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

Saying you don't know who the driver was will not be a defence withholding the info creates a more serious offence seems like they have the driver bang to rights

[suitangi]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

Saying you don't know who the driver was will not be a defence withholding the info creates a more serious offence seems like they have the driver bang to rights

What if I can show reasonable diligence that I tried to ascertain who was driving?

[Amethyst]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

Maybe you could ask the time that the speed was varied and what to during that day ? To check if the time when you were doing 63mph the speed limit had been varied to 50mph ?

Even if there was no accident/weather etc if the speed limit has been varied to 50, without any reason at all, then that is the speed limit, so that you think it should have been put back up to national speed limit by that point wil be irrelevant.

( and yes, likely best option is to pay the £100 and do the speed awareness course IMO )

[suitangi]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

Maybe you could ask the time that the speed was varied and what to during that day ? To check if the time when you were doing 63mph the speed limit had been varied to 50mph ?

Do you mean ask the Police this in my letter that I've drafted, or ask the Force Disclosure Team in a new FoI request, or both even?

[suitangi]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

After their response to my initial FoI request on 6 December, I submitted another one right away (after Amethyst suggested asking for the speed(s) and time(s) that the camera site's speed was varied. I got a different response;

"Thank you for your request for information which has been logged today.


Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt. In some circumstances West Yorkshire Police may be unable to achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed at the earliest opportunity. If you no longer require the information, please inform us at your earliest convenience."


I haven't yet heard anything. 20 working days, hmm, I'm not sure if they include Saturday as a working day (I suspect not) and with the festive period approaching, I may not receive a detailed response until the first or second week of January 2018. The date of the serving of the Notice was 01/12/2017, so 28 calendar days from then is 29 or maybe 30 December (I think the regulations state that 1st class post is considered delivered by the second working day). 1 Dec was a Friday, so maybe I have up to 1 January 2018, or even the 2nd as New Year's Day is unlikely to be a working day, or maybe it is.

Because of my waiting for the second FoI response, I am considering writing a letter, as the registered keeper, to Prosecutions & Casualty Reduction Unit, Camera Section, Bradford. I figure my telling them what I am waiting for (FoI) and asking for a possible extension might be my next step. Maybe I state in the letter that whilst I was driving, I do not believe that the camera was varied from 70 to 50 MPH at the time of the alleged infraction.

What do you all think?

EDIT: I telephoned them using the number provided in their emails and was told that the due date for the FoI is 09/01/2018. So, assuming that I receive the response I am hoping for (proving that there is no guilt) by that date, I think I ought to write a letter to the Police asking for a 14 day extension. That, hopefully, should just about give me enough time. Of course, if I do receive a response for the FoI and it shows that the camera site was varied to 50 MPH from, say 13:00 to 13:15, then I guess I will at that point respond and look to do the Speed Awareness Course. However, I have read in places on the Internet that the length of time taken to respond to such a Notice can hinder the opportunity for the course actually being offered in the first place.

[topolinodichiesa]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

I'm new here, so you may wish to await corroboration from others (however, I am not new everywhere). The 28-day period for response to a request made under s.172 is provided by the statute, so the police are not required to waive it or extend it, but they are free to abstain from further action for a period of time if they choose to do so. In other words, it can't hurt to ask, but don't expect them to do anything other than follow the normal procedures.

The 28 days are calculated "beginning with the day on which the notice is served" and, IINM, service is presumed to have taken place two days after posting (first class). These are not "working days", but calendar days (the FOI rules are apparently different than the criminal rules).

It is not clear to me what relevant evidence your FOI requests were intended to elicit, but they are certainly irrelevant for the purposes of s.172. Evidence relating to the speeding offence is relevant only to the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, so until that person is identified, the police's position will be that any discussion of evidence or of the underlying offence is premature.

I suspect, based on your initial and subsequent statements about your reasoning and your intentions, that you may have failed to observe the strict time limit for responding to the police request under s.172 RTA 1988 and have inadvertently turned an opportunity to avoid prosecution by attending a potentially educational road safety course into a potential criminal conviction, six points on your driving licence for failing to identify the driver, a hefty fine and insurance loading for the next five years. The good news is that there is a well-trodden path available to drivers who find themselves being prosecuted for a violation of s.172 in addition to the underlying offence, which allows such persons to effect a plea bargain with the prosecutor such that they plead guilty to the underlying offence in exchange for the s.172 offence (usually the more serious of the two) being dropped. If this applies to you, I suggest you go to the PePiPoo forum, start a thread there and ask for specific advice. I could outline it for you, but I've never used it myself.

--Topolino di Chiesa

[suitangi]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

I'm new here, so you may wish to await corroboration from others (however, I am not new everywhere). The 28-day period for response to a request made under s.172 is provided by the statute, so the police are not required to waive it or extend it, but they are free to abstain from further action for a period of time if they choose to do so. In other words, it can't hurt to ask, but don't expect them to do anything other than follow the normal procedures.

The 28 days are calculated "beginning with the day on which the notice is served" and, IINM, service is presumed to have taken place two days after posting (first class). These are not "working days", but calendar days (the FOI rules are apparently different than the criminal rules).

It is not clear to me what relevant evidence your FOI requests were intended to elicit, but they are certainly irrelevant for the purposes of s.172. Evidence relating to the speeding offence is relevant only to the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, so until that person is identified, the police's position will be that any discussion of evidence or of the underlying offence is premature.

I suspect, based on your initial and subsequent statements about your reasoning and your intentions, that you may have failed to observe the strict time limit for responding to the police request under s.172 RTA 1988 and have inadvertently turned an opportunity to avoid prosecution by attending a potentially educational road safety course into a potential criminal conviction, six points on your driving licence for failing to identify the driver, a hefty fine and insurance loading for the next five years. The good news is that there is a well-trodden path available to drivers who find themselves being prosecuted for a violation of s.172 in addition to the underlying offence, which allows such persons to effect a plea bargain with the prosecutor such that they plead guilty to the underlying offence in exchange for the s.172 offence (usually the more serious of the two) being dropped. If this applies to you, I suggest you go to the PePiPoo forum, start a thread there and ask for specific advice. I could outline it for you, but I've never used it myself.

--Topolino di Chiesa

Thank you for your reply. I also love to take this opportunity to thank the police in the outstanding work that they do. I understand that someone (a world class driver/motorist, by the way) travelling in a vehicular motionary carriage whose speedometer needle is about 13 millimetres above what was allegedly the speed limit at the time is committing an extremely serious offence and is probably about to cause serious harm to other road users, therefore these kind of personnel probably should be given ten to twenty life sentences. Paedophiles and child rapists, however, need to be given a Nobel Peace Prize or such like. It's no joke, I know this.

The british judicial system is largely a load of old horse raddish.

Talking of the S172 stuff, I spoke with West Yorkshire Police's Prosecutions & Casualty Reduction Unit, Camera Section based in Bradford a couple of times before and after Christmas. Both people seemed very relaxed about the whole s.172 28 day stuff with their saying that a reminder will be sent out and one of the person's words were, "we won't/wouldn't chase you until January 14" - that's 17 days after the end of the 28 day period including the date of the serving of the notice, as defined by the RTA1988. So, I returned the original document (not the reminder) to them on January 12. It arrived and was seemingly signed for on January 15. I decided to just say that I was driving, but I declined to provide them with my DOB and left that field blank.

If they respond with a COoFP then I will be FUMING and will write back telling them basically where to go with this total nonsense BS. The alleged speeding was on a flipping M62 (usually 70MPH of course) with calm free flowing traffic as depicted in the poor quality photographs, weather and road conditions were good etc. I could understand if the alleged speeding was on an A road where there's more likely to be pedestrians. IMH&HO, speeding more often than not does not kill. It is careless and dangerous driving is more likely to. Yes, speeding can sometimes be seen as careless and dangerous driving, but, really, it isn't (actual speed is the determining factor).

The FoI request eventually returned with their stating that West Yorks Police hold no information to my request as the request relates to cameras on the motorway, and they advised that Highways england may be able to provide me with the requested information. I requested the time(s) that the speed was varied at a particular camera site on the day in question and to what speed(s). I haven't contacted Highways england.

[topolinodichiesa]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

I'm not the po-po, and I don't particularly agree with the way in which road traffic law enforcement in the UK has evolved, but I do know how it works. As mentioned, the s.172 offence is committed if the requested information has not been received by the police within the permitted time. Whether and when to take action on this is up to the police, and my understanding is that most forces don't automatically file s.172 charges at the first available opportunity. In the typical driving offence situation, they would rather engage with the keeper and successfully ID the driver, which is nice. But play games with them at your peril. Section 172 is an easy win for them, and it packs a wallop that you will feel in your wallet for years to come (mainly in the form of expensive insurance).

Speed enforcement is so automated these days that if you qualify for a speed awareness course, you will be offered one; you don't have to ask and it is pointless to do so. The fixed penalty option is also offered automatically if your speed falls within the guidelines (your speed does--just!), with the only restriction on this being if the offence is too close to the six-months "time-out" for them to be certain that you will complete the course or respond to the FP offer. Both of these options work out cheaper than going to court and losing, however, and going to court without a strong defence is unwise, to say the least.

--Topolino di Chiesa

[suitangi]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

I'm not the po-po, and I don't particularly agree with the way in which road traffic law enforcement in the UK has evolved, but I do know how it works. As mentioned, the s.172 offence is committed if the requested information has not been received by the police within the permitted time. Whether and when to take action on this is up to the police, and my understanding is that most forces don't automatically file s.172 charges at the first available opportunity. In the typical driving offence situation, they would rather engage with the keeper and successfully ID the driver, which is nice. But play games with them at your peril. Section 172 is an easy win for them, and it packs a wallop that you will feel in your wallet for years to come (mainly in the form of expensive insurance).

Speed enforcement is so automated these days that if you qualify for a speed awareness course, you will be offered one; you don't have to ask and it is pointless to do so. The fixed penalty option is also offered automatically if your speed falls within the guidelines (your speed does--just!), with the only restriction on this being if the offence is too close to the six-months "time-out" for them to be certain that you will complete the course or respond to the FP offer. Both of these options work out cheaper than going to court and losing, however, and going to court without a strong defence is unwise, to say the least.

--Topolino di Chiesa

I wish this silly little country could be more continental and relaxed about a small bit of speeding. Speeding can kill of course but, more often than not, it does not. I often find this little country so pathetic in itself. To regard speeding as a criminal offence is a joke. For me, it's more like a virtual 'crime' in that most of the time it does not harm anyone or anything. Perhaps most motorists' skill level in this country is inadequate. When a little bit of snow falls most of these numpty drivers panic and don't really know what to do. I have been through quite a lot in my driving career which has hardened me in the process. I'm not the average motorist. I'm one whose major passion in life is driving/motoring/cars etc. and I honestly am such a considerate, conscientious driver so much so that I sometimes try to do some of the driving for other drivers. We should all be familiar with times when we cannot clearly see if there is oncoming traffic etc. If I see another road user struggling to see if they can move from major road to minor road and I only need to use my mirrors to look for gaps, well, I will motion to them when it is clear. Yes, granted, some might look at me as if I am crazy or not understand what I am doing or think that I am trying to set up an accident or whatever.. I am just trying to help by looking out for other road users. I do run a lot of red lights, but these are only ones that are 100% safe to go through. Honestly, there's FAR TOO MANY traffic lights.. many just pointlessly doing nothing at pretty much all times of day. Left turn then yes some I go through... of course, I only do this around roads that I've known for many many years.. I am in fact doing everyone a favour by moving along and trying to reduce the congestion. Traffic lights, of course, were invented after the automobile was. Maybe about 60-75% of traffic lights are essential, but most are probably not. I feel like I am now painting myself as a very naughty driver/motorist, but I honestly believe that I'm in fact one of the finest. Women often make better drivers and I believe that I am one of the best.

Well, I received some $h!7 through the post about some options that I now apparently have. OPTION 1: OFFER OF DRIVER RETRAINING COURSE, OPTION 2: ACCEPT A COoFP, or OPTION 3: COURT PROCESS. There really should be an OPTION 4: NONE OF THE ABOVE. Driver retraining? That's a little condescending and patronising, me thinks. The only thing that this is going to teach me is to remember that cameras can have variable speed limits, so be extra vigilant. The flipside is that the whole speeding thing means that our eyes are busy constantly watching our speedos' needle to ensure that it hasn't crept a few millimetres above the limit therefore making driving even more unsafe as our eyes are not concentrating on the road ahead and the perception of hazards etc. I may write them a very sarcastic letter and tell them to hop on their bicycle about the "retraining". I need no retraining. I was going to accompany the NIP that I recently returned to them well outside of the 28 day s.172 law with a letter stating that whilst we are still unsure as to who was driving (I white lied (bad girl tut tut) to them in an original letter in early Dec 17 stating that I was travelling back from Hull with my parents in the car and none of us can recall who was driving at the time of the alleged offence because the journey was shared (thought about going to Court and lying, but of course, God might not be impressed, but He did not write the Bible, and again, nobody is being harmed so it's hardly a major thing)), I am however nominating myself as the driver. I may have also written some other strong ish words to them about their entire operation and harsh treatment of the motorist. Surely their seemingly unfussed and relaxed attitude towards the 28 day rule just makes a mockery of the law anyway. They really should have responded by saying that I failed to furnish etc etc.

Their paperwork uses the words "alleged offence". An allegation is an unproved accusation, is it not? I wonder why they use the words alleged offence if the cameras are supposedly clocking these things? Do they not trust the calibration of the cameras or something?

I'd love to do nothing about the whole thing, but it seems as though I might be destined to pay £78.50 to do this course. If my carriage was doing an extra two miles per hour (65 MPH) on a normally 70MPH MOTORWAY then qualification for a SAC would not have been granted! That sounds insane. To reiterate, there was no obvious reason for the apparent 50 MPH variable restriction but, of course, I know that there probably doesn't need to be a reason. Perhaps many police forces and highways agencies have little agreements and whatnot in place to set up speed traps to generate a bit of cash flow.

[topolinodichiesa]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

Okay.

--Topolino di Chiesa

[wales01man]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

Good luck in court if that's your choice

[des8]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

Having read this thread I just felt that it should be pointed out that variable speed controls aren't used solely because of incidents on the roads.
In many instances they are used to control the traffic stream to keep the traffic moving smoothly.
The M62 goes through some heavily built up areas, and so bottlenecks off the motorway could lead to speed restrictions, as could road works several miles ahead.

If you remember your physics and the movement of liquids through pipes you'll understand.

Surprised a self confessed world class motorist should think they do not owe other road users the respect of observing the law

[charitynjw]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

I just read the bit below the line in Topolino's posts.

[topolinodichiesa]

Re: NIP (13 MPH over a 50 MPH variable speed limit on the M62)

I like to give "value for money"...