this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
94 points (99.0% liked)

London

1050 readers
1 users here now

"who’d a thunk it"

For discussion about London including the surrounding Greater London area. Discuss all things from news, travel, culture, and general life around the capital and largest city of England!

Rules and other welcoming info can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Vinnyboiler@feddit.uk
94
Thousands of drivers tricked by fake 50mph sign on A20 must pay fines, say police (www.standard.co.uk)
submitted 10 months ago by Emperor@feddit.uk to c/london@feddit.uk
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Around 600 drivers seeking to overturn fines for speeding after a fake 50mph sign was placed on a dual carriageway in south east London will not have their penalties waived, the Metropolitan Police said.

Thousands of motorists were ticketed on the A20 near Sidcup on a stretch of the road where the speed limit had been temporarily dropped from 70mph to 40mph by Transport for London due to persistent flooding.

Police say the 50mph sign was installed by an “unauthorised third party” on January 24 after speed cameras were set to match the lowered limit.

...

While the Met admits the sign should not have been there, it “would not have impacted the enforcement of the 40mph average speed limit”.

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 48 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

They're saying that it was an unauthorized third party (so either someone put it up themselves, or the council fucked up, most likely the former imho).

The force claimed if a motorist was to have traveled through the section signed as 40mph at the maximum permitted speed of 40mph, then sped up to 50mph after seeing the now-removed fake sign, their average speed on the section would not have resulted in them being issued with a speeding ticket.

That seems like a pretty important part of it too. They're saying that even if you followed all the signs posted, your average speed would not have netted you a ticket.

[–] Tweak@feddit.uk 3 points 10 months ago

The police don't have authority to dictate laws, they don't even know the law half the time. They can say whatever they like, the courts are the ones who decide.

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

They time your car from start to finish in a section for tickets? I'm horrified

[–] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They're quite common, and they're very effective, as you can't speed then brake to avoid the camera.
For example, if you're on a motorway with roadworks, and a temporary 50mph limit in place, you'll very rarely see anyone doing more than 53, because they know they'll get a ticket.

[–] Tweak@feddit.uk 0 points 10 months ago

You won't get a ticket until you average 60 in a 50 limit on motorways. Motorway speed cameras don't trigger until 10mph above. If it's one of the smart motorways and it's running the national speed limit, they won't trigger until 90.

[–] SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

These are super common in the Netherlands, the big twelve lane highway from Utrecht to Amsterdam has it, which means the speed limit in lane 1 is maybe 5kmph higher than in lane 5.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago

Average speed limit cameras on motorways are pretty common now, with more on the way.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Does speeding as an offence not require mens rea?

[–] UndulyUnruly@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

mens rea : a culpable mental state especially : one involving intent or knowledge and forming an element of a criminal offense

It doesn’t. Otherwise one could just say “Sorry I was daydreaming and simply didn’t today attention.” and get off the liability. This is, in fact, the relevant word:

Many traffic offences, including speeding, are considered strict liability offences in virtually every jurisdiction, which means that it is sufficient to prove that the act occurred and it is unnecessary to prove intent. In such cases, whether or not an offender meant to commit the offence is irrelevant. For strict liability offences, lawyers are unable to argue that the offender had no knowledge or intentions of committing the offence because what counts is whether the offence was committed.

A judge would simply look if the elements are proven:

a) the offence was committed b) no lawful excuse or defence for doing so exists

However, there is the defence of reasonable mistake. This means that it is sometimes possible for strict liability traffic offences to be refuted if the offender can successfully argue and provide evidence to show that they were genuinely mistaken and did not know they were committing the offence. However, this is different from the mens rea principle.

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's a strict liability offence, so no.

[–] Tweak@feddit.uk 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but in this case there can be a reasonableness take - people had every reason to think the speed limit was higher.

Bear in mind, this is the police saying people are guilty. The police do not determine this, the court may well have a different take.

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

With strict liability offences, if you do it, you are guilty. Intent does not come into it. The only question for the court is whether or not they did it, as the law is very clear.

[–] Tweak@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago

Not necessarily. If you plead guilty with special reasons, it's possible to get the charge dismissed. It's very rare, but this is exactly the kind of situation where that would apply.

Essentially, they would argue yes they were speeding, but they had good reason to think they weren't.

However, that wouldn't work if they were going significantly over 50, which most if not all probably were, because cameras are typically set 10mph above on motorways.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Evil. This is literally highway robbery.

[–] Jayve@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Plot twist, a cop put up the sign.

[–] Koof_on_the_Roof@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “Our prosecutions team, which deals with speeding offences, has taken legal advice and the location of the 50mph sign would not have impacted the enforcement.”

Often the speed camera is set a little above the limit. I think this means that if the cars had been doing 40 or less up to the sign accelerating to 50 at this point would not have triggered the camera…. Or maybe just no shits given..

[–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
  1. Sidcup isn't London
  2. This is beyond fucked up!
[–] Kellamity@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Sidcup is in Greater London, the borough of Bexley. Zone 5.

Which is why this story involves TFL (transport for london)

[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Diabolical