Jump to content

Judicial Review Req'd

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Judicial Review Req'd

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks john and king. So there does not seem to be common, readily available examples of an established process to tackle these issues but seems to be a steady stream of people stating effectively that remotely controlled gantry signs and use of cameras do not correspond to conditions on the ground. Does anyone know the process and people involved in implementing a variable speed limit, a Single Justice Procedural Notice (SJPN) refers to a named key witness Camera Technician, are these people Police Officers or do they work for Highways England. How are Highways England involved? Their web site states ... Highways England operates, maintains and improves England’s motorways and major A roads. They also have a general enquires phone number and complaints procedure the aim of which they state as … If you’re unhappy with any part of the service we provide, we want to hear about your experiences so we can learn from them and improve. Has anyone experience of reporting issues to Highways England? Don't they put up those signs around some roadworks asking people to report any concerns on a given phone number?
  2. Two questions: A) Has there been a precedent for instances of inconsistent, incorrect or the inappropriate application of variable speed limit policy on a Motorway providing a legal basis to challenge a speeding ticket? For example: 1) Motorway road works have road side speed limit signs stating 60 mph but overhead gantry displaying lower variable speed limit i.e. 30 mph without risk factor justification. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 2) Motorway road works end and maybe end of road works signs are displayed each side of the road but subsequent overhead gantries incorrectly displaying variable speed limit of 60 mph without risk factor justification. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 3) Motorway overhead gantries correctly displaying variable speed limit during time period of high traffic volume but erroneously left on during subsequent time period of low traffic volume without risk factor justification. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 4) Motorway single overhead gantry displaying variable speed limit of 50 mph immediately followed by overhead gantry displaying national speed limit without risk factor justification prior during or after. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 5) Motorway road works reducing four lanes to two lanes having no variable speed limit applied followed by road works with the same lack of risk factor justification but with overhead gantries displaying variable speed limit. The remotely controlled gantry signs are not consistently applied to the same ground conditions. B) How incorrect or contradictory does a variable speed limit need to be before drivers should rely on their better judgement of the surrounding context to determine their progress without fear of the current judicial process automatically presuming guilt with no requirement for errors by Highways England to be accepted in defence or mitigation?
×
×
  • Create New...