| Topic: | Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Michael Robinson | |
| Date/Time: | 01/04/25 15:53:00 |
| "Is the time that would be considered as entering for access as opposed to driving through ever defined in these appeals?" No. I assume that the time threshold has been set so the evidence that the driver did not stop is quite compelling for the adjudicator. For example, if the cameras are 800m apart, and Hounslow set the time threshold based upon the speed limit of 20mph, then if the vehicle travels at an average speed of 20mph, it will take about 90 seconds to travel between the cameras. If the driver claimed 'but I stopped for a minute', that would mean they travelled at an average speed of 60mph before and after stopping. As this is an average, this means the driver would have exceeded 60mph if their claim is true. So then the adjudicator might: - have a good laugh at the driver's claim - accept the evidence provided by the council infering that the driver did not stop to access a location beyond the restriction - dismiss the driver's claim as not being believable Of course, councils can't enforce speeding (currently) so this is evidence the driver did not stop, not evidence of speeding. I don't know what the position is if the driver themselves say they have been speeding, in effect. I stand corrected if the maths above is wrong. Also, the evidence only works if the clocks on the cameras are synchronised. This can be done using GPS or an internet connection. There are clearly some issues with this way of enforcing the restriction otherwise Hounslow and other councils would be using it in more locations. Maybe there are technical issues, maybe operational. Don't know. |