Forrest Williams - 24 Hour Motoring Lawyers - page 66 Motoring Advice Blog - Page 66 of 82 - Forrest Williams

Freephone: 0800 1933 999
Mobile Freephone: 01623 397 200

Chat Online

Motoring Advice Blog

The most profitable speed camera in Warwickshire?

I had a client recently who was charged with speeding at 49 mph in a 30 limit.

He was surprised to be charged because he has a clean licence and is normally a careful driver. He said that he though the speed limit was actually 50.

We looked into the matter and found the camera involved. It was on the A435 Alcester Road Studley. The police website showed that out of 23104 camera enforcements (either speed awareness course, fixed penalty or court summons) in the Warwickshire area in 2010 6796 of them related to this camera! The next highest figure was just over 2000 for the camera on the other side of the road!!

Meaning that over a third of all drivers caught speeding  in Warwickshire were caught on that road. At a minimum of £60 a time that road earned the police over £500,000 a year! Not bad business eh?

Seems he wasn’t the only one confused by the speed, in fact as I sat in court listening to other cases 3 others were dealt with on that road. At least 1 other claimed he wasn’t aware of the speed limit……. you would think he would have known better. He was a local police officer!!!

Sheffield Magistrates Road Traffic Lawyer speeding case

I was at Sheffield Magistrates Court this week with a speeding case. This is still the most common sort of case we get as Motoring Lawyers.

Sometimes we get clients who admit that they were speeding but deny that they were going as fast as the police say they were.

This can make a big difference. This case was an extreme case. The police case was that the client was travelling at at least 80 mph in a 40 and up to 110mph! The client admitted that he was speeding but at no more than 60mph maximum.

If the court believed the police he would been banned for a very long time, if they believed the client he was looking at points on his otherwise clean licence.

The procedure here is to plead guilty and ask for a Newton Hearing to establish the speed he was doing.

The police stated that they saw the client enter a large roundabout as they were on the other side. They caught up with him and followed him for .5 miles and he never went below 80, they then lost him and had to go up to 110 to catch him.

The problem for the police was that once I did the maths the figures didn’t add up. With the aid of google maps we established that by the time the police got around the roundabout the client was .2 miles ahead of them. They claimed they followed him for .5 miles until the next roundabout. The distance from one roundabout to the next was .8 miles. This meant that to catch him up in time to follow him for .5 miles the police had to travel .3 miles in the same time as the client traveled .1 miles. So 3 times as far, he was traveling (according to the police) at 80mph meaning they had to travel at 240mph to catch him up!

Obviously the police had got their calculations wrong, unfortunately for the client the police ‘on board computer’ appeared to have broken just before they followed him so they had no footage nor any VASCAR calculations to help the court!

I spent a lot of time preparing spreadsheets to prove that the police were wrong and was, frankly, looking forward to the cross examination.

On the day of the hearing neither police officers attended court and the CPS accepted our clients case.

Good outcome for the client but I never did get to ask the police officer if he knew how long it would take his car to get from 40-240mph!

City of London Magistrates Drink Driving Solicitor. Defence to failing to provide.

Drink Driving Solicitors, like all solicitors are ultimately judged on results.

We highlight the more interesting of our cases to show what we do for our clients.

This week we dealt with a few cases of failing to provide a sample. We were in the City of London Magistrates defending a motorist who had been accused of not giving a breath sample.

She admitted she had not given a sample but argued that the police had no right to ask for a sample. The police arrived at our clients private car park, they had to be let in by another resident because it was private and the gate was locked. We showed the court the area where the police asked for a sample and the court were satisfied that it was private.

We argued that our client could not have committed an offence of drink driving or drunk in charge because she was on private property and therefore when the police asked for a breath sample they could not have reasonably suspected she was guilty of an offence and there had no right to request the sample.

The district Judge agreed, the case was thrown out with an order that our clients legal costs be repaid to her.

Forrest Williams TV