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”.
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.
They time your car from start to finish in a section for tickets? I’m horrified
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.
Does speeding as an offence not require mens rea?
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.
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.
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.
Evil. This is literally highway robbery.
Plot twist, a cop put up the sign.
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…
