A Hertfordshire motorist is said to be anxiously checking his mail for a speeding fine after being caught by the flash of a speed camera he claims was triggered by a cyclist. He has called for the law to be clarified, and also says it’s wrong that cyclists aren’t bound by the same rules as motorists, since by not having to abide to the speed limit, it places riders in danger.
Stuart Gurney, aged 54 and from Croxley Green, has apparently been dreading that a fixed penalty notice will drop onto his doormat ever since the incident on the morning of 26 October, reports the Watford Observer.
The newspaper reports that in 37 years of driving, Mr Gurney has not had a single point on his licence, and his reaction to the prospect of receiving a fine for something he claims he didn’t do is one of mild indignation mixed with a certain amount of bemusement.
The camera was triggered as a cyclist, whom the motorist had noticed closing in on him in his rear view mirror, caught him near the bottom of Scots Hill.
"When the camera flashed I couldn’t believe it, I thought I was only doing 28mph,” he explained.
"I managed to catch up with him, pulled him over and politely asked the cyclist, 'Excuse me, that camera didn't flash on behalf of me I hope’, he replied ‘No it was me it flashed for’.
"He was dressed like a racing cyclist but I can’t believe someone is going round as fast as possible trying to set speed cameras off.
"He could have slipped on some oil or if I'd had to brake suddenly he would end up coming over my car bonnet."
According to the Watford Observer, Mr Gurney has contacted Three Rivers District Council as well as the police on their non-emergency number, but has been informed that no action can be taken unless he actually receives a fine.
Bicycles in Great Britain have never been subject to a speed limit, which have only ever been applied to motor vehicles, although as Bike Hub’s Cycling and the Law article points out, cyclists can be prosecuted for “cycling furiously” or “wanton and furious riding.”
But Mr Gurney believes it is wrong that while motorists must adhere to the speed limit or risk a fine, cyclists don’t have to, something he thinks can place them in danger in circumstances such as those he found himself in.
"This should not be allowed to happen, this could have caused an accident.
"Bradley Wiggins' crash just goes to show that even the very best cyclists are vulnerable, I was once a cyclist myself so I know to look out for them but it is a huge risk cycling like that.”
He also maintained that rules needed to reflect specific circumstances such as the his own situation, worrying that he will be fined for something that he says wasn’t his fault.
"We have got to think where the law stands on things like this.
"I am not the guilty party but could be the subject of a penalty due to being in the camera at the time.
"Speed cameras are there for a reason but cyclists can just get away with it."
A spokesman for Hertfordshire Constabulary commented: "We are unable to comment on particular instances.
“However, photographic evidence taken from GATSO safety cameras is always checked before a Notice of Intended Prosecution is issued.
"An assessment of the speed of all vehicles in the photos is made and notices will not be issued where there is no evidence of a vehicle travelling over the speed limit.
"If a motorist believes they have been incorrectly issued with a notice then there is also an option to challenge it in court."
54 thoughts on “Hertfordshire driver fears fine after cyclist triggers speed camera”
Not the first and won’t be
Not the first and won’t be the last to have been caught out by this kind of thing.
I know many cyclists with coach’s car’s following who have set off camera’s and never received a penalty notice. Because of the way the camera’s are set up, It would likely catch the cyclist and the front of the car, giving the police and CPS nothing to work on, other than it was a cyclist who set it off.
Will be interesting to see what becomes of this case though.
I appreciate the guy is
I appreciate the guy is concerned but the lines on the road by most speed cameras are there for a reason that being to calculate the vehicles speed. So if he is correct with his 28 mph estimate he will be fine. The cyclist however should be calculated above the 30 limit. It is not as simple as picture taken fine in the post. I am sure wikipedia has a link on speed cameras ;-).
I wonder if this will become
I wonder if this will become more common as urban 20mph limits become more common and get enforced with cameras? 30mph takes a fair bit of effort for your average cyclist; 20mph is much much easier!
So if it’s a 40mph speed
So if it’s a 40mph speed limit and there’s a patch of oil or the driver has to brake suddenly it’s OK?
Can’t help feeling this guy is a bit sad sitting in his home worrying about the possibility of a summons or fine dropping onto his doormat. Seems like his unblemished record is the most important thing to him and he’s mitigating the hell out of the situation by contacting all and sundry, including the local paper.
Someone should point out to him that fines are not automatic.
My Dad and his mate were pulled over by the cops back in the day. They were on a racing tandem and busting a 50mph speed limit. I think they were going for it a bit. Sorry, going for it ‘furiously’.
nostromo wrote:
Can’t help
Other than pushing an anti-cycling agenda, I have no idea why it’s news. Like you say, the motorist won’t hear a thing unless the photos show him exceeding 30mph. If he really was doing 28mph then he has nothing to worry about.
A 30mph limit is there to protect pedestrians from cars, not incase there’s oil on the road. Pedestrian/bike collisions are rare and the cyclist will likely come off just as worse, unlike the car driver in their metal bubble, so there’s no need for it to apply to cyclists who would generally be hard pushed to do 30mph anyway.
nostromo wrote:So if it’s a
No – creating a fuss and getting some attention is what is most important to him.
He hasn’t received a fine, he hasn’t received any points, he hasn’t received anything whatsoever – he is calling up the police and journalists and whoever else will listen because he’s worried he MIGHT get a ticket? And cyclists can just ‘get away with it’? Oh look – there’s the real agenda.
Puh-lease! Unless it’s on a downhill very few cyclists are gonna be flirting with a 30mph limit, and virtually none will ever trouble speed cameras calibrated for faster speeds than that. (Even the few riders who ARE capable of maintaining 30mph are going to be edging over (or under) the limit by – at best – 2-3mph.)
Just another cycle-hater trying to dress up his prejudice as reasonable concern. Gotta admire the switch in tactics though – generally we’re not welcome on roads because we slow drivers down or force them to take on unwelcome chores like, y’know – paying attention.
Now we’re too fast and likley to raise the insurance costs of honest drivers with a rash of speed camera fly-bys.
What a pillock.
Lacticlegs wrote:nostromo
No – creating a fuss and getting some attention is what is most important to him.
He hasn’t received a fine, he hasn’t received any points, he hasn’t received anything whatsoever – he is calling up the police and journalists and whoever else will listen because he’s worried he MIGHT get a ticket? And cyclists can just ‘get away with it’? Oh look – there’s the real agenda.
Puh-lease! Unless it’s on a downhill very few cyclists are gonna be flirting with a 30mph limit, and virtually none will ever trouble speed cameras calibrated for faster speeds than that. (Even the few riders who ARE capable of maintaining 30mph are going to be edging over (or under) the limit by – at best – 2-3mph.)
Just another cycle-hater trying to dress up his prejudice as reasonable concern. Gotta admire the switch in tactics though – generally we’re not welcome on roads because we slow drivers down or force them to take on unwelcome chores like, y’know – paying attention.
Now we’re too fast and likley to raise the insurance costs of honest drivers with a rash of speed camera fly-bys.
What a pillock.— nostromo
Well said and good choice of term of abuse. I was thinking of ‘prat’ but pillock is ideal.
Intresting that he felt obliged to chase after the cyclist. It’s annoying that this kind of (non)story appears in the local press. It’s scary when national press picks up on it.
My dad used to scream at
My dad used to scream at other motorists. I grew up genuinely believing ‘pillock’ was a word for a bad driver.
Stuart Gurney is clearly an
Stuart Gurney is clearly an idiot. As rigobear said, the lines on the road are there to show how fast you were going, so he wont be receiving a fixed penalty notice if he was going 28 mph.
Are cyclists big enough to be
Are cyclists big enough to be see by a speed camera? The forward facing advisory ones never seem to pick me up, even on my motorbike?
Chrisc wrote:Are cyclists big
From this clip, it would appear so.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qacLW2NSmi0
zanf wrote:Chrisc wrote:Are
Interesting. Must be a combination of my matt black carbon and my very thin physique rendering me invisible to them! 😕 Stealth mode…
i set off the advisory one on
i set off the advisory one on the hill into town most days. don’t know about GATSOs though.
Is that going up or down
Is that going up or down Dave? 😀
Strava.
Strava.
iamelectron
yaaawn.
its not stravas fault. this is so pathetic
“motorist worries about
“motorist worries about something that won’t happen” Watford must be a very quiet place to live if this is considered newsworthy.
Ah the camera on Scots Hill –
Ah the camera on Scots Hill – I set that off nearly every time I go down that hill on my bike B-)
The digital cameras in the
The digital cameras in the gatso’s are designed to take a piccy of the reg plate and zoom in accordingly.
If its the cyclist who has set the camera off and he followed afterwards then he has nothing to worry about. However if they go over the lines simultaneously then it cant be proved who was at fault and the photo will be disregarded.
Admission of guilt
Admission of guilt surely?
Cyclist going fast enough to set a camera off, man makes an effort to catch him must be going even faster hence breaking the limit. Bet he didn’t think of that before going to the paper 🙂
Yep, the driver isn’t too
Yep, the driver isn’t too smart and doesn’t know how speed cameras work as some posts point out. The lines painted on the ground will reveal clearly whether the car was speeding.
Cyclists can be charged with cycling furiously remember and if it transpires that the guy was going way too fast for the conditions (including speeding), then in theory the police would want to have a word with him. I was stopped for speeding on my bicycle many years ago by the police when out riding with a mate – no fine but we both got a warning.
The bicycle may not carry a numberplate but if the rider triggers the camera on a regular basis, this behaviour will be noted.
I did read about one motorcyclist who habitually set off a camera he was heading towards on his daily commute. As the motorbike had no forward facing numberplate the rider thought he would not be identified. But because the action was repeated, it was noted and he was subsequently identified and fined.
Not certain what he was
Not certain what he was hoping for by adding the tenuous link with Sir Wiggo…had nothing to do from his speed (as reported thus far), but from an idiot driver running into him without due care.
We can’t win. Either we’re
We can’t win. Either we’re ‘too slow’ and holding drivers up – or ‘too fast’ and should be fined. I look forward to the 20mph limits. It’ll be a chance to tailgate and tut tut them for a change.
ditto old ridge back, surely
ditto old ridge back, surely the lines will show whos at fault?
Cyclists are exempt from the
Cyclists are exempt from the speed limit? I had no idea!
Squiggle wrote:Cyclists are
yes only powered vehicles are restricted by the speed limit 🙂
Another defense for Mr
Another defense for Mr Loophole: ‘I wasn’t speeding your Honour, it was the cyclist who set off the camera.’
Exceeding a certain speed is
Exceeding a certain speed is detected by radar which then triggers two accurately timed photographs which determine the speed via the calibrated lines on the road.
Its the two pictures that are used to determine the speed accurately, not the radar.
Just anti-cyclist nonsense.
“Just anti-cyclist nonsense”
“Just anti-cyclist nonsense” really! are you sure? 🙂
surely the speed camera must have been positioned there because of the number of KSI accidents caused at the location by speeding cyclists?
Just wait until the daily
Just wait until the daily mail readers hear about this. New fuel in the fire.
“”He was dressed like a
“”He was dressed like a racing cyclist but I can’t believe someone is going round as fast as possible trying to set speed cameras off.”
I dont know about you guys, but I go out most days with the sole intention of setting off speed cameras ..:) NOT!!!
I understand he’s a p1ssed off about the possibility of perhaps receiving a ticket/fine … but does he REALLY THINK cyclists go out trying to trigger Speed Cameras …
In all seriousness, those who
In all seriousness, those who are fast enough to trigger a speed camera, how do you know you have? Do have a helmet mirror or while doing 30+mph you have a look round :O Either way i’m not going to be setting anything off soon!
yocto wrote:In all
If it is a dull day the flash is quite obvious, not need to have a mirror or look behind you. Sometimes I can also spot the flash in a reflection from the car I’m overtaking 😉
If he’s got no letter by now
If he’s got no letter by now then the time’s up. The police have 14 days the get the letter to you, and that’s by recorded post (not just first class) otherwise they’ve lost any ability to prosecute you.
Get NIP not by recorded post? Bin it and wait for the reminder and then ask them to prove they contacted you in 14 days. I learnt this after Bristol post ate my NIP (truthfully) and did some research when I got the reminder.
hennahairgel wrote:If he’s
Its actually only has to be issued within the 14 days, not received in 14 and if its sent recorded it doesn’t matter if you claim you never received it as long as its sent within 14. Not that it makes much difference in this case.
stumps wrote:hennahairgel
Its actually only has to be issued within the 14 days, not received in 14 and if its sent recorded it doesn’t matter if you claim you never received it as long as its sent within 14. Not that it makes much difference in this case.— hennahairgel
Stumpy, I suggest if you’re going to contradict someone you better do your research first. Especially if you are going to disagree with a post that has some indication of prior knowledge.
So, to back up my points I suggest you consider the following.
For a NIP to have been valid it ought to have been with registered vehicle owner 14 days of the alleged offence [Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside [2009] EWHC 2924 (Admin)].
Under section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 a person cannot be convicted of an offence unless the requirement in section 1(1)(c) that the notice of intended prosecution had been served within 14 days of the date of the commission of the offence had been met.
The ruling stated that it was not clear why the irrebuttable presumption found in section 1(2) of the Act, which provided: “A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) … to have been served on a person if it was by registered post or recorded delivery … notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received…” did not apply to first-class post, but it did not. That provision only applied to registered post or recorded delivery. Accordingly, late service of the notice by first-class post was not effective.
Lord Justice Elias went on to say that he appreciated that construction might cause problems for the police and prosecuting authorities. In my case this is true as 36 days elapsed before I received a valid NIP.
Therefore my points stand and you have published misleading information on what? A premise? A vague recollection?
I suggest you concede this argument, admit you were wrong, and next time do your research prior to posting incorrect information. Saying sorry as well would be nice.
“He could have slipped on
“He could have slipped on some oil or if I’d had to brake suddenly he would end up coming over my car bonnet.”
Not that IS a challenging w*nk…
Which, co-incidentally, is this ‘news’ story – a pile of it…
Pity the poor motorist who hasn’t been CAUGHT in 37 years – I guarantee he’ll have broken driving laws, albeit unintentionally, throughout this time, most likely speeding, RLJ-ing, illegal parking, dangerous or careless overtaking, mobile phone usage.
Some people will do anything
Some people will do anything to get in the paper.
As noted above, the time for an NIP has expired already, the photos (there are two!) would show that the cyclist was moving faster than him and therefore it would be disregarded, and if he’s worried about the cyclist slipping on oil he should get his car serviced.
My favourite line was his “I used to be a cyclist, so…” Is this a new equivalent to “I’m not racist, but…”? Incidentally I used to be a pedestrian. I’m sitting down at the moment.
What an attention seeking
What an attention seeking sop!
INBFC ha ha brilliant. 😀
I’m amazed the local paper
I’m amazed the local paper ran this. I can’t understand their agenda.
As has been said, it’s the timed photos showing the distance covered that is used to determine speed and the car driver isn’t at risk of prosecution if he was doing only 28 mph. The newspaper should have researched its facts before printing such provocative nonsense.
The speed limits for bikes argument is a non-starter too as cyclists can hardly ever break speed limits and if they do, they don’t present a danger to other road users (low kinetic energy compared to a car weighing one tonne plus).
As for speed limits and 20 mph zones – government policy is that they should be self-enforcing – i.e. traffic calming and no GATSOs.
Only motor vehicles with a
Only motor vehicles with a calibrated speedometer (MOT) are subject to speed limits. We can cycle furiously and be prosecuted tho.
The guy’s complaint isn’t
The guy’s complaint isn’t exactly ripe since he hasn’t gotten a ticket, and it seems that it would be pretty easy to get it dismissed if the camera shows a bicycle in the photo (particularly considering his driving record).
So, this boils down to a story about a guy who’s complaining that it’s unfair that bicycle speed is unrestricted while car speed is restricted. That’s top notch journalism, for sure.
“Extra, extra, read all about it. A guy who looks like me robbed a bank, and I’m constantly looking over my shoulder in fear that I’ll be arrested.”
Please excuse the ironic
Please excuse the ironic inaccuracy of the word inaccurate! :$
What’s even better about this
What’s even better about this is, owing to most speedometres being 10% innaccurate and even the government realising that some people will occasionally push the right foot down slightly too hard. The normal equation for any prosecution for speeding is 10% +2mph for whatever limit it is. Therefore in a 30mph limit no prosecution is even considered for 35mph or under. Plus most county councils will then put an extra few mph on top of that before the dreaded blinding flash. Kent’s for example ping at 38mph. (Don’t ask how I know!)
All this means for any cyclist who arranges an action photo of themselves….Well done!! =D>
Obviously a “quiet news” day
Obviously a “quiet news” day for the local paper.
everyone knows that local
everyone knows that local papers may occasionally just make things up, aye?
Putting a camera at the
Putting a camera at the bottom of a hill is probably one of the most tempting sites for any cyclist. Driver slows down, cyclist goes shooing past.. just the laws of physics really. Obvious what will happen.
I know Scots Hill well, the
I know Scots Hill well, the pillocks race past you at 45 mph on the flat section at the top (still 30mph speed limit) then hammer the anchors down to 25mph just in time for the speed camera. Of course, as a cyclist you sail back past them, if the pillocks had stuck to the speed limit they wouldn’t have not overtaken at all.
The driver comes across as a
The driver comes across as a silly old fool!
Whether this gentleman is
Whether this gentleman is making a meal of this or not, shouldn’t we as cyclists be following the same rules of the road as motor vehicles?
How can we have any moral high ground if we break speed limits, run red lights, etc? i realise that there is no legal sanction for cyclists speeding (‘furious riding’ aside!) but I feel that it it is right that we stay within the speed limits.
fictional wilson
No. We shouldn’t be following the rules for motor vehicles. We should be following the rules for cyclists. Various different vehicles have different sets of rules that appply to them. Would you restrict yourself to the HGV speed limit when driving a car on an ‘A’ road?
I think we have an obligation
I think we have an obligation to follow the rules set out for cyclists. We’re treated differently for a reason, we have far less mass than a car moving at the same speed and we are not obliged to have an accurate speedo so it would make if difficult to know to keep under the limit. We follow our rules, motorists follow theirs and everyone should be happy!
Some years ago, when I was
Some years ago, when I was younger, fitter and certainly faster (but probably not as wise), I managed to get an almighty rollicking off a West Mercia Traffic Cop for “cycling furiously” through a village with a 30 mph speed limit.
He chased after me in a Rover 827 (shows how long ago it was) pulled me over and said “Who the bloody hell do you think you are, Sean Kelly ?”
To which I quipped, “No sir, but I need to get home quick or I’ll miss Blockbusters”
“You were cycling furiously, I could give you a ticket”
“Furiuous ? Now that you have made me stop, I’m bloody livid, not furious”
Sorry – I’ve gone all Barry Cryer.
But really, I did get a ticking off for doing 35 mph according to his Vascar or Gatso or whatever gun – so it must be possible to set off the other cameras.
I have just noticed that the
I have just noticed that the eejit says “I was once a cyclist myself”.
What’s he saying – you are either a cyclist, or a motorist, but you cannot be both?
And it’s not right that “we” motorists might be subject to an appearance before the bench because of something that “you” cyclists have done ?
I spend a lot if time in court, and listen to a lot of drivel, but I hope he gets summonsed and puts it in the paper. I can the see the local rag’s headline now “Motorist with exemplary record’s summons nightmare”
I will book the day off work and sit in the public gallery – should be entertaining ! Especilly the bit where he says the perpurtrator of this evil crime was “dressed like a racing cyclist”.
(By the way, that’s me off the suspects list with my 20 year old Peugeot and Halfords helmet).
I dispair.