Stuart Gurney says incident happened at Scots Hill

Watford Observer: Driver fears ticket after cyclist triggers speed camera Driver fears ticket after cyclist triggers speed camera

A MOTORIST from Croxley Green has spent the past two weeks nervously checking his letterbox after an overtaking cyclist triggered a 30mph speed camera.

Stuart Gurney, 54, was driving to work at approximately 7.30am on Friday, October 26, when says he noticed a cyclist in his mirror approaching fast.

But as the duo approached the camera near the bottom of Scots Hill, Mr Gurney says he was travelling under the speed limit and believes that as the cyclist closed the gap, his speed triggered the GATSO camera.

He says he was so shocked he followed the cyclist to ask who had triggered the camera and was even more so when the rider boasted it was not the first time he had done it.

Mr Gurney, who has been driving for 37 years and has never had any points on his licence, said: "When the camera flashed I couldn’t believe it, I thought I was only doing 28mph.

"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."

Mr Gurney, of New Road, has since been in touch with Three Rivers District Council and has contacted the non-emergency police number but was told little can be done unless he receives a ticket.

He said: "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.

"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 Hertfordshire Constabulary spokesman said: "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."

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:18pm Thu 8 Nov 12

WatfordBandB says...

How is this news worthy?

Cameras detect the distance traveled between 2 points on the road. They will see clearly that the car was within the 30mph limit and that the bicycle was in fact the perpetrator. There was or is no need to be concerned.
How is this news worthy? Cameras detect the distance traveled between 2 points on the road. They will see clearly that the car was within the 30mph limit and that the bicycle was in fact the perpetrator. There was or is no need to be concerned. WatfordBandB

5:24pm Thu 8 Nov 12

neighbour says...

Both parties: the motorist and the cyclist should be of good cheer. Cyclilsts can't get done for speeding, and when the police examine the photographic evidence they don't just rely on the fact that the Gatso's flashed, they have a look at the markers on the road to confirm the speed at the time of the vehicle passing through. No worries then. Personally, having been done for speeding at ONE MPH over the national limit on an otherwise empty motorway, I would much prefer to have a Traffic Officer have a word with me, not that they'd bother about one mile an hour on an empty road. They're usually pretty bright, and it's a fallacy that they'd bust their own grannies, whereas you can't argue with a robot.
Both parties: the motorist and the cyclist should be of good cheer. Cyclilsts can't get done for speeding, and when the police examine the photographic evidence they don't just rely on the fact that the Gatso's flashed, they have a look at the markers on the road to confirm the speed at the time of the vehicle passing through. No worries then. Personally, having been done for speeding at ONE MPH over the national limit on an otherwise empty motorway, I would much prefer to have a Traffic Officer have a word with me, not that they'd bother about one mile an hour on an empty road. They're usually pretty bright, and it's a fallacy that they'd bust their own grannies, whereas you can't argue with a robot. neighbour

5:25pm Thu 8 Nov 12

neighbour says...

Update: Sorry - cyclists! (Senior spoolchick moment.)
Update: Sorry - cyclists! (Senior spoolchick moment.) neighbour

3:59am Fri 9 Nov 12

Honest Rog says...

Good on the cyclist. I've done the same thing coming down the A404 from Chorleywood common over the M25, a cyclist can get up to 60kph and we don't get nicked.
Cue a load of cyclist bashing.
Good on the cyclist. I've done the same thing coming down the A404 from Chorleywood common over the M25, a cyclist can get up to 60kph and we don't get nicked. Cue a load of cyclist bashing. Honest Rog

7:23am Fri 9 Nov 12

Argonaught says...

Newborn was doing so well until it was said he/she was done at 1mph over the NSL. No you weren't.
As said above, the images can be checked to see which one or indeed both vehicles triggered the camera.
Good ruse by Mr. Gurney if he did trigger the camera, introduce the bike and tell the media, that may frustrate matters. If the van triggered the camera that can be determined, if not then so can that.
Newborn was doing so well until it was said he/she was done at 1mph over the NSL. No you weren't. As said above, the images can be checked to see which one or indeed both vehicles triggered the camera. Good ruse by Mr. Gurney if he did trigger the camera, introduce the bike and tell the media, that may frustrate matters. If the van triggered the camera that can be determined, if not then so can that. Argonaught

7:24am Fri 9 Nov 12

Argonaught says...

**** spell checker. I meant neighbour.
**** spell checker. I meant neighbour. Argonaught

7:24am Fri 9 Nov 12

Argonaught says...

**** spell checker. I meant neighbour.
**** spell checker. I meant neighbour. Argonaught

8:11am Fri 9 Nov 12

nathanl says...

How fast was Mr. Gurney going to catch up to the cyclist who was going faster than the speed limit? ;)
How fast was Mr. Gurney going to catch up to the cyclist who was going faster than the speed limit? ;) nathanl

8:21am Fri 9 Nov 12

OAC Bailiff says...

yes same thing in gammons lane 5 30 one morning cyclist flew past me doing 40 but camera didnt go off
yes same thing in gammons lane 5 30 one morning cyclist flew past me doing 40 but camera didnt go off OAC Bailiff

9:51am Fri 9 Nov 12

Guess who :) AGAIN ! says...

It happened to me before with a bunch of cyclists racing each other along the A4008 Pinner road ... nothing through the post except me membership card of me favourite club !! lol
It happened to me before with a bunch of cyclists racing each other along the A4008 Pinner road ... nothing through the post except me membership card of me favourite club !! lol Guess who :) AGAIN !

10:45am Fri 9 Nov 12

garston tony says...

I believe contrary to a previous post cyclists can get done for speeding, its just they are less likely to do so for obvious physical reasons and less likely to be caught doing so when they manage it.

Must agree, is this really a story?
I believe contrary to a previous post cyclists can get done for speeding, its just they are less likely to do so for obvious physical reasons and less likely to be caught doing so when they manage it. Must agree, is this really a story? garston tony

11:13am Fri 9 Nov 12

TRT says...

Cyclists can only be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for dangerous or careless cycling. The sections relating to exceeding the speed limit only apply to motor-driven vehicles. One of the primary reasons for this is that pedal cycles are not required to be fitted with a speedometer under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

I seem to recall an item from one of the WO's historical series about a cyclist being charged for "furious cycling" on King Street once, round about the time of The Great War.
Cyclists can only be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for dangerous or careless cycling. The sections relating to exceeding the speed limit only apply to motor-driven vehicles. One of the primary reasons for this is that pedal cycles are not required to be fitted with a speedometer under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. I seem to recall an item from one of the WO's historical series about a cyclist being charged for "furious cycling" on King Street once, round about the time of The Great War. TRT

11:44am Fri 9 Nov 12

The Rover says...

I had the same problem. **** cyclist flew past me on the M1 doing just over 100mph. I tried to explain to the judge but he was having none of it.
I had the same problem. **** cyclist flew past me on the M1 doing just over 100mph. I tried to explain to the judge but he was having none of it. The Rover

12:13pm Fri 9 Nov 12

TRT says...

That's because the judge WAS the cyclist and his braces were caught in your rear door.
That's because the judge WAS the cyclist and his braces were caught in your rear door. TRT

12:19pm Fri 9 Nov 12

luigi1936 says...

Wouldn't it have been easier if the police had actually explained how speed cameras worked to Mr Gurney. That way he might have not wasted two weeks worrying over nothing.

Maybe the so-called 'senior' reporter on the WO could have done his homework too and realised what a non-story this really is.
Wouldn't it have been easier if the police had actually explained how speed cameras worked to Mr Gurney. That way he might have not wasted two weeks worrying over nothing. Maybe the so-called 'senior' reporter on the WO could have done his homework too and realised what a non-story this really is. luigi1936

1:00pm Fri 9 Nov 12

HerbieGreen says...

This guy is a luney, just trying to get off a fine - if he wasn't speeding then the time elapsed photos will show that, even if the cyclist set the cameras off! Obviously doesn't understand speed cameras, like all those commenting 'oh, yes I had the same thing', and 'this will happen more and more' - shear anti-cyclist lunacy!
This guy is a luney, just trying to get off a fine - if he wasn't speeding then the time elapsed photos will show that, even if the cyclist set the cameras off! Obviously doesn't understand speed cameras, like all those commenting 'oh, yes I had the same thing', and 'this will happen more and more' - shear anti-cyclist lunacy! HerbieGreen

1:46pm Fri 9 Nov 12

garston tony says...

TRT wrote:
Cyclists can only be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for dangerous or careless cycling. The sections relating to exceeding the speed limit only apply to motor-driven vehicles. One of the primary reasons for this is that pedal cycles are not required to be fitted with a speedometer under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. I seem to recall an item from one of the WO's historical series about a cyclist being charged for "furious cycling" on King Street once, round about the time of The Great War.
I understand speeding would fall under the dangerous cycling category
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Cyclists can only be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for dangerous or careless cycling. The sections relating to exceeding the speed limit only apply to motor-driven vehicles. One of the primary reasons for this is that pedal cycles are not required to be fitted with a speedometer under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. I seem to recall an item from one of the WO's historical series about a cyclist being charged for "furious cycling" on King Street once, round about the time of The Great War.[/p][/quote]I understand speeding would fall under the dangerous cycling category garston tony

2:03pm Fri 9 Nov 12

TRT says...

Actually, I found the legislation.

RTA 1988 Section 36.

(1)Where a traffic sign has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.

So it IS an offence, providing that there is a roundel sign applicable to that stretch of road. Of course, many 30mph limited areas do not actually have a sign, as it is not often required!
Actually, I found the legislation. RTA 1988 Section 36. (1)Where a traffic sign [...] has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence. So it IS an offence, providing that there is a roundel sign applicable to that stretch of road. Of course, many 30mph limited areas do not actually have a sign, as it is not often required! TRT

2:44pm Fri 9 Nov 12

ian9898 says...

Seriously! it's in the Highway Code why do people comment before checking facts no wonder the WO gets away with writing about such crap!!!!

PS....Whilst you are reporting crap when does Woodmere Avenue re-open WO?

I am presuming it's closed as we haven't had any serious accidents for at least 4 weeks in the Width Restriction that nobody can fit through!!! Mmm..... strange
Seriously! it's in the Highway Code why do people comment before checking facts no wonder the WO gets away with writing about such crap!!!! PS....Whilst you are reporting crap when does Woodmere Avenue re-open WO? I am presuming it's closed as we haven't had any serious accidents for at least 4 weeks in the Width Restriction that nobody can fit through!!! Mmm..... strange ian9898

3:27pm Fri 9 Nov 12

TRT says...

What's in the Highway Code?
What's in the Highway Code? TRT

3:42pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Thunderchild says...

Stopped reading the stories on here 'cos they were laughable - first visit back on the site and this is what I find. "Bloke worried he might get ticket" - that's what we're calling news, these days, is it?

What's next - "Bloke worried he might die after eating pie one day past its sell-by date"?

Real reporters would have camped out, filmed the cyclist triggering the camera (chances are it's a regular occurrence), and challenged him to defend his actions in the context of cyclists always demanding more safety measures for their protection. And then handed his details and the evidence over to the Police to take care of.
Stopped reading the stories on here 'cos they were laughable - first visit back on the site and this is what I find. "Bloke worried he might get ticket" - that's what we're calling news, these days, is it? What's next - "Bloke worried he might die after eating pie one day past its sell-by date"? Real reporters would have camped out, filmed the cyclist triggering the camera (chances are it's a regular occurrence), and challenged him to defend his actions in the context of cyclists always demanding more safety measures for their protection. And then handed his details and the evidence over to the Police to take care of. Thunderchild

4:42pm Fri 9 Nov 12

ian9898 says...

TRT wrote:
What's in the Highway Code?
That the Cyclist MUST obey ALL Traffic signage and Traffic signals......

BY law there is requirement for fixed cameras to have a camera symbol and a speed roundel within the drivers view of the camera, the sign has to be at 450m max spacing (on the same side of the road as each other)

So if this camera and or section of road do not have a roundel/adequate signage.............
.

Oh no a court case at tax payers expense coming up....... :-(
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: What's in the Highway Code?[/p][/quote]That the Cyclist MUST obey ALL Traffic signage and Traffic signals...... BY law there is requirement for fixed cameras to have a camera symbol and a speed roundel within the drivers view of the camera, the sign has to be at 450m max spacing (on the same side of the road as each other) So if this camera and or section of road do not have a roundel/adequate signage............. . Oh no a court case at tax payers expense coming up....... :-( ian9898

9:32pm Sat 10 Nov 12

TRT says...

The speed roundel on the combination camera sign is a reminder sign. I wonder if it has legal force? Because it's only an information sign, you see. The speed limit on that bit of road is determined by the lighting.
The speed roundel on the combination camera sign is a reminder sign. I wonder if it has legal force? Because it's only an information sign, you see. The speed limit on that bit of road is determined by the lighting. TRT

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree