And that is bloody stupid application of the law. The local authorities have adopted a very sinister and cynical approach to mobile speed traps. The road traffic act was never modified to allow mobile GATSO's or Lidar 20/20's in order to coerce people into breaking the speed limit so that revenue may be collected.
Personally I'd photograph the illegally parked van and send the photo, together with a well written letter or Email registering your disgust at the way your council tax and other revenues are being spent.
Removing a 40mph sign and then brutally applying the prevailing 30 limit is tantamount to coercsion and/or entrapment.
And as for parking the enforcement vehicle illegally. O isn't that such bloody fantastic PR for the Police force as a whole?
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see enforcement in hazardous areas but you can't enforce a speed limit by hiding the enforcement vehicle. Make it big and visible; erect decent signage telling you exactly what the speed limit is (regardless of the old street lamp spacing crap) and no-one will break the limit. If they still do so, then they bloody well deserve a ticket for being so bloody inobservant.
What they can do, however, by enforcing the subversively, is collect revenue. Funny, that.
It's intersting to note that the single biggest body that has repeatedly railed against needless enforcement of speed limits alone (ie. no attention paid to other, potentially far more dangerous activities) is the House Of Lords.
So many bit of British constitutional law are compromised by the current Road Traffic Act as it's amendments thereto.
For example: Try and think of any other non-motoring offence of which one may be accused and then subsequently asked to give evidence against oneself? The only one that comes to mind is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 where similar powers are bestowed upon The Police and other 'official' bodies.
It's an interesting situation, and one that needs urgent redress as it seems that the honest and legal driver is being punished and fined to provide revenues for other government purposes.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Paul Anderson.