A mystery mother has built and installed a fake speed camera from a plank and a deodorant lid after getting fed up with people speeding through her village.
The authentic-looking 2ft wide yellow police-style device on a 12ft-tall grey metal post pokes out of the road hedge and points towards oncoming traffic.
Residents of the Berkshire village of Great Shefford say the device is already slowing traffic on the busy A338 and helping people to cross the road safely.
The authentic-looking 2ft wide yellow police-style device on a 12ft tall grey metal post pokes out of the road hedge and points towards oncoming traffic
Residents of the Berkshire village of Great Shefford say the device is already slowing traffic on the busy A338 and helping people to cross the road safely
Fake speed cameras are technically not illegal to install, and it appears the device can stay because it was installed on private land, said to be part of a farmer’s field.
However they throw up various legal issues, including putting the woman and farmer at potential risk of committing the offence of causing danger to other road users.
The device was erected after appalled villagers claimed the only way they might get traffic calming measures is if enough people were knocked down and killed.
The woman has not come forward but shopkeeper Ray Plowman has praised her for reducing the speed of the traffic driving along the road where children walk.
Mr Plowman said: ‘I’ve no idea who put it there, but if it slows traffic down and enables people to cross the road safely, then that’s got to be a good thing.’
Steve Ackrill, the chairman of Great Shefford Parish Council, was coy about the mother’s identity, but said: ‘I expect she will have had some help.’
Fake speed cameras are technically not illegal, and it appears the device can stay because it was installed on private land, believed to be part of a farmer’s field
Because the dummy camera is on private land, it’s not clear if the police will be able demand its removal, even if they wanted to.
Villagers, backed by the parish council, have long campaigned for real traffic calming measures but so far in vain.
Mr Ackrill added: ‘Without doubt there’s a problem with speeding. The last time West Berkshire Council did a survey was over five days in February 2016.
‘That showed an average of 1,800 vehicles per day coming past there. Almost 48 per cent of them were exceeding the speed limit and, of those, a third were travelling at more than 35mph.’
But the horrifying figures were not enough to trigger any meaningful traffic calming solutions, he said.
‘Apparently you need have to do at least 15mph over the speed limit before they even think about deploying community speed watch facilities,’ Mr Ackrill added.
‘Either that, or there has to be a few fatalities – but why wait and then lock the stable door after the horse has bolted?’
Speaking about the legality of fake speed cameras, he added: ‘They must not be distracting. But otherwise, so long as they are on private land, I understand that they can stay. We’ll have to wait and see.’
West Berkshire Council and Thames Valley Police have been asked for comment.
The device was erected after appalled villagers claimed the only way they might get traffic calming measures is if enough people were knocked down and killed
Nick Freeman, the celebrity defence lawyer nicknamed ‘Mr Loophole’ who specialises in driving cases, said the fake camera throws up various legal issues.
He told MailOnline: ‘There is a criminal offence of endangering other road users and, at the magistrates, if you’re convicted you can get up to six months in prison. At the crown court you can receive a seven-year sentence.
Nick Freeman, the celebrity defence lawyer nicknamed ‘Mr Loophole’, said the fake camera throws up various legal issues
‘If she has down something which causes an accident – this would obviously cause a distraction – if they slam on the brakes and someone goes into them, whatever the consequences are, she would be committing an offence of causing danger to other road users and she would expect to be criminally prosecuted.
‘Depending on the extent of the accident – if there was a serious injury or worse – it would go to the crown court and she would expect a custodial sentence.
‘What she’s doing is actually totally unlawful – apart from criminal problems she’s also got civil problems. Any accident which flows from that distraction, she would be liable to be sued for, whatever the consequential damages are.
‘She’s frustrated at the council’s lack of action, but that doesn’t allow you to take the law into your own plans. There needs to be planning approval to do this from the council, which they clearly aren’t going to grant – so she’s going to fall foul of planning permissions. It needs be approved and put through due process.
‘In essence, the public can’t do what they want – you’ve got to have permission. So my advice to this lady is, however well-intentioned her ideas are, remove it tout suite.
‘As far as the farmer’s concerned, he would be equally culpable. But if he hadn’t given her permission and didn’t have knowledge, he would have no liability.’
He added that he had never heard of a criminal case involving a fake speed camera, but said the device would ‘inevitably’ cause a distraction to drivers.
** Do you know who installed it? Please email: mark.duell@mailonline.co.uk **
How other worried residents have tried to install fake speed cameras but faced warnings from councils
Kevin McCarthy, of Nottinghamshire, built a dummy camera on his land in 2012
MailOnline has previously reported on two other cases of residents setting up speed cameras to get motorists to slow down in their area.
In February 2012, Kevin McCarthy built a dummy device on his land after becoming exasperated at the council’s failure to lower the speed limit or install a camera.
But the council told Mr McCarthy, of Ompton, Nottinghamshire, he could be sued by drivers if they crash while trying to slow down to avoid being ‘flashed’ by his fake device.
Then in October 2014, villagers who built a fake camera in a bid to slow traffic caused by a new Stonehenge visitors’ centre were also threatened with legal action by Wiltshire Council.
The council said that the dummy device had been put up illegally on land they own and had to be taken down because it was not officially installed.