Driver Avoids Ban - Incorrect Sign
Discussion
Very lucky imo:-
Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818...
Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818...
bad company said:
Very lucky imo:-
Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818...
I doubt the driver with a 28 day ban considers himself to be 'very lucky.'Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818...
Plainly, there's more to this than reported.
Sticks. said:
agtlaw said:
I doubt the driver with a 28 day ban considers himself to be 'very lucky.'
Plainly, there's more to this than reported.
Yes. One of the many news articles about this stretch of road's signage. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/a20-sidcup-...Plainly, there's more to this than reported.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/amp/i-h...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-22318...
Sticks. said:
Yes. One of the many news articles about this stretch of road's signage. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/a20-sidcup-...
That doesn't explain why he pleaded guilty. agtlaw said:
Sticks. said:
Yes. One of the many news articles about this stretch of road's signage. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/a20-sidcup-...
That doesn't explain why he pleaded guilty. It appears drivers may have been playing the 10% game and been pushed over the threshold for prosecution by the rogue sign.
The fact that they wouldn't have been prosecuted but for the rogue sign is mitigation rather than a defence.
The force contends that if a motorist was to have travelled through the section signed as 40mph at the maximum permitted speed of 40mph, then sped up to 50mph after seeing the now-removed 50mph sign, their average speed of the section covered by cameras would not have resulted in them being issued with a speeding ticket.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c84nqxvvq37o
The fact that they wouldn't have been prosecuted but for the rogue sign is mitigation rather than a defence.
The force contends that if a motorist was to have travelled through the section signed as 40mph at the maximum permitted speed of 40mph, then sped up to 50mph after seeing the now-removed 50mph sign, their average speed of the section covered by cameras would not have resulted in them being issued with a speeding ticket.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c84nqxvvq37o
My understanding was the police pointed out that, at least for speed cameras, the single sign falsified the speed limit for ~100ft before a camera.
It works out that because they were average speed cameras, doing 40 in general and 50 through the section with false signage results in an average speed of something like 40.02mph over the measured section... I.e. doing the signed limit would leave all drivers well within the prosecution margin anyway.
And of course allowing fake signs to prevent any enforcement would just mean the same people chopping down infra would start putting fake signs everywhere...
It works out that because they were average speed cameras, doing 40 in general and 50 through the section with false signage results in an average speed of something like 40.02mph over the measured section... I.e. doing the signed limit would leave all drivers well within the prosecution margin anyway.
And of course allowing fake signs to prevent any enforcement would just mean the same people chopping down infra would start putting fake signs everywhere...
agtlaw said:
That doesn't explain why he pleaded guilty.
Just thinking out loud and could be nonsense...Could he have agreed guilty with prosecution on the basis of 1 charge against the 40mph limit (fast enough to 'qualify' for short term disqual), rather than risk NG to all on basis of defective signage?
There appear to be 3 parts:
1) TfLs new 40mph limit is temporary
2) The 40mph is alleged to be "poorly signposted"
3) there was a rogue 50mph sign
The rogue 50mph sign does appear to be irrelevant in this story.
Surely we need to know,
Are TfL sticking to their claim that "...the 40mph signs are compliant...", or will they admit error and improve their signage?
Maybe the fact that the new limit is temporary meant that less care was taken installing it (as they knew they would be removing it later anyway)?
Also, when will the limit be changed back?
1) TfLs new 40mph limit is temporary
2) The 40mph is alleged to be "poorly signposted"
3) there was a rogue 50mph sign
The rogue 50mph sign does appear to be irrelevant in this story.
Surely we need to know,
Are TfL sticking to their claim that "...the 40mph signs are compliant...", or will they admit error and improve their signage?
Maybe the fact that the new limit is temporary meant that less care was taken installing it (as they knew they would be removing it later anyway)?
Also, when will the limit be changed back?
TfL have said the limit has been reduced as the road is liable to flooding, I’d imagine temporary is going to be quite some time.
I must admit, I use this section of road a couple of times a month when working in London. First time I came through after the limit changed, was on the way home after a night shift. Muscle memory kicked in and I accelerated up to 70 where it use to change from 50 to 70 then noticed the next sign was 40 and it was average speed cameras.
Sat there at 20 until the NSL sign!
I must admit, I use this section of road a couple of times a month when working in London. First time I came through after the limit changed, was on the way home after a night shift. Muscle memory kicked in and I accelerated up to 70 where it use to change from 50 to 70 then noticed the next sign was 40 and it was average speed cameras.
Sat there at 20 until the NSL sign!
bad company said:
Very lucky imo:-
Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818...
The article is complete crap.Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818...
TfL have got form for reducing speed limits and then signing the change in a minimalist way. They did it on a stretch of the A217 when the limit was changed from 40 to 30. The 40 limit had been in place for 50 years. They put up a single 30 sign each way and removed the 40 repeaters. There was no publicity about the change aside from a notice in the Gazette (which obviously most people don't read), one day it was 40, the next it was 30.
Clearly there must have been a lot of complaints because subsequently more signs were erected and 30 markings painted on the road.
Clearly there must have been a lot of complaints because subsequently more signs were erected and 30 markings painted on the road.
siremoon said:
TfL have got form for reducing speed limits and then signing the change in a minimalist way. They did it on a stretch of the A217 when the limit was changed from 40 to 30. The 40 limit had been in place for 50 years. They put up a single 30 sign each way and removed the 40 repeaters. There was no publicity about the change aside from a notice in the Gazette (which obviously most people don't read), one day it was 40, the next it was 30.
Clearly there must have been a lot of complaints because subsequently more signs were erected and 30 markings painted on the road.
Are there not clear, existing legal guidelines on what constitutes ‘valid’ signage for things like speed limits? Or is that just wishful thinking?Clearly there must have been a lot of complaints because subsequently more signs were erected and 30 markings painted on the road.
Southerner said:
siremoon said:
TfL have got form for reducing speed limits and then signing the change in a minimalist way. They did it on a stretch of the A217 when the limit was changed from 40 to 30. The 40 limit had been in place for 50 years. They put up a single 30 sign each way and removed the 40 repeaters. There was no publicity about the change aside from a notice in the Gazette (which obviously most people don't read), one day it was 40, the next it was 30.
Clearly there must have been a lot of complaints because subsequently more signs were erected and 30 markings painted on the road.
Are there not clear, existing legal guidelines on what constitutes ‘valid’ signage for things like speed limits? Or is that just wishful thinking?Clearly there must have been a lot of complaints because subsequently more signs were erected and 30 markings painted on the road.
Southerner said:
Are there not clear, existing legal guidelines on what constitutes ‘valid’ signage for things like speed limits? Or is that just wishful thinking?
There are, TSRGD will tell you. Signs for speed limitsThe one that once really caught me out wasn't speed, but it was a sign that was non-compliant in multiple respects, critically illumination requirements. In combination to being mounted on a moveable gate that had been left propped open, it was rendered utterly invisible and I ended up making a prohibited turn as a result.
Nothing came of it, but it would have been a very straightforward defence if it had.
Edited by Solocle on Wednesday 17th April 10:25
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff