60 and 40...

[Jasandjules]

Right, went out for a drive on Sunday, and I know I am in Suffolk now and folks are a little different out here, BUT one of the roads has an NSL sign on the left and a 40 limit sign on the right, opposite each other.. I drove the road at 56mph giving preference to the NSL on my side of the road.

Just wondered what the legal position is with road signs like that?

[miniandy]

NSL will be the one that applies - the 40 will just have been turned round by some scally having a laugh..!

[Jasandjules]

Doh, I never thought of that....I guess I just didn't give the council sign people enough credit......

[7db]

Signage improperly displayed. No conviction possible on that stretch of road.

[safespeed]

The law says that if a speed limit isn't signed in accordance with the regulations, no one can be prosecuted for exceeding it.

Doesn't sound like any speed limit at all was properly signed in accordance with the regulations. (Think about it.)

[slowly slowly]

There is a stretch or the A5 at Chasewater were it meets the A452 were one side of a dual carrageway is 40mph and the other side is 50mph and there is a speed camera on the 50mph (north) side so it does happen.

Edited by slowly slowly on Tuesday 20th June 19:23

[Zod]

7db said:

Signage improperly displayed. No conviction possible on that stretch of road.

unless you go over the NSL of course.

[7db]

Zod said:

7db said:

Signage improperly displayed. No conviction possible on that stretch of road.

unless you go over the NSL of course.

Nope.

[Jasandjules]

7db said:

Zod said:

7db said:

Signage improperly displayed. No conviction possible on that stretch of road.

unless you go over the NSL of course.

Nope.

Now that is Very interesting. So you are saying because there is no correct speed limit, there is no speed limit at all????

[safespeed]

RTRA 1984 S85:

(4) [Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road,] but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above.

[slowly slowly]

safespeed said:

RTRA 1984 S85:

(4) [Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road,] but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above.

Could we have that in plain English please?

[tigger1]

slowly slowly said:

safespeed said:

RTRA 1984 S85:

(4) [Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road,] but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above.

Could we have that in plain English please?

Pah, wouldn't fancy my chances if I got caught at 70+ though (despite there being no speed limit) - given that the NATIONAL speed limit is 70, and many magistrates have political ambitions...

Remember that many a person has had perfectly good evidence to refute a speeding charge and yet still been found guilty, it's not all cut and dry just cos the law says so (sorry 7db, I'm being very cynical today, I know!)

[Zod]

7db said:

Zod said:

7db said:

Signage improperly displayed. No conviction possible on that stretch of road.

unless you go over the NSL of course.

Nope.

So they'd just go for Dangerous driving then.

[esselte]

Zod said:

7db said:

Zod said:

7db said:

Signage improperly displayed. No conviction possible on that stretch of road.

unless you go over the NSL of course.

Nope.

So they'd just go for Dangerous driving then.

That's a bit more difficult to prove isn't it?

[7db]

7db said:

Zod said:

7db said:

Signage improperly displayed. No conviction possible on that stretch of road.

unless you go over the NSL of course.

Nope.

Sorry about this. Turns out I'm not right. S86(1) has NSLs covered.

[safespeed]

RTRA 1984 S86

86 Speed limits for particular classes of vehicles
(1) It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle of any class on a road at a speed greater than the speed specified in Schedule 6 to this Act as the maximum speed in relation to a vehicle of that class.

I would have thought 'a person shall not be convicted' (S85(4)) trumps 'it shall not be lawful'.

I also understand that the Stockbridge cases dropped recently were due to an NSL signing defect.

[7db]

safespeed said:

RTRA 1984 S86

86 Speed limits for particular classes of vehicles
(1) It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle of any class on a road at a speed greater than the speed specified in Schedule 6 to this Act as the maximum speed in relation to a vehicle of that class.

I would have thought 'a person shall not be convicted' (S85(4)) trumps 'it shall not be lawful'.

I also understand that the Stockbridge cases dropped recently were due to an NSL signing defect.

S86 does not constitute a speed limit as far as S85 is concerned, it is a law about vehicle class limits. On checking Schedule 6 more closely passenger cars aren't in there (thanks for a friend who did the research for me).

The law governing their class limit is in "The 70 miles per hour, 60 miles per hour and 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) Order 1977"

Would be interested to see the Stockbridge case - do you have a link? Is that a Wiltshire SCP one?

[safespeed]

7db said:

SafeSpeed said:

I would have thought 'a person shall not be convicted' (S85(4)) trumps 'it shall not be lawful'.

I also understand that the Stockbridge cases dropped recently were due to an NSL signing defect.

S86 does not constitute a speed limit as far as S85 is concerned, it is a law about vehicle class limits.

Clearly there's a case to argue here. It's far from black and white.

7db said:

Would be interested to see the Stockbridge case - do you have a link? Is that a Wiltshire SCP one?

http://web.mac.com/rmbscarb/iWeb/rmbc

Edited by safespeed on Thursday 22 June 18:51

[7db]

Interesting. Think that Crown could appeal that if they were clued up enough...

[jasandjules]

Interesting indeed... I can only assume the Crown took the option to keep schtum in case there were hundereds of roads incorrectly signed and this would eliminate many convictions.

Is there a link to the actual case citation anywhere?