Speed limit setting
Discussion
Folks,
I have seen this on the ABD site but am not sure exactly what it means. Does it mean that if a limit was lowered prior to January 31st, 2003 using the wrong regulation, then the present limit may be illegal or does it mean that the "use of the wrong regulation" would not apply if the limit was lowered after January 31st, 2003?
[i] So how do I know if one of these errors have been made in the case of my speeding conviction?
You need to go through the following checklist:
• The speed limit concerned must be 30mph.
• It must be in England or Wales, not Scotland.
• The speed limit should have been reduced from a higher speed within about the last ten years.
If you think this is the case but you are not sure, you will need to contact the highway authority, usually the local council. It is very unlikely that the speed limit has ever been anything but 30mph on the majority of residential side roads in built-up areas — it is only the more important traffic routes that are likely to be affected.
You should ask the highway authority to let you see the 'traffic regulation order' by which the speed limit was imposed. This document sets out the powers within the Act that were used and specifies, in a 'schedule', the exact length of road to which the speed limit applies.
If the road in question does not have street lights, the traffic regulation order should refer to section 84 of the Act (it may well refer to sections 84(1) and 84(2)). If instead it refers to section 82 (and possibly section 83 as well), then the speed limit may be illegal.
Conversely, if the road does have street lights, then the traffic regulation order should refer to sections 82 and 83 of the Act. If it only refers to section 84, then the road is not a restricted road and repeater signs must be provided for the speed limit to be enforceable (prior to 31 January 2003).
If you believe that the traffic regulation order is incorrect, ask for a copy (you may have to pay a small fee) and take it to your solicitor, together with a copy of the summary of legislation set out below. [/i]
ABD Copyright acknowledged
I have seen this on the ABD site but am not sure exactly what it means. Does it mean that if a limit was lowered prior to January 31st, 2003 using the wrong regulation, then the present limit may be illegal or does it mean that the "use of the wrong regulation" would not apply if the limit was lowered after January 31st, 2003?
[i] So how do I know if one of these errors have been made in the case of my speeding conviction?
You need to go through the following checklist:
• The speed limit concerned must be 30mph.
• It must be in England or Wales, not Scotland.
• The speed limit should have been reduced from a higher speed within about the last ten years.
If you think this is the case but you are not sure, you will need to contact the highway authority, usually the local council. It is very unlikely that the speed limit has ever been anything but 30mph on the majority of residential side roads in built-up areas — it is only the more important traffic routes that are likely to be affected.
You should ask the highway authority to let you see the 'traffic regulation order' by which the speed limit was imposed. This document sets out the powers within the Act that were used and specifies, in a 'schedule', the exact length of road to which the speed limit applies.
If the road in question does not have street lights, the traffic regulation order should refer to section 84 of the Act (it may well refer to sections 84(1) and 84(2)). If instead it refers to section 82 (and possibly section 83 as well), then the speed limit may be illegal.
Conversely, if the road does have street lights, then the traffic regulation order should refer to sections 82 and 83 of the Act. If it only refers to section 84, then the road is not a restricted road and repeater signs must be provided for the speed limit to be enforceable (prior to 31 January 2003).
If you believe that the traffic regulation order is incorrect, ask for a copy (you may have to pay a small fee) and take it to your solicitor, together with a copy of the summary of legislation set out below. [/i]
ABD Copyright acknowledged
Edited by Tafia on Wednesday 30th June 09:31
A complex subject and right up the street of Tvrgit of this forum whose brain is younger and better than mine.....
A complex subject for the lay man but in a nut shell the correct Traffic Regulation Order has to be used in connection with the imposition/lowering/removing limits as dictated by Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Sections 81 onwards. Certain LA's in the past got their knickers in a twist and used the wrong parts of RTRA in connection with the limits which then became unlawful. This was highlighted in 2003 in a case at Reddich Magistrates Court and as a result D of T I understand wrote to each and every LA to warn them to use the correct procedure. I have not heard of any abuse since (but then I lead sheltered life)
May be of interest?
http://www,tinyurl.com/2m2j4p
dvd
A complex subject for the lay man but in a nut shell the correct Traffic Regulation Order has to be used in connection with the imposition/lowering/removing limits as dictated by Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Sections 81 onwards. Certain LA's in the past got their knickers in a twist and used the wrong parts of RTRA in connection with the limits which then became unlawful. This was highlighted in 2003 in a case at Reddich Magistrates Court and as a result D of T I understand wrote to each and every LA to warn them to use the correct procedure. I have not heard of any abuse since (but then I lead sheltered life)
May be of interest?
http://www,tinyurl.com/2m2j4p
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
A complex subject and right up the street of Tvrgit of this forum whose brain is younger and better than mine.....
A complex subject for the lay man but in a nut shell the correct Traffic Regulation Order has to be used in connection with the imposition/lowering/removing limits as dictated by Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Sections 81 onwards. Certain LA's in the past got their knickers in a twist and used the wrong parts of RTRA in connection with the limits which then became unlawful. This was highlighted in 2003 in a case at Reddich Magistrates Court and as a result D of T I understand wrote to each and every LA to warn them to use the correct procedure. I have not heard of any abuse since (but then I lead sheltered life)
May be of interest?
http://www,tinyurl.com/2m2j4p
dvd
Cheers DVD. Unfortunately that tiny url didn't open but does what you say above mean that if a limit was changed prior to 2003 using the wrong regulation, then the 30 mph limit is still illegal or will the LA's have used the warning letter to re-impose the limit using the correct regs?A complex subject for the lay man but in a nut shell the correct Traffic Regulation Order has to be used in connection with the imposition/lowering/removing limits as dictated by Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Sections 81 onwards. Certain LA's in the past got their knickers in a twist and used the wrong parts of RTRA in connection with the limits which then became unlawful. This was highlighted in 2003 in a case at Reddich Magistrates Court and as a result D of T I understand wrote to each and every LA to warn them to use the correct procedure. I have not heard of any abuse since (but then I lead sheltered life)
May be of interest?
http://www,tinyurl.com/2m2j4p
dvd
If they have used the wrong procedure then the limitis unlwaful. i.e. if they want to upgrade a 30mph then they have to make an order taking out the restricted road than place a 40 order on it
Try this
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanageme...
dvd
Try this
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanageme...
dvd
Does 50 give a clue
DfT said:
47. All speed limits, other than those on restricted roads, should be made by order under Section 84 of the RTRA 1984. This includes the making of a 30 mph speed limit on an unlit road.
48. Section 82(2) gives traffic authorities powers to remove restricted road status, and give restricted road status to roads which are not restricted. However, the Department’s policy on the use of this power is that it should be used only to reinstate restricted road status in those cases where a road which has a system of street lighting has previously had its restricted road status removed.
49. If a road with street lighting has a 40 mph limit and this is to be reduced to 30 mph, it is necessary to both revoke the 40 mph order under Section 84 and apply Section 82 to reinstate restricted road status. Similarly, where a speed limit of 30 mph is imposed by order under Section 84 because there is no street lighting, that order should be revoked if street lighting is subsequently provided.
50. Whilst the Department believes that it is legally permissible to use Section 82 to create a 30 mph speed limit on an unlit stretch of road, it believes that the best practice is to use Section 84, since this is more in line with the commonsense implication that the term ‘Restricted road’ implies the presence of street lights. That said, current speed limits of 30 mph on unlit roads that have been made using Section 82 are not in the Department’s view illegal and there is no requirement to make retrospective speed-limit orders. However, the Department recommends that traffic authorities use Section 84 for future orders
48. Section 82(2) gives traffic authorities powers to remove restricted road status, and give restricted road status to roads which are not restricted. However, the Department’s policy on the use of this power is that it should be used only to reinstate restricted road status in those cases where a road which has a system of street lighting has previously had its restricted road status removed.
49. If a road with street lighting has a 40 mph limit and this is to be reduced to 30 mph, it is necessary to both revoke the 40 mph order under Section 84 and apply Section 82 to reinstate restricted road status. Similarly, where a speed limit of 30 mph is imposed by order under Section 84 because there is no street lighting, that order should be revoked if street lighting is subsequently provided.
50. Whilst the Department believes that it is legally permissible to use Section 82 to create a 30 mph speed limit on an unlit stretch of road, it believes that the best practice is to use Section 84, since this is more in line with the commonsense implication that the term ‘Restricted road’ implies the presence of street lights. That said, current speed limits of 30 mph on unlit roads that have been made using Section 82 are not in the Department’s view illegal and there is no requirement to make retrospective speed-limit orders. However, the Department recommends that traffic authorities use Section 84 for future orders
Tafia said:
Para 49 looks interesting. Before they can apply a 30 limit, they must revoke the 40 limit. Not always done, it seems.
We're back to streetlights againA road with streetlights is 30mph unless there are other markers on them saying otherwise. The markers are often left off, so streetlights arent generally being treated as an indicator of 30mph.
Section 84 is used to apply a limit on most roads
However if thats alrady been used to introduce a 40mph limit on a streetlit road It cant be used again to reduce it to 30. The 40 order has to be removed and section 82 used to restore the 30
What the above doesnt say is what limit applies if section 84 is used in error- is it 60mph NSL?
Is that right?
streaky said:
Tafia said:
Para 49 looks interesting. Before they can apply a 30 limit, they must revoke the 40 limit.
Note that it only says "should be revoked", so not mandated - StreakyI guess this is how lawyers make their money!
Dwight VanDriver said:
A complex subject and right up the street of Tvrgit of this forum whose brain is younger and better than mine.....
It's not particularly complicated. There are basically two routes by which a road can start off with a 30 limit - either as a "restricted road" (if it's lit) or by Order (if it isn't). If circumstances then change (for example if lighting is installed) you can't swap between the two without revoking the first one. You can't swap back either, ditto. Simple.If you get the procedure wrong (as I understand it - I've never been in that position!) the speed limit is invalid, and I think NSL would then apply.
It's more complicated up here in Scotland where a classified road (A- or B- class) can't be a "restricted road" by default, so is ALWAYS automatically NSL, so ALWAYS needs an Order to make it anything else. More complicated, but also easier - once you know the rules, it's much less confusing - ALL the main roads are covered by specific Orders.
The problem is that there are too many Councils now who do not understand the rules, and the importance of following them. I was taught be a man who had done nothing else for about 25 years (and he was still good company, by the way!) and you have to get it right. The procedure has been simplified (in 1996 I think it was) so it's now even harder to get it wrong. But they do.
There are major roadworks going on near here. We did the Orders for the temporary road closures, temporary turning restrictions etc, and the roads authority did the temporary speed limit because they wanted to make sure it was right. Except they didn't, so they are having to remake the speed limit order half-way through the works.
I despair.
Note to inevitable smartarses, before you say "oh it's not enough to be lit, it has to comply": "lit" in the above context means "a system of street lighting as defined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which is different in Scotland from England and Wales".
"Order" means a Traffic Regulation Order made under whichever section of that Act is appropriate.
"NSL" means... oh sod it I can't be bothered clarifying to avoid every bit of deliberate misinterpretation.
welsh blackbird said:
Tafia, have you got a particular road in mind? I ask because I think we are in the same sort of area, geographically speaking!
I have indeed. The A547, between Prestatyn and Meliden. As you may know, where this road leaves the outskirts Prestatyn it goes down into a dip and up the other side towards Meliden. After the access to the golf club on the left, there are just fields with no properties or junctions for perhaps 300 yards It looks as if it should be a 40 limit under the 85th percentile rule but it is a 30 limit, with dark green painted streetlights buried in the foliage.
Arrive Deprived used to park in the entrance to the golf club and trap folks driving safely down the hill from Meliden with an uphill climb right in front of them. Barring hazards, there is no safety reason whatsoever to touch the brakes. (Yes, it’s a 30 limit but in the opinion of many should be a 40).
Last Thursday they were parked in the lay-by at the Meliden end of the dip with two vehicles conveniently parked behind them which obscured a lot of their trap van. When I spotted them, I had started the climb towards Meliden. I checked my speed; it was 25 mph but how fast was I driving down the hill into the dip? At dusk a few weeks earlier along that road, I had a very hard contact with a small but deep pothole ( very hard, I suspected damage to my wife’s Corolla but it seems OK as it has just passed an MOT) so was watching out for more holes. Pothole now filled in.
Arrive Deprived, now called Go Safe or some propagandist term, claim they do not park where drivers will be slightly exceeding the limit in safety but are only interested in trapping drivers who are putting others at risk. Clearly this is wrong as driving at slightly over 30 into a dip with no hazards and a rising hill ahead causes no danger to anyone.
Two years ago a youth was killed on the same road on the outskirts of Prestatyn ( not where the trap site is). They may use that death to claim their trap is justified. However, the crash investigators said the dead driver was racing with another youth at speeds of up to 90 mph and the second driver was jailed.
This is view of the road which links Prestatyn to Meliden.
http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=meliden&countryCode=GB#map=53.32021,-3.40666
You can see the area of the trap site. It is where there is a golf course on one side ( fenced off behind high hedges) and farm fields on the other.
Nice.
I see the above link doesn't open. http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=meliden&countryCode=GB#map=53.31826,-3.40816
Does this?
http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=meliden&countryCode=GB#map=53.32021,-3.40666
You can see the area of the trap site. It is where there is a golf course on one side ( fenced off behind high hedges) and farm fields on the other.
Nice.
I see the above link doesn't open. http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=meliden&countryCode=GB#map=53.31826,-3.40816
Does this?
Edited by Tafia on Thursday 1st July 15:18
There are guidelines on this and you'll probably find one is related to the other.
The 85% rule only comes into play if a number of motorists are exceeding it so a van is sent out.
The van shouldnt be sent out if the speed limit doesnt comply to speed limit guidelines
The speed limit guidelines say a limit shouldnt be lower traffic mean speeds
So first you need to find those from the council.
The 85% rule only comes into play if a number of motorists are exceeding it so a van is sent out.
The van shouldnt be sent out if the speed limit doesnt comply to speed limit guidelines
The speed limit guidelines say a limit shouldnt be lower traffic mean speeds
So first you need to find those from the council.
This is a Google Streetview of the trap site on the A547 between Prestatyn and Meliden. Sure looks as if it should be a 40 limit. Yes, it has street lights but no development for about 300 yards. Van parks in lay by at the top of the hill in the far distance.
Edited by Tafia on Saturday 3rd July 11:01
Edited by Tafia on Saturday 3rd July 11:04
Tafia said:
This is a Google Streetview of the trap site on the A547 between Prestatyn and Meliden. Sure looks as if it should be a 40 limit. Yes, it has street lights but no development for about 300 yards. Van parks in lay by at the top of the hill in the far distance.
Street lights aside why wouldnt you think it was NSL?Pretty good chance of that not meeting above guidelines. Pursue it along the chain if you like but I'm not sure anyones got anywhere doing that - although you might get the limit changed
Tafia said:
welsh blackbird said:
Tafia, have you got a particular road in mind? I ask because I think we are in the same sort of area, geographically speaking!
I have indeed. The A547, between Prestatyn and Meliden. As you may know, where this road leaves the outskirts Prestatyn it goes down into a dip and up the other side towards Meliden. After the access to the golf club on the left, there are just fields with no properties or junctions for perhaps 300 yards It looks as if it should be a 40 limit under the 85th percentile rule but it is a 30 limit, with dark green painted streetlights buried in the foliage.
Arrive Deprived used to park in the entrance to the golf club and trap folks driving safely down the hill from Meliden with an uphill climb right in front of them. Barring hazards, there is no safety reason whatsoever to touch the brakes. (Yes, it’s a 30 limit but in the opinion of many should be a 40).
Last Thursday they were parked in the lay-by at the Meliden end of the dip with two vehicles conveniently parked behind them which obscured a lot of their trap van. When I spotted them, I had started the climb towards Meliden. I checked my speed; it was 25 mph but how fast was I driving down the hill into the dip? At dusk a few weeks earlier along that road, I had a very hard contact with a small but deep pothole ( very hard, I suspected damage to my wife’s Corolla but it seems OK as it has just passed an MOT) so was watching out for more holes. Pothole now filled in.
Arrive Deprived, now called Go Safe or some propagandist term, claim they do not park where drivers will be slightly exceeding the limit in safety but are only interested in trapping drivers who are putting others at risk. Clearly this is wrong as driving at slightly over 30 into a dip with no hazards and a rising hill ahead causes no danger to anyone.
Two years ago a youth was killed on the same road on the outskirts of Prestatyn ( not where the trap site is). They may use that death to claim their trap is justified. However, the crash investigators said the dead driver was racing with another youth at speeds of up to 90 mph and the second driver was jailed.
I know many people who have fallen foul of this particular speed trap!
I seem to remember in the dim and distant past that this road had a 40 limit - possibly in the 70's.
I think Arrive Alive has been rebranded because of the association with Brunstrom.
Edited by welsh blackbird on Saturday 3rd July 23:48
saaby93 said:
Tafia said:
This is a Google Streetview of the trap site on the A547 between Prestatyn and Meliden. Sure looks as if it should be a 40 limit. Yes, it has street lights but no development for about 300 yards. Van parks in lay by at the top of the hill in the far distance.
Street lights aside why wouldnt you think it was NSL?Pretty good chance of that not meeting above guidelines. Pursue it along the chain if you like but I'm not sure anyones got anywhere doing that - although you might get the limit changed
welsh blackbird said:
Tafia said:
welsh blackbird said:
Tafia, have you got a particular road in mind? I ask because I think we are in the same sort of area, geographically speaking!
I have indeed. The A547, between Prestatyn and Meliden. As you may know, where this road leaves the outskirts Prestatyn it goes down into a dip and up the other side towards Meliden. After the access to the golf club on the left, there are just fields with no properties or junctions for perhaps 300 yards It looks as if it should be a 40 limit under the 85th percentile rule but it is a 30 limit, with dark green painted streetlights buried in the foliage.
Arrive Deprived used to park in the entrance to the golf club and trap folks driving safely down the hill from Meliden with an uphill climb right in front of them. Barring hazards, there is no safety reason whatsoever to touch the brakes. (Yes, it’s a 30 limit but in the opinion of many should be a 40).
Last Thursday they were parked in the lay-by at the Meliden end of the dip with two vehicles conveniently parked behind them which obscured a lot of their trap van. When I spotted them, I had started the climb towards Meliden. I checked my speed; it was 25 mph but how fast was I driving down the hill into the dip? At dusk a few weeks earlier along that road, I had a very hard contact with a small but deep pothole ( very hard, I suspected damage to my wife’s Corolla but it seems OK as it has just passed an MOT) so was watching out for more holes. Pothole now filled in.
Arrive Deprived, now called Go Safe or some propagandist term, claim they do not park where drivers will be slightly exceeding the limit in safety but are only interested in trapping drivers who are putting others at risk. Clearly this is wrong as driving at slightly over 30 into a dip with no hazards and a rising hill ahead causes no danger to anyone.
Two years ago a youth was killed on the same road on the outskirts of Prestatyn ( not where the trap site is). They may use that death to claim their trap is justified. However, the crash investigators said the dead driver was racing with another youth at speeds of up to 90 mph and the second driver was jailed.
I know many people who have fallen foul of this particular speed trap!
I seem to remember in the dim and distant past that this road had a 40 limit - possibly in the 70's.
I think Arrive Alive has been rebranded because of the association with Brunstrom.
Edited by welsh blackbird on Saturday 3rd July 23:48
I had a driver shake a fist at me some time ago because he was waiting to pull out of a junction onto the A547 and I was going along, keeping to the limit, which he obviously thought was too low and so did I.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff