Speed limit sign in wrong place
Discussion
SPEED LIMIT SIGN IN WRONG PLACE
Next Story | Previous Story | Back to list
BY STEVE GRANT
11:00 - 27 August 2004
Senior police officers say they will not withdraw speeding tickets issued to more than 200 motorists caught breaking the limit at the end of the Long Ashton bypass near Flax Bourton. Avon and Somerset Police have said that, although 30mph signs on the outskirts of the village were in the wrong place, the spacing of streetlights in the area should have made it clear to drivers what the actual speed limit was.
The saga of the signs was uncovered earlier this summer by motorist John Hatton, who was caught by a mobile speed camera van on the outskirts of Flax Bourton.
Mr Hatton, of Worle discovered North Somerset Council's highways department records showed the signs had been put up 200 metres further away from the village than they were supposed to be.
His speeding charge was dropped.
But despite that decision, the police and council have decided that those drivers who had already paid fines after being caught at the same spot will not be given a refund.
The force has quoted paragraph 103 of the Highway Code to back up its stance.
It states: "You must not exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle. Street lights usually mean that there is a 30mph speed limit."
The stance has angered those facing a fine and penalty points.
Retired police officer Peter Lintern said: "I think they're being particularly bloody-minded."
Mr Lintern, aged 53, of Yatton, was caught doing 40mph as he left Flax Bourton for the bypass.
He learned via his local MP, Dr Liam Fox, that the police were pressing ahead with the fines.
Dr Fox passed on a letter from Avon and Somerset's Assistant Chief Constable, Steve Mortimore, which said that, following a review by North Somerset Council and the force's solicitors, all prosecutions at the location were "safe".
In the letter, Mr Mortimore said: "The particular area that Mr Lintern referred to is an area where there are streetlights less than 200 metres apart which, in law, makes it a 30mph speed limit.
"Not only this but that particular location is clearly marked with 30mph signs and the issue of their placement is overridden by the fact that there is street lighting present.
"In our decision we believe we have taken an entirely reasonable approach because, not only legally is the 30mph speed limit enforceable, but there are also clear signs making everyone aware."
Mr Lintern said: "I just feel that there was an issue and obviously if they were to allow the appellants to have their cases withdrawn it would cost them a lot of money. I can see where they are coming from but I do not necessarily agree with that."
Another motorist caught in the gap was Graham Bennett of Henbury. He said: "At the end of the day, the signs were in the wrong place. If they were in the wrong they should pay that money back."
Don Thomas, of Flax Bourton, said the issue had caused him a lot of anguish. He said: "I think they have been conniving to make a story up based on the truth and enough to get them off the hook."
www.thisisbristol.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145176&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144906&contentPK=10843468
Next Story | Previous Story | Back to list
BY STEVE GRANT
11:00 - 27 August 2004
Senior police officers say they will not withdraw speeding tickets issued to more than 200 motorists caught breaking the limit at the end of the Long Ashton bypass near Flax Bourton. Avon and Somerset Police have said that, although 30mph signs on the outskirts of the village were in the wrong place, the spacing of streetlights in the area should have made it clear to drivers what the actual speed limit was.
The saga of the signs was uncovered earlier this summer by motorist John Hatton, who was caught by a mobile speed camera van on the outskirts of Flax Bourton.
Mr Hatton, of Worle discovered North Somerset Council's highways department records showed the signs had been put up 200 metres further away from the village than they were supposed to be.
His speeding charge was dropped.
But despite that decision, the police and council have decided that those drivers who had already paid fines after being caught at the same spot will not be given a refund.
The force has quoted paragraph 103 of the Highway Code to back up its stance.
It states: "You must not exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle. Street lights usually mean that there is a 30mph speed limit."
The stance has angered those facing a fine and penalty points.
Retired police officer Peter Lintern said: "I think they're being particularly bloody-minded."
Mr Lintern, aged 53, of Yatton, was caught doing 40mph as he left Flax Bourton for the bypass.
He learned via his local MP, Dr Liam Fox, that the police were pressing ahead with the fines.
Dr Fox passed on a letter from Avon and Somerset's Assistant Chief Constable, Steve Mortimore, which said that, following a review by North Somerset Council and the force's solicitors, all prosecutions at the location were "safe".
In the letter, Mr Mortimore said: "The particular area that Mr Lintern referred to is an area where there are streetlights less than 200 metres apart which, in law, makes it a 30mph speed limit.
"Not only this but that particular location is clearly marked with 30mph signs and the issue of their placement is overridden by the fact that there is street lighting present.
"In our decision we believe we have taken an entirely reasonable approach because, not only legally is the 30mph speed limit enforceable, but there are also clear signs making everyone aware."
Mr Lintern said: "I just feel that there was an issue and obviously if they were to allow the appellants to have their cases withdrawn it would cost them a lot of money. I can see where they are coming from but I do not necessarily agree with that."
Another motorist caught in the gap was Graham Bennett of Henbury. He said: "At the end of the day, the signs were in the wrong place. If they were in the wrong they should pay that money back."
Don Thomas, of Flax Bourton, said the issue had caused him a lot of anguish. He said: "I think they have been conniving to make a story up based on the truth and enough to get them off the hook."
www.thisisbristol.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145176&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144906&contentPK=10843468
The speed limit for the village made by Order would set out the actual length involved. What seems to have happened, reading between the lines, is that the signs have extended the limit beyond that mentioned in the Order.
But if this area is an illegal 30mph by Order and has
street lighting then it is still a restricted road under RTRA and as such doesn't need signs and is
restricted to 30mph.
The other point to ponder is how does one prove in which particular area the speed offence was committed and speed device activated?
Seems they could be on a winner by refusing to let others off.
DVD
But if this area is an illegal 30mph by Order and has
street lighting then it is still a restricted road under RTRA and as such doesn't need signs and is
restricted to 30mph.
The other point to ponder is how does one prove in which particular area the speed offence was committed and speed device activated?
Seems they could be on a winner by refusing to let others off.
DVD
Just a local putting in his two pennyworth. The placing of the signs on the section of road concerned is just another example of limits bringing the whole thing into disrepute. The bloody signs should be moved and as the area was not intended to be a thirty the prosecutions should be stopped/cancelled.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Friday 27th August 17:02
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Friday 27th August 17:02
The force has quoted paragraph 103 of the Highway Code to back up its stance.
It states: "You must not exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle. Street lights usually mean that there is a 30mph speed limit."
Does it state usually or always? If its usually then that implies not always so there would be defence.
It states: "You must not exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle. Street lights usually mean that there is a 30mph speed limit."
Does it state usually or always? If its usually then that implies not always so there would be defence.
Might be worth an aggrieved party looking into the expert advice here [url]www.abd.org.uk/speed_limit_signs.htm[/url]
Is the law intended to mean that, when coming from a NSL area into a built-up area with appropriately spaced street lights, there is then no need for 30mph speed limit signs? And similarly when exiting the built-up area there is no need for NSL signs?
If so, why do we have those signs?
Surely it's the case that having them implies that it's unreliable to assess the limit without them, perhaps unless you drive with a tape measure handy. If it's standard practice to have speed limit signs even if they're not required (and it is), then it's extremely dodgy to expect drivers to notice the street lights and slow down when the signs aren't there.
Why not go to the French system, where the town/village name sign imposes the speed limit until the point where you pass the sign with a red line through it. No confusion, no street lights to measure, no needless additional signs.
And no "buffer zones" of 40mph to mess about with either. If those zones are simply to ensure people are doing 30mph when they arrive at the 30mph sign, then it's disingenuous for the scamera vans to sit in the 40 limits. But hey, are we surprised at that?
If so, why do we have those signs?
Surely it's the case that having them implies that it's unreliable to assess the limit without them, perhaps unless you drive with a tape measure handy. If it's standard practice to have speed limit signs even if they're not required (and it is), then it's extremely dodgy to expect drivers to notice the street lights and slow down when the signs aren't there.
Why not go to the French system, where the town/village name sign imposes the speed limit until the point where you pass the sign with a red line through it. No confusion, no street lights to measure, no needless additional signs.
And no "buffer zones" of 40mph to mess about with either. If those zones are simply to ensure people are doing 30mph when they arrive at the 30mph sign, then it's disingenuous for the scamera vans to sit in the 40 limits. But hey, are we surprised at that?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff