Legality of small speed sign on right side of road
Discussion
I recently received an NIP for alegedly going above the 40mph limit of a dual carriageway. 
The only speed limit sign on the road was one of those tiny ones that's hard to miss and it's placed in the middle of the carriageway.
I tried to take a photo but my stupid digital camera spends ages trying to focus so I missed it! Instead I've drawn a speed limit sign to simulate the conditions. It may be a tad larger than the actual sign. What does the panel think? Is this legally sufficiant warning of the speed limit and is it clear enought to motorists? I would at least expect a normal sized sign considering it's the only sign on the road.
Thanks.
The only speed limit sign on the road was one of those tiny ones that's hard to miss and it's placed in the middle of the carriageway. I tried to take a photo but my stupid digital camera spends ages trying to focus so I missed it! Instead I've drawn a speed limit sign to simulate the conditions. It may be a tad larger than the actual sign. What does the panel think? Is this legally sufficiant warning of the speed limit and is it clear enought to motorists? I would at least expect a normal sized sign considering it's the only sign on the road.
Thanks.
If its what I think it is - that sign is a 40 repeater. Repeaters are smaller than the limit entry signs.
There will have been a limit entry sign. Are you sure you didn't miss it? Go back and drive the road again. If you can be absolutely certain that there was no limit entry sign prior to the repeater you might just have an argument.
If you missed the limit entry sign I'm afraid you are stuffed...and might as well roll over and save yourself the grief...
There will have been a limit entry sign. Are you sure you didn't miss it? Go back and drive the road again. If you can be absolutely certain that there was no limit entry sign prior to the repeater you might just have an argument.
If you missed the limit entry sign I'm afraid you are stuffed...and might as well roll over and save yourself the grief...
To be honest, it looks like a 40 zone to me, even without the 40 sign. It may be two lanes each way, but its not a dual carriageway, its got kerbs at the side and side roads on and off (not slip roads), and a bus layby on the other side, no central reservation/barrier, and is that a pedestrian refuge just on the extreme right? It's more of an urban link road/ringroad type thingy. If its not a 40, what is it then? a 70? thats obviously wrong. Gotta be a 40.
) 
There are no other speed limit signs on that road. I drove down it twice specifically looking for road signs.
I joined this road at a roundabout. The previous road was much more built up and signed at 30. Then you join the road as shown in the photo and it looks much faster, no speed limit signs until you see this small 40mph sign and then 30 meters later you're zaped by the Talivan.
So does the law say a small repeater sign can only be used if there's a full size speed sign before it?
StreetCop, yeah, it happened just like in your picture! Can I show it to the magistrate as evidence?
Balmoral Green, most dual carraigeways have kerbs don't they? There's one near me with a sign that says "Dual Carriageway" followed by a national limit sign. There are kerbs and pavements both sides of the road.
I joined this road at a roundabout. The previous road was much more built up and signed at 30. Then you join the road as shown in the photo and it looks much faster, no speed limit signs until you see this small 40mph sign and then 30 meters later you're zaped by the Talivan.
So does the law say a small repeater sign can only be used if there's a full size speed sign before it?
StreetCop, yeah, it happened just like in your picture! Can I show it to the magistrate as evidence?
Balmoral Green, most dual carraigeways have kerbs don't they? There's one near me with a sign that says "Dual Carriageway" followed by a national limit sign. There are kerbs and pavements both sides of the road.
99.9 per cent sure this is a repeater.
You need to find out where the 40 mph limit starts/30mph ends. The 40 mph will have been brought in by a Speed Order of the LA so enquire of BiB or LA for the name of the Order for that particular road/place.Ask to see it. In this Order it will state where the 40 starts and ends. The start has to have a 40 sign to indicate the limit and because there is street lighting apparently present on the DC then there has to be repeater signs at intervals because the street lighting could indicate a restricted 30mph road.
If there is no sign for the start of the 40 then things will be looking good for you and a challenge against speeding.
Get digging - fast.
DVD
You need to find out where the 40 mph limit starts/30mph ends. The 40 mph will have been brought in by a Speed Order of the LA so enquire of BiB or LA for the name of the Order for that particular road/place.Ask to see it. In this Order it will state where the 40 starts and ends. The start has to have a 40 sign to indicate the limit and because there is street lighting apparently present on the DC then there has to be repeater signs at intervals because the street lighting could indicate a restricted 30mph road.
If there is no sign for the start of the 40 then things will be looking good for you and a challenge against speeding.
Get digging - fast.
DVD
I think there is a rule that if you are going from a lower limit to a higher one (for example here, he says the next junction before you reach here is a 30) then you don't HAVE to mark the start of the limit - the repeater signs are sufficient - but the point is that they must be REPEATED at least every 200 yards (I think it's actually 185 metres or some strange dimension like that) to show what the speed limit is - otherwise on a street-lit non-motorway the speed limit is 30. If there is only one repeater sign then you could argue that the limit isn't properly signed. This is a common problem with repeater signs, most of them aren't signed properly at all...
So if you argue a defence that there was no sign to show the 40, their answer will be that in that case you should have assumed the speed limit was 30 so you're STILL nicked!
Is there a sign whe you go from 40 to 30 in the other direction? There has to be, or the 30 limit becomes a bit dodgy than.
>> Edited by tvrgit on Friday 1st October 21:44
So if you argue a defence that there was no sign to show the 40, their answer will be that in that case you should have assumed the speed limit was 30 so you're STILL nicked!
Is there a sign whe you go from 40 to 30 in the other direction? There has to be, or the 30 limit becomes a bit dodgy than.
>> Edited by tvrgit on Friday 1st October 21:44
I already have the traffic regulation order for the road. (First thing I did!) It covers 4 roads linking up to make a square joined at each corner by a roundabout. These roads are highlighted in blue below. My route is the red line. (Map not to scale!)
The roads don't appear to be breaking the traffic order which says they are 40mph - not sure if the 30mph section is legal but that's irrelivant. The question is how legal is it to have a 40mph repeater sign when there is no previous speed limit signposted on the road. Each section of road has its own road name and number (Axxx) so it's not a continuation of the same road.
Do you know where I can read about the law on repeater signs please? Thanks.
The roads don't appear to be breaking the traffic order which says they are 40mph - not sure if the 30mph section is legal but that's irrelivant. The question is how legal is it to have a 40mph repeater sign when there is no previous speed limit signposted on the road. Each section of road has its own road name and number (Axxx) so it's not a continuation of the same road.
Do you know where I can read about the law on repeater signs please? Thanks.
TVRgit, I'm not sure about the 30 limit in the other direction but I'll check tomorrow.
I think it's wrong that drivers should assume that a new road continues at the same speed from whatever road they joined the new road from, especially if it's a different road in name and number. It should be sign posted immediately otherwise a driver could assume the national limit. To me it looks like a dual carriageway because of the double lanes and no buildings.
I think it's wrong that drivers should assume that a new road continues at the same speed from whatever road they joined the new road from, especially if it's a different road in name and number. It should be sign posted immediately otherwise a driver could assume the national limit. To me it looks like a dual carriageway because of the double lanes and no buildings.
garygfx said:
TVRgit, I'm not sure about the 30 limit in the other direction but I'll check tomorrow.
I think it's wrong that drivers should assume that a new road continues at the same speed from whatever road they joined the new road from, especially if it's a different road in name and number. It should be sign posted immediately otherwise a driver could assume the national limit. To me it looks like a dual carriageway because of the double lanes and no buildings.
If it's lit, then the speed limit is 30 unless it's signed otherwise, or a motorway. The assumption is that everybody knows that lit = 30, unlit = NSL unless signed otherwise.
Garry
So you have the Order. It should state at what point
the 40 mph starts and where it finishes. At those points there should be signs. Who says so:
www.tinyurl.com/b9kq
Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002.
Scroll down carefully until you come to Part 2 Directions 8 to 16. Not easy reading but this deals what the law requires in relation to speed signing.
If you go on to the Diagram section look up sign 670
which is the speed sign. Note the box underneath which has information about various bits in relation to sign.
Note that as far as repeaters are mentioned it does not set out a specific distance, i.e. that they SHALL BE x yards apart.
Dot however work from Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/95
www.tinyurl.com/6bfq2
Total abscence of repeaters is a no no but if there is a large discrepancy with what TAL sets out then this can be used to your advantage.
Now, if my memory serves me, then if there is no 40 sign showing the start of the limit, then it is an illegal 40 on which you have been summoned. There is the arguement that if the 40 is illegal then because the street lamps (200 yards apart - 185 in Scotland) the road reverts to a 30 mph restricted road but I have nothing in my notes for any Court authority.
Doesn't make sense that it should not be specifically signed as at what point does it start and the restricted 30 mph end?
DVD
So you have the Order. It should state at what point
the 40 mph starts and where it finishes. At those points there should be signs. Who says so:
www.tinyurl.com/b9kq
Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002.
Scroll down carefully until you come to Part 2 Directions 8 to 16. Not easy reading but this deals what the law requires in relation to speed signing.
If you go on to the Diagram section look up sign 670
which is the speed sign. Note the box underneath which has information about various bits in relation to sign.
Note that as far as repeaters are mentioned it does not set out a specific distance, i.e. that they SHALL BE x yards apart.
Dot however work from Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/95
www.tinyurl.com/6bfq2
Total abscence of repeaters is a no no but if there is a large discrepancy with what TAL sets out then this can be used to your advantage.
Now, if my memory serves me, then if there is no 40 sign showing the start of the limit, then it is an illegal 40 on which you have been summoned. There is the arguement that if the 40 is illegal then because the street lamps (200 yards apart - 185 in Scotland) the road reverts to a 30 mph restricted road but I have nothing in my notes for any Court authority.
Doesn't make sense that it should not be specifically signed as at what point does it start and the restricted 30 mph end?
DVD
Thanks DVD, I'm slowly digesting all that info! I found another document called "The 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations" where in a table called "Recommended Distances between Signs" it says that for a 40mph road the maximum distance between signs on alternative sides of the road is 350 meters. The road in question is just over 1200 meters long so there should be at least one sign on the left side of the road. There isn't. Just the one small sign on the right side about half way down the road.
Can a government recommendation be considered as law or persuade a judge that the road is unfairly signposted?
Can a government recommendation be considered as law or persuade a judge that the road is unfairly signposted?
As stated earlier the law is under TSGD 2004.
Advisory on Signs by DofT is not pure law but because what you say falls foul of the advice then Direction 10 TSGD 2004 has not been complied with so the argument is that it is not a legal 40 mph.
Have you found the start of the 40 limit yet?
Is there a sign?
If not, this fact with the lack of repeaters, you may wish to consider:
Seeking advice from a Solicitor well versed in Traffic Matters to represent you for signing is a complex issue, or
Writing back to the SCP outlining the defects in signing which makes the limit unenforceable. Give then gist why. They may do one of two things.
(1) Roll over.
(2) Push to a Court hearing when Learned Eagle may well be needed.
What worries me is the fact that the SCP appear to be operating in an area that I would have thought they were sure was a bona fida limit. This leads me to think what am I or you missing? Accident that ploughed down the limit sign? etc. etc.
Good luck in your endeavours.
DVD.
PS. The media love stories on faulty signing??????
Advisory on Signs by DofT is not pure law but because what you say falls foul of the advice then Direction 10 TSGD 2004 has not been complied with so the argument is that it is not a legal 40 mph.
Have you found the start of the 40 limit yet?
Is there a sign?
If not, this fact with the lack of repeaters, you may wish to consider:
Seeking advice from a Solicitor well versed in Traffic Matters to represent you for signing is a complex issue, or
Writing back to the SCP outlining the defects in signing which makes the limit unenforceable. Give then gist why. They may do one of two things.
(1) Roll over.
(2) Push to a Court hearing when Learned Eagle may well be needed.
What worries me is the fact that the SCP appear to be operating in an area that I would have thought they were sure was a bona fida limit. This leads me to think what am I or you missing? Accident that ploughed down the limit sign? etc. etc.
Good luck in your endeavours.
DVD.
PS. The media love stories on faulty signing??????
I filmed the route and here's a more accurate diagram:
There weren't any full size speed limit signs on the road and the first one I saw on this route was a small 40 on the left side of the road. The road was about to split so it's easy to assume that sign is for drivers splitting off in the left lane.
Once I turned right there were 2 normal size 30 signs on both sides of the road. At the end of the road at the roundabout was a small 40 sign on the right side of the road.
The next sign isn't for at least 600 meters and it's again a small 40 on the right.
Each road can't be a continuation if they each have their own name and A-number, right? There should be a sign at the start of each road plus repeaters every 350m on alternating sides of the road (from what I understand).
If I take this to court I won't pay £200+ for a solicitor because the fine and increased insurance won't be any more than that. Heck, if I didn't bother with £650 insurance or registration they wouldn't have been able to find my address to send the NIP to! Who says crime doesn't pay? And those who get caught are only given a £75 to £150 fine!
There weren't any full size speed limit signs on the road and the first one I saw on this route was a small 40 on the left side of the road. The road was about to split so it's easy to assume that sign is for drivers splitting off in the left lane.
Once I turned right there were 2 normal size 30 signs on both sides of the road. At the end of the road at the roundabout was a small 40 sign on the right side of the road.
The next sign isn't for at least 600 meters and it's again a small 40 on the right.
Each road can't be a continuation if they each have their own name and A-number, right? There should be a sign at the start of each road plus repeaters every 350m on alternating sides of the road (from what I understand).
If I take this to court I won't pay £200+ for a solicitor because the fine and increased insurance won't be any more than that. Heck, if I didn't bother with £650 insurance or registration they wouldn't have been able to find my address to send the NIP to! Who says crime doesn't pay? And those who get caught are only given a £75 to £150 fine!
I've just checked the traffic regulation order (dated 1967) and it describes the roads incorrectly naming ones that don't exist where it claims them to be. For example:
"The length of Fleet Way which extends from a point 33 yards south of the roundabout which forms its junction with Hills Way to a point 33 yards north of the roundabout which forms its junctions with North Road (A1), a distance of approximately 1300 yards"
Looking at a current map (or going there myself) Fleet Road does not at any point form a junction with North Road (A1). In fact North Road is about 4 miles south of here (hardly the 1300 yards) and so is its junction with the A1. I think since 1967 the road names have changed and perhaps even the A1 was once a completeley different road which now runs in parallel with part of North road.
This is just one incorrect description of roads in the regulation order. If road names are changed and even the A1 is moved doesn't the document have to be updated to reflect this? Are all of the described roads illegal? It sounds pretty serious to me. I'd love to get the local press involved if this order is supposed to carry some legal weight.
If the road names are wrong then the distances are wrong. Either the Order is illegal or the roads are illegal. Whichever, it should help with my speeding ticket. On top of that I think the lack of repeater signs helps too. Any idea how I can measure the length of a road accurately?
Any advice please? Thanks.
"The length of Fleet Way which extends from a point 33 yards south of the roundabout which forms its junction with Hills Way to a point 33 yards north of the roundabout which forms its junctions with North Road (A1), a distance of approximately 1300 yards"
Looking at a current map (or going there myself) Fleet Road does not at any point form a junction with North Road (A1). In fact North Road is about 4 miles south of here (hardly the 1300 yards) and so is its junction with the A1. I think since 1967 the road names have changed and perhaps even the A1 was once a completeley different road which now runs in parallel with part of North road.
This is just one incorrect description of roads in the regulation order. If road names are changed and even the A1 is moved doesn't the document have to be updated to reflect this? Are all of the described roads illegal? It sounds pretty serious to me. I'd love to get the local press involved if this order is supposed to carry some legal weight.
If the road names are wrong then the distances are wrong. Either the Order is illegal or the roads are illegal. Whichever, it should help with my speeding ticket. On top of that I think the lack of repeater signs helps too. Any idea how I can measure the length of a road accurately?
Any advice please? Thanks.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff