Missing signs for enforced speed restrictions

[off_again]

Quick question for the legal / BiB types - something that occured to me the other day:

On the M4 they have several sections dropped to 50MPH for road maintenance / repair, which is enforced with speed checks and cameras (though I have never seen a BiB or camera). Anyway, the other day the end of the dropped limit signage was missing. Fortunately I knew where it was and was back up to the 70MPH(ish) limit promptly. But many drivers were obviously unaware of this and continued at 50(ish) for some time.

So, given that there were no more repeating signs for the enforced 50MPH limit - how long do you leave it before you can assume that its back to normal?

The daft thing is that some sections are 50MPH with cones and others, still with cones, not reduced. Hard to actually tell the difference since there is little work going on! There seems to be little consistency to this, still it could be worse I suppose.

Just wondering though.....

[Dwight VanDriver]

At the supposed end of the road works was there a
Road Works End - sorry for the delay sign?

If so then this can be the official sign denoting the end of the Temporary roadworks limit.

dvd

>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 25th October 15:13

[puggit]

We've been through this scenario before on here probably 12-18 months ago. As I recall DVD stated that the road work speed limts are set in law, so that there is an exact distance specified and the fact that there is no NSl sign at the end does not matter

[off_again]

Dwight VanDriver said:

At the supposed end of the road works was there a Road Works End - sorry for the delay sign? If so then this can be the official sign denoting the end of the Temporary roadworks limit.

Yeah, the "Road works end" and NSL signs were missing - probably blown over in reality. So in effect there was no delimited end to the road works directly.... oh, and of course no repeating signs for the 50 limit.

Oh, and did I mention it is on the M4?

[Dwight VanDriver]

If signs do not conform to the strict regime about signing a limit, temporary or not, then this gives the argument that because of the defect, in this case lack of repeater signs and end signs, then the limut is unlawful and unenforceable.

dvd

[off_again]

Thanks for that DVD - just wondering.....

What an exciting life I lead eh?

[7db]

DVD - however the question becomes at what point it is unenforceable.

What about during the section up to the point of the last repeater - is it enforceable (there is no difference between this and a properly signed road)

Is it also enforceable past this point to where the next repeater should be? (same reason)

Since repeater distances are advised but not mandated, can't the repeaters be more generously spaced out?

I suppose in fact there is an Order limiting the speed for that particular stretch of road. And it is not, in fact, properly signed, so it cannot be enforced up its whole length?


I recall a traffplod in Wycombe explaining that they had to suspend enforcement throughout the town as a single sign was missing on one entry point....

[off_again]

7db, interesting point - I was thinking the same myself. But in my example the result is irrelevant - you wouldnt know that the limit was un-enforcable until the end anyway.... so you should have been at the prevailing limit anyway.... But if this goes for "entry" to a temporary restriction, well thats a different story....

I dont know about anyone else, but I am fed up of temporary signs being put up when there is nothing there - like having a lane restriction when there is nothing present.... ok if its just being put out, but have seen this increasingly where nothing is in place for hours - but hey, thats another story / thread / discussion....