speed sign obstructed

[pppppp]

Just got an NIP for 39 in a 30 zone. The prior 2 miles had been a 40 zone.
Was surprised because I had not seen the 30 sign - went back and saw that the sign was obstructed by foilage - the speed change not indicated on the road itself.

Anyone have any experience of how to deal with this?

[vonhosen]

pppppp said:

Just got an NIP for 39 in a 30 zone. The prior 2 miles had been a 40 zone.
Was surprised because I had not seen the 30 sign - went back and saw that the sign was obstructed by foilage - the speed change not indicated on the road itself.

Anyone have any experience of how to deal with this?

I'd start by taking some photos.

[Jasandjules]

Agreed. Get some photos done. I hope that the signs on both sides of the road were obscured.

[PPPPPP]

Jasandjules said:

Agreed. Get some photos done. I hope that the signs on both sides of the road were obscured.

Good point - I have photos already, the sign on the side I was driving was obscured. The other sign is clear, but I did not see it - could have been a high sided vehicle or high beam headlights (it was at night).

[Jasandjules]

If it was at night then was it lit? If not, then I guess it is perfectly reasonable your headlights didn't illuminate it.

[Dwight Vandriver]

Section 85 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

For the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on any road, it shall be the duty of:

Sec of State re Trunk Road,
Local authority any other road

to erect AND MAINTAIN the prescribed traffic signs in such position as may be required for that purpose.

Could be worth a go on the premis that as the sign is not visible then it is not maintained?

dvd

[7db]

Dwight Vandriver said:

Section 85 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

For the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on any road, it shall be the duty of:

Sec of State re Trunk Road,
Local authority any other road

to erect AND MAINTAIN the prescribed traffic signs in such position as may be required for that purpose.

Could be worth a go on the premis that as the sign is not visible then it is not maintained?

dvd

DVD -- S85 of the ACT goes on to say that there's no c onviction possible where signage is incomplete - but only on roads without a system of streetlighting (ie restricted roads).

For the OP -
- get photographs of the overgrown foliage obscuring the sign. Take a witness with you.
- complain to the HA (trunk road) or LA that the signs are obscured and not when they are trimmed back. There will be a maintenance record of this, which is producable in court.
- find out whether the area where you were stopped is a restrcited road -- were there repeater signs after the 30 limit started, or was it a streetlit area?
- if it was a streetlit area, were the initial signs lit?

Good luck.

There are always ways of telling what sort of limit you are in - even if you miss the original sign or if it is inadequate or obscured. It does save the hassle the OP is going through.

[Yugguy]

If in an area with street lighting and in the absence of signage to the contrary don't you have to assume/know that it is a 30? I.e. they don't have to have 30 signs if there's lights.

[7db]

Yugguy said:

If in an area with street lighting and in the absence of signage to the contrary don't you have to assume/know that it is a 30? I.e. they don't have to have 30 signs if there's lights.

But they do have to have entry signs into the 30 limit. It's not clear whether a conviction can proceed if those entry signs are incomplete (ie it may not be enough for a defence to show that LA failed in its legal duty). I'm asking around on this point at the moment.

[PPPPPP]

Yugguy said:

If in an area with street lighting and in the absence of signage to the contrary don't you have to assume/know that it is a 30? I.e. they don't have to have 30 signs if there's lights.

There is street lighting in this 30 mph zone, but also in the 40 mph zone preceding it for the prior 2 miles. It's a question of what a reasonable person would assume.

Edited by PPPPPP on Wednesday 21st June 09:41

[justinp1]

PPPPPP said:

Yugguy said:

If in an area with street lighting and in the absence of signage to the contrary don't you have to assume/know that it is a 30? I.e. they don't have to have 30 signs if there's lights.

There is street lighting in this 30 mph zone, but also in the 40 mph zone preceding it for the prior 2 miles. It's a qiestion of what a reasonable person would assume.

I would say then that a reasonable person would presume it was 40 until told otherwise. I think that the previous posters have hit the nail on the head. Take a few photos. It is also important to take a witness down there who will be able to provide you with a written statement and is prepared to come to court if need be.

There are rules regarding using photos in court. I was advised that a photographer needs to be used the photo needs to be produced on paper and then he has tosign a statement that the photo has not been doctored etc which costs somewhat.

In my case, as I defended myself they gave be the benefit of the doubt that I did not know this and just brought along photos that the CPS had no knowledge of on the day. When I introduced them I printed out a copy for the witness, the CPS and the bench so that everyone could discuss points of the road junction in question whilst knowing what they were talking about. The CPS did not bat an eyelid at this as they thought they were onto a winner. It was only when I used the photo to prove that the witnesses could not see what they said in their statement that she got arsey and 'objected' to every way forward I took after that.

My advice is if the CPS want an easy case they will just allows your photo to be introduced. *But* you have no proof of the place and date that the photo was taken. This is why it is important to have an independant witness. They can write a statement which you can supply to the CPS before trial to say that they went to the sign on X date and it was completely obscured so that you could not see it etc. If the CPS does not want this statement to be read out in court and wishes to cross examine the witness they have the right to though. Perhaps someone even more credible than a mate would be someone who lives closest to the sign. I would just knock on their door and explain the situation. The advantage there is that they can show evidence that the sign was being obscured over a period of time and that the agency did nothing about it until they saw them cut the trees on such and such a date.

Good luck!

[Alice cupra]

justinp1 said:

My advice is if the CPS want an easy case they will just allows your photo to be introduced. *But* you have no proof of the place and date that the photo was taken. This is why it is important to have an independant witness. They can write a statement which you can supply to the CPS before trial to say that they went to the sign on X date and it was completely obscured so that you could not see it etc.

Would "witness" holding a copy of that day's newspaper in the photo be any good here?

Just a thought......

[PPPPPP]

Alice cupra said:

justinp1 said:

My advice is if the CPS want an easy case they will just allows your photo to be introduced. *But* you have no proof of the place and date that the photo was taken. This is why it is important to have an independant witness. They can write a statement which you can supply to the CPS before trial to say that they went to the sign on X date and it was completely obscured so that you could not see it etc.

Would "witness" holding a copy of that day's newspaper in the photo be any good here?

Just a thought......

Maybe I am being a bit naive here - but to have a photo of the site is surely reasonable evidence. After all it is only 3 points that are are stake (on a clean licence) so it would be ridiculous to risk making any false statement.

Foilage obstructing a sign is not that uncommon in June!!! In fact I have noticed quite a few more signs and I am sure magistrates have eyes too.

Edited by PPPPPP on Thursday 22 June 14:08

[Peter Ward]

PPPPPP said:

...Foilage obstructing a sign is not that uncommon in June!!! In fact I have noticed quite a few more signs and I am sure magistrates have eyes too.

And speed cameras too. How surprising.

[anonymous-user]

7db said:

There are always ways of telling what sort of limit you are in

with respect i'm not sure thats true anymore due to the many limits that have been lowered. there are roads near me (a13/a406) which (although well signed) you couldnt tell apart from 40-70. from 3 lane, unlit, armco'd 40 limits to 2 lane lit 50's to 3 lane unlit nsl, to dual carriage, armco'd lit 30's. whilst they might all conform to some rules its certainly not obvious. maybe i should take some photos...

[7db]

francisb said:

7db said:

There are always ways of telling what sort of limit you are in

with respect i'm not sure thats true anymore due to the many limits that have been lowered. there are roads near me (a13/a406) which (although well signed) you couldnt tell apart from 40-70. from 3 lane, unlit, armco'd 40 limits to 2 lane lit 50's to 3 lane unlit nsl, to dual carriage, armco'd lit 30's. whilst they might all conform to some rules its certainly not obvious. maybe i should take some photos...

Streetlights and repeaters should provide enough clues for all but the most goldfish of memories.

Repeaters are repeated at least every:-
250m (30mph)
350m (40mph)
450m (50mph)
500m (60mph)
600m NSL
Or about every 20s on either side of the road.

[justinp1]

PPPPPP said:

Alice cupra said:

justinp1 said:

My advice is if the CPS want an easy case they will just allows your photo to be introduced. *But* you have no proof of the place and date that the photo was taken. This is why it is important to have an independant witness. They can write a statement which you can supply to the CPS before trial to say that they went to the sign on X date and it was completely obscured so that you could not see it etc.

Would "witness" holding a copy of that day's newspaper in the photo be any good here?

Just a thought......

Maybe I am being a bit naive here - but to have a photo of the site is surely reasonable evidence. After all it is only 3 points that are are stake (on a clean licence) so it would be ridiculous to risk making any false statement.

Foilage obstructing a sign is not that uncommon in June!!! In fact I have noticed quite a few more signs and I am sure magistrates have eyes too.

A photo of the the site would be reasonable evidence if the CPS was reasonable and the rest of the system is reasonable. The job of the CPS is not to find out the truth, but convict you whether you are guilty or not - in the same way your solicitor will defend you, guilty or not.

Thus, if they can win a case by objecting to evidence then they will. The case technically runs as a criminal court case, and although a reasonable person would not lie over 3 points, it is a possibility and also one which the Magistrates have to consider. If you have a witness then this discounts this possibility as there is a third party to give evidence on your behalf which will outweigh any conter arguments by the CPS.

The newspaper idea is good, but does not pinpoint the exact date as it still could be later. It would be better to get your third party to take the photo and produce a statement of when it was taken. It would be bad form for the CPS not to accept the statement and photos if given to them before trial, thus they would then become 'the truth' in court as they have not been objected to. The case then becomes easy. If they do object for some reason, the witness would have to come to court.

[anonymous-user]

7db said:

Streetlights and repeaters should provide enough clues for all but the most goldfish of memories.

obviously repeaters are a bit of a give away. but like i said; it is well signed. APART FROM THAT you couldnt tell by the traditional streetlights/armco/builtup area rules what the limit was, like you could in the past. you certainly can't tell by trying to judge a safe speed. the limits appear random to me.

Edited by francisb on Thursday 22 June 13:23

[PPPPPP]

7db said:

Repeaters are repeated at least every:-
250m (30mph)
350m (40mph)
450m (50mph)
500m (60mph)
600m NSL
Or about every 20s on either side of the road.

so you are saying there should another 30mph sign 250 metres after the 1st. when I went back to take photos, I did notice a 40mph sign less than 100 metres before the 30mph sign. will go and re-check

Edited by PPPPPP on Thursday 22 June 13:57

Edited by PPPPPP on Thursday 22 June 14:09

[PPPPPP]

PPPPPP said:

7db said:

Repeaters are repeated at least every:-
250m (30mph)
350m (40mph)
450m (50mph)
500m (60mph)
600m NSL
Or about every 20s on either side of the road.

so you are saying there should another 30mph sign 250 metres after the 1st. when I went back to take photos, I did notice a 40mph sign less than 100 metres before the 30mph sign. will go and re-check

The 30 mph road is lit, as was the 40mph before it, so repeaters surely unnecessary in the 30 mph zone - interesting there was no indication on the road. The camera perhaps should also come with the speed to which it relates to prevent this type of issue.

Edited by PPPPPP on Thursday 22 June 13:58