What is the limit puzzle.

[Flat in Fifth]

Rather in the line of one of Tonyrec's little tests just wondered what you all make of this. True situation by the way.

Location: Dual carriageway formerly NSL street lights along some sections and unlit on others. Now "re-engineered" and a 50 limit throughout.
Speed order: Proper speed order in force to set the limit to 50.
Signing: Correct signing at start and end of limit, 50 repeater signs on posts and paint on the road, all in accordance with TS&GDR 2002.

All in order?

With me so far?

Except on the lit section where the lights are less than 200 yds apart they have forgotten to remove the old NSL repeaters. DOH!

So team what legal limit applies and why?

Your choices are

a) 70?
b) 50?
c) 30?
d) God only knows.

[xxplod]

I'd say it is a 50, but if you could show that the GLF signs were there then I'm certain you'd get off at Court if caught doing 70.

[nonegreen]

xxplod said:

I'd say it is a 50, but if you could show that the GLF signs were there then I'm certain you'd get off at Court if caught doing 70.

Your not supposed to use the golf libra foxtrot acronym

[safespeed]

Flat in Fifth said:

So team what legal limit applies and why?

The legal limit is 50mph, but it is not enforceable due to a signing error.

A very interesting question mark hangs over: "is the NSL enforceable in these conditions". A senior ex policeman assures me that if the speed limit fails, the NSL fails too. I'm sceptical.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[pwig]

If you remember those two cops who got off a speeding fine because the signs were wrong (speed camera logo ones). They still got fined for one as it was above 60, the national speed limit. So yes, It still does apply

[Dwight VanDriver]

Very interesting FiF.......Im watching???????

DVD

[Flat in Fifth]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Very interesting FiF.......Im watching??????? DVD

DVD,

interesting nobody has yet gone for what could be the correct answer.........

even if it would never actually be enforced, except perhaps N Wales.

FiF

[Kurgis]

30 because of the lights spacing?

[Nick_F]

Beats me.

But I'll see your puzzler and raise you: the 600m stretch of B-road that goes past the end of the lane where I live has a 50mph limit in one direction...

...and NSL in the other?

[mcflurry]

Nick_F said:

Beats me. But I'll see your puzzler and raise you: the 600m stretch of B-road that goes past the end of the lane where I live has a 50mph limit in one direction... ...and NSL in the other?

So if a numpty crosses over the white lines before getting flashed then they get away with it. The crash that follows can't possibly be speed related

[icamm]

Kurgis said:

30 because of the lights spacing?

I think you are probably right with the clue's FiF has given.

Wrong signage means NSL is in force. NSL on a road with street lights of this spacing is 30mph.

However, I do think you have a good argument that 70mph is in force if it got to court as there are signs showing a 70mph limit.

Just been checking this at www.abd.org.uk/speed_limit_signs.htm and I think 70mph is the limit. There is no sign for a 30mph limit to start and the only thing I can find is that a 30mph limit on a lit road with street lamps less than 183 metres apart MUST NOT have repeaters. I can find no indication that a 30mph would be in force if it does not have a "start of limit" sign.

>> Edited by icamm on Wednesday 28th January 15:55

[Ultimapaul]

70 would be the limit. The limit is as per the last sign to be driven past! No?

Paul.

[safespeed]

pwig said:

If you remember those two cops who got off a speeding fine because the signs were wrong (speed camera logo ones). They still got fined for one as it was above 60, the national speed limit. So yes, It still does apply

I emailed the "senior ex policeman", invited him to comment on this thread and got this in reply:

senior ex policman by email said:

You should have said an investigative consultant, ex pc, tish. If you want to put it right, the cop didn't get done for the other bit. I know the answer, but it will cost them an investigative fee unfortunately. I can assure you I am also right. If you think that one is bad there are a lot lot worse. [... unrelated comments removed ...] Getting back to Gassing Station. When I get my site up and running (which should be this week) I will pop a link into a note and see how many pick up on it.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[Flat in Fifth]

Everyone has focussed on the lit section with the incorrect signing.

However one must consider the totality of the question.

I put forward for consideration that the legal limit is a) 70 AND c) 30 mph.

Reasoning as follows:

S 81 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 makes it an offence to drive in excess of 30 on a restricted road, which is defined as a road with street lamps not more than 200 yards apart.

S85(4) confirms that if the road is not a restricted road then signs should be erected, and absence of any signs where such lamps are present indicates that it is a restricted road.

Therefore if a restricted road no signs needed, nor speed order just the lamps and it is a 30.

But Section 81(2) which has to be read with Section 81(1) allows Sec. of State to alter a restricted road to increase or reduce speed by Order. Once such an Order brought in there is an obligation to sign correctly.

Now the position, for example as presented by Paul Smith, is that the NSL signs mixed in with the 50 signs makes it incorrectly signed and therefore
an illegal limit, thus the legal limit is 50 but in practice unenforceable. Good logical argument.

However to consider the pure law position one might argue that the 50 is unlawful because of the signing defect and in law is therefore treated as not there. We are then facing what is left; namely "a road with a system of street lighting" hence a restricted road which therefore reverts to 30.

Applying a similar logic to the unlit part as the Order refers to a stretch of road part of which turns out to be unlit and part lit, then the unlit part reverts to 70.

: puts on teflon tony mask:
I refer you to the totality of my answer, ie 70 and 30.

:crowd boos, waves order papers claiming privilege and immunity from trick questions:



>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 30th January 22:41

[safespeed]

This IS getting interesting...

RTRA 1984 S85 paragraph 4 states:

" (4) [Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road,] but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above."

So let's see... The signs are wrong so they can't convict us of "exceeding the limit". Sounds like good old fashioned GLF to me.

I haven't actually identified the regulation that creates the NSL yet, but it must have a clause about "unless otherwise ordered". Since this situation will be "as otherwise ordered" I don't see the NSL applying.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

>> Edited by safespeed on Sunday 1st February 02:38

[db1]

have you seen getjustice.co.uk?

[Dr Jekyll]

Put it this way.

If you do 100 in a 30, even without streetlamps, you are only booked for exceeding the 30. You don't get charged with exceeding the NSL simultaneously.

This would imply that the NSL certainly ceases to apply when a posted limit is implemented.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Dr J

They woudn't even entertain a 30

At 100 in a BUA then nothing less than Dangerous?????

DVD

[Flat in Fifth]

Dr Jekyll said:

Put it this way. If you do 100 in a 30, even without streetlamps, you are only booked for exceeding the 30. You don't get charged with exceeding the NSL simultaneously. This would imply that the NSL certainly ceases to apply when a posted limit is implemented.

Dr J,

it is not alleged that the 70 and 30 apply simultaneously to the same stretch of road.

The proposal is that because of the defects then there is an unlit section (70) and a lit section (30), whereas the highway authority intend it all to be 50.

Signing roads is not rocket science, so why do we see them make so many member-erectii?

FiF

[Flat in Fifth]

safespeed said:

This IS getting interesting... RTRA 1984 S85 paragraph 4 states: " (4) [Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road,] but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above." So let's see... The signs are wrong so they can't convict us of "exceeding the limit". Sounds like good old fashioned GLF to me. I haven't actually identified the regulation that creates the NSL yet, but it must have a clause about "unless otherwise ordered". Since this situation will be "as otherwise ordered" I don't see the NSL applying. Best Regards, Paul Smith Safe Speed <a href="http://www.safespeed.org.uk">www.safespeed.org.uk</a>

Is there really such a thing as NSL any longer? I think not, even though we all, including myself, refer to it on a regular basis.

By referring to NSL what we really are talking about is shorthand for "Any prohibition imposed on a road by the 70 miles per hour, 60 miles per hour and 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) Order 1977 [1] or by regulation 3 of the Motorways (Speed Limits) Regulations 1974 [2]

Footnotes

[1]This Order is not a Statutory Instrument. It was amended by the 70 miles per hour, 60 miles per hour and 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) (Variation) Order 1978 and its provisions were continued in force indefinitely by the 70 miles per hour, 60 miles per hour and 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) (Continuation) Order 1978, S.I. 1978/1548.

[2] S.I. 1974/502.

Re your contact saying: If you think that one is bad etc..

Don't need to tell me about it. As commented to DrJ above its not rocket science so why is it so often wrong?


Finally must say that I find it somewhat pleasing to ahve started a thread which contains several references to the good old Golf Lima Foxtrot.

My work here is done.

FiF




>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 1st February 21:07