Poorly signed speed limits
Discussion
'Before repeaters there should be two big signs'
He's wrong with that assertion. Changed in 2016 (TSRGD 2016)so only 1 required.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Claimed to reduce 'sign clutter' but I suspect the cynics amongst us will take the view it's easier to miss 1 sign & not realise the speed limit has changed.
If the whole area is a 20 then it requires repeaters in addition to the usual signage at the start of the limit area.
He's wrong with that assertion. Changed in 2016 (TSRGD 2016)so only 1 required.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Claimed to reduce 'sign clutter' but I suspect the cynics amongst us will take the view it's easier to miss 1 sign & not realise the speed limit has changed.
If the whole area is a 20 then it requires repeaters in addition to the usual signage at the start of the limit area.
But this is noted in the new regulations
“13.3 Similarly, the requirement to place at least one repeater sign along a speed limit has been removed. The onus is on the traffic authority to determine the appropriate provision of speed limit repeaters having regard to existing guidance. In deciding this, it is strongly recommended that consideration is given to the potential for challenge to the enforcement of the speed limit.”
The..”strongly recommended that consideration is given to the potential for challenge to the enforcement of the speed limit”
That is absolutely crazy. It leaves the motorist in no-mans land. I am sure ‘there was no repeater, but there should have been , m’lud’ will go down well in a court.
This documentation is not fit for purpose.
“13.3 Similarly, the requirement to place at least one repeater sign along a speed limit has been removed. The onus is on the traffic authority to determine the appropriate provision of speed limit repeaters having regard to existing guidance. In deciding this, it is strongly recommended that consideration is given to the potential for challenge to the enforcement of the speed limit.”
The..”strongly recommended that consideration is given to the potential for challenge to the enforcement of the speed limit”
That is absolutely crazy. It leaves the motorist in no-mans land. I am sure ‘there was no repeater, but there should have been , m’lud’ will go down well in a court.
This documentation is not fit for purpose.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff