Repeater signs
Discussion
I drove the A631 from Rotherham to Gainsborough at the weekend where they have (allegedly) the cameras that time you over the length of the road. Today on the A38 I passed roadworks with 30, 40 and 50mph limits with warnings of enforcement.
Thing is, in both cases the repeater signs for these limits were missing in places: on the A631 because some of the the 50mph repeaters were missing of damaged/missing and unreadable, and on the A38 becuase high winds had knocked over some of the signs.
Question is, how can the limits be enforced if the signs are not in order, and how would the police prove that the signs were in order when fixed cameras are used? If I was to say that the signs wee not in order and produce evidence (e.g. a picture of a damaged sign) or evidence that the weather included high winds surely they could not convict?
Thing is, in both cases the repeater signs for these limits were missing in places: on the A631 because some of the the 50mph repeaters were missing of damaged/missing and unreadable, and on the A38 becuase high winds had knocked over some of the signs.
Question is, how can the limits be enforced if the signs are not in order, and how would the police prove that the signs were in order when fixed cameras are used? If I was to say that the signs wee not in order and produce evidence (e.g. a picture of a damaged sign) or evidence that the weather included high winds surely they could not convict?
No conviction can stand for speeding where an unrestricted road is not properly signed, according to RTRA 1988.
In your defence you would be expected to introduce reasonable doubt that the road was correctly signed at the time of the offence. I'm no expert, but I'd suggest that photos of damaged signs would be good - evidence of high winds would not, without further evidence to suggest this would mean temporary signage would fall over.
On repeaters, the rules are laid out in TSRGD - specifically that repeaters are required at "regular" intervals. If one is missing / defaced / damaged / hidden / blown over then you might have a case, given evidence of deficit.
>> Edited by 7db on Monday 13th March 23:32
In your defence you would be expected to introduce reasonable doubt that the road was correctly signed at the time of the offence. I'm no expert, but I'd suggest that photos of damaged signs would be good - evidence of high winds would not, without further evidence to suggest this would mean temporary signage would fall over.
On repeaters, the rules are laid out in TSRGD - specifically that repeaters are required at "regular" intervals. If one is missing / defaced / damaged / hidden / blown over then you might have a case, given evidence of deficit.
>> Edited by 7db on Monday 13th March 23:32
You're right 7db (he said patronisingly) - TSRGD does say "regular" intervals - I was looking at this very section only yesterday and there is no specification of what "regular" means. I was looking at a new speed limit near me - discussed here
www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=250287&f=118&h=0
where the repeaters are almost a mile apart - a very long distance, in anybody's book.
On that particular road, the repeaters as you join it are on the nearside of the slip roads - the last place a driver should be looking as he plans his merge manouevre. You might then drive a mile before you see another sign. TSRGD says that the first repeater should be within 20 m of the junction, but I'm not sure if that includes "on the slip road merge".
IIRC, the Traffic Signs Manual chapter on Regulatory SIgns (Ch 4 I think it is, I can't remember) does contain non-statutory "guidance" on the "recommended" intervals, but I didn't have time to find one yesterday. I won't be able to look today, because I am out and about, but I do intend to find out exactly what this "guidance" says, and how that might affect enforcement.
Edited to add link
>> Edited by tvrgit on Tuesday 14th March 07:29
www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=250287&f=118&h=0
where the repeaters are almost a mile apart - a very long distance, in anybody's book.
On that particular road, the repeaters as you join it are on the nearside of the slip roads - the last place a driver should be looking as he plans his merge manouevre. You might then drive a mile before you see another sign. TSRGD says that the first repeater should be within 20 m of the junction, but I'm not sure if that includes "on the slip road merge".
IIRC, the Traffic Signs Manual chapter on Regulatory SIgns (Ch 4 I think it is, I can't remember) does contain non-statutory "guidance" on the "recommended" intervals, but I didn't have time to find one yesterday. I won't be able to look today, because I am out and about, but I do intend to find out exactly what this "guidance" says, and how that might affect enforcement.
Edited to add link
>> Edited by tvrgit on Tuesday 14th March 07:29
It is indeed correct that TSGD only mentioned at regular intervals without defining distances.
Guidance was issued to Local Authorites on this by DofE in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/95: Speed Limit Signs.
For those interested:
http://tinyurl.com/6bfq2
dvd
Guidance was issued to Local Authorites on this by DofE in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/95: Speed Limit Signs.
For those interested:
http://tinyurl.com/6bfq2
dvd
Good spot, DVD.
That guidance specifically is for unrestricted lit roads requiring repeaters, although could easily be taken to encompass unlit unrestricted roads, too. It also specifically rejects that repeaters spaced "marginally" too far apart should render a limit unenforceable -- presenting itself as non-retrospective best practice, not a change to TSRGD.
That said, once repeaters established at whatever "regular" intervals selected, does one that is damaged represent improper signage?
Anyone had court experience of a case on such grounds? Will cross-post for the bench.
That guidance specifically is for unrestricted lit roads requiring repeaters, although could easily be taken to encompass unlit unrestricted roads, too. It also specifically rejects that repeaters spaced "marginally" too far apart should render a limit unenforceable -- presenting itself as non-retrospective best practice, not a change to TSRGD.
That said, once repeaters established at whatever "regular" intervals selected, does one that is damaged represent improper signage?
Anyone had court experience of a case on such grounds? Will cross-post for the bench.
There has been a court case where a woman accused of exceeding a temporary limit had her case overturned and opened up the possibility that many others had been wrongly convicted by comprehensive photo evidence that road works limit signs were not in place and being moved.
Working purely from memory she didn't prove that the signs were in disarray on the date of her alleged offence, but that over a period of time the signs were moved missing. I think this was part of the progression of the road works. She used a simple single use emulsion film camera as opposed to digital.
Anyway upshot was that the scamps were unable to prove that all the signs were in place on the day in question.
If I get chance I'll have a trawl for some links to the case. No doubt others will beat me to that, hopefully.
Does that answer the question?
Working purely from memory she didn't prove that the signs were in disarray on the date of her alleged offence, but that over a period of time the signs were moved missing. I think this was part of the progression of the road works. She used a simple single use emulsion film camera as opposed to digital.
Anyway upshot was that the scamps were unable to prove that all the signs were in place on the day in question.
If I get chance I'll have a trawl for some links to the case. No doubt others will beat me to that, hopefully.
Does that answer the question?
Problem is of course that it can be a number of days after that you get the letter: how are you supposed to prove your defence when in the meantime the roadworks have been changed 16 times?
The key thing is that you were not told by signage what the limit was, therefore you would not know that you had broken it and thus not had the need or foresight to take pictures. CATCH 22?
The key thing is that you were not told by signage what the limit was, therefore you would not know that you had broken it and thus not had the need or foresight to take pictures. CATCH 22?
The joy is that the burden of proof does not lie with you -- it lies with the other side.
All you need to do is introduce reasonable doubt. FWIU of FiF's post, this is done by showing that at some time near the time of the offence the signage was deficient, and in the absence of the other side producing cast iron evidence (like a video footage taken that day of a car checking all the signage was in place), should be sufficient to hole their case below the waterline.
All you need to do is introduce reasonable doubt. FWIU of FiF's post, this is done by showing that at some time near the time of the offence the signage was deficient, and in the absence of the other side producing cast iron evidence (like a video footage taken that day of a car checking all the signage was in place), should be sufficient to hole their case below the waterline.
7db you understand correctly, not been able to find links to the case mentioned, will look further tonight.
Now the problem is that all the scamps have to do is to introduce a sentence into their operator's sworn statement to the effect that " I travelled along the road and all limit and repeater signs as required by the legislation was correctly displayed" and the defence is screwed. In these days of statement by Microsoft Word Template....
I'm not for one moment suggesting that the operators would make that statement even if they hadn't actually performed the check you understand......
Now the problem is that all the scamps have to do is to introduce a sentence into their operator's sworn statement to the effect that " I travelled along the road and all limit and repeater signs as required by the legislation was correctly displayed" and the defence is screwed. In these days of statement by Microsoft Word Template....
I'm not for one moment suggesting that the operators would make that statement even if they hadn't actually performed the check you understand......
7db said:
Good spot, DVD.
That said, once repeaters established at whatever "regular" intervals selected, does one that is damaged represent improper signage?
Have a butchers at section 85 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which I am assured mentions:
(1)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 the Secretary of State, in the case of a trunk road, to ERECT AND MAINTAIN the prescribed traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose.
(2) In the case of any road which is not a trunk road, it shall be the duty of the local authority
Fif, who is just not a pretty face but has a memory like Leslie WELCH, is right it was a woman, somewhere south, who was able to show by photographs that the signing was all to hell and charge thrown out.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 14th March 15:04
7db said:
In the face of stronger facts presented by the defence might they then be open to a charge of perjury is swearing such a mistaken statement?
Yes but, no but, yes but, no but
As I see it,
Scenario 1 mobile scamps;
You (hypothetically) the defendant is saying "I have photographs and evidence that on these dates the signs were seriously deficient, also I swear that on the day they must have been deficient otherwise I would not have committed the offence" However you are not able to produce photos of the day in question because because.....
They say "I drove the section of road and all in order."
Thats going to be a case proven surely.
Scenario 2 fixed scamps.
You say as above in scenario 1.
They say, "when we went to renew film, check scamera whatever we drove the section of road and all in order. When we went to recover film at later date after offence date drove section of road and all in order. Ergo all in order on date of offence"
Still a tricky one but open to question because they are not checking on the signs everyday, and even then I don't put it past certain outfits to say they were, ref earlier statement by template accusation.
And before anyone jumps down my throat and say I'm accusing old bill of perjury let me say this. I know of cases where ossifers statements, sworn under oath that prepared independantly contain the same mistakes, errors of spelling, date errors, evidential errors. It happens. Shouldn't but it does. Don't shoot the messenger.
edited to correct speeling mistooks
plus to shuffle feet in embarrassment at DVD's comments above. Memory like Leslie Welch? What was the question?
Answer = Huddersfield Town 1924 1925 1926.
Any good or what. >> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 14th March 15:27
Flat in Fifth said:
7db you understand correctly, not been able to find links to the case mentioned, will look further tonight.
Now the problem is that all the scamps have to do is to introduce a sentence into their operator's sworn statement to the effect that " I travelled along the road and all limit and repeater signs as required by the legislation was correctly displayed" and the defence is screwed. In these days of statement by Microsoft Word Template....
I'm not for one moment suggesting that the operators would make that statement even if they hadn't actually performed the check you understand......
I agree with what you say there about the template.
There is a similar template for laser speeding cases - the first paragraph is all about type approval and that all necessary checks have been performed annually and that day.
In court, when I cross examined the operator in detail, he only have performed about a quarter of the checks he should have... Further to that he had no written evidence to prove even this, even though he should have.
All such a template will do in this case is change the onus of proof back to the defendant. Of course it would be very difficult to go back in time to take photos too. What I found is that even when the 'template method' of curtailing doubt is shown to be an untrue statement in court, the CPS and the person that signed the statement tell the court that the statement was produced for them/its a standard statement/I do a lot of statements etc, and thus they are allowed to have 'administrative' errors in...
Although I did ask the witness and the CPS what would happen to me if I knowingly produced a false statement in court, and signed it on oath, but I didnt get an answer!
Dwight VanDriver said:
Have a butchers at section 85 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which I am assured mentions:
(1)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 the Secretary of State, in the case of a trunk road, to ERECT AND MAINTAIN the prescribed traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose.
(2) In the case of any road which is not a trunk road, it shall be the duty of the local authority
Fif, who is just not a pretty face but has a memory like Leslie WELCH, is right it was a woman, somewhere south, who was able to show by photographs that the signing was all to hell and charge thrown out.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 14th March 15:04
DVD - S85 of RTRA (which incidentally is a b*gger to find online, since government started in 1987, according to the internet) requires that signage conforms to TSRGD. TSRGD requires "regular intervals". If one repeater is missing, then other repeaters are at regular intervals so arguably signage is complete in terms of S85.
If one repeater is missing on a 15 miles section of road (perhaps the tricky nsl repeater on the lit roundabout of an NSL road, eh?) then is enforcement impossible on the whole 15 mile section?
I'd like to see that run up the flagpole in court and watch her majesty salute it...
It would have course as you state an area for deliberation by The Bench.
Wilkinson's Traffic Law, a respected Bible in the Traffic Law field, has stated that the 'de mimimus' rule should apply where one repeater sign is missing.
Some indication can be taken from the case Spittle v Kent Constabulary [1986] the fact that one street light in a system {for restricted road status}was in disrepair was irrelevant.
dvd
Wilkinson's Traffic Law, a respected Bible in the Traffic Law field, has stated that the 'de mimimus' rule should apply where one repeater sign is missing.
Some indication can be taken from the case Spittle v Kent Constabulary [1986] the fact that one street light in a system {for restricted road status}was in disrepair was irrelevant.
dvd
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff