Limit repeaters
Discussion
Has anyone seen the case that went to the high court on appeal, suggesting the need for repeater signs of speed limits be be clear? I can't see it on this forum but this must be a significant case stated?
The Times report suggested that obscured repeaters (in this case by es and hedges) could be a defence when moving from one limit to another as the usual presumption that the driver should know the limit in a 30MPH area even where repeaters were legally needed if some of the repeaters were present, is no loger the correct presumption.
On this basis any prosectution for breaching a 30mph limit repeaters are required having entered from a higher limited area must surely fail unless the prosecution can evidence that the repeater signs n order (which I think is a tall order).
Any barrck room lawyers ( or real ones for that matte) see the rport and have a take on it, or will I get nailed by the repost police
The sign in that case was not a "repeater" as far as I can see - it was a sign warning of a change of limit from 40 to 30.
Repeaters are not normally required in a 30 limit except in a case where an order has been made for a road which is not lit - most lit roads are 30 by default.
Similarly repeaters not required in unlit NSL - limit is NSL by default.
Repeaters are required where a lit road is subject to a limit other than 30, or an unlit road is subject to a limit other than NSL. Traffic Signs Manual says that any such repeaters should be displayed "regularly" although there is no specific distance.
Repeaters are not normally required in a 30 limit except in a case where an order has been made for a road which is not lit - most lit roads are 30 by default.
Similarly repeaters not required in unlit NSL - limit is NSL by default.
Repeaters are required where a lit road is subject to a limit other than 30, or an unlit road is subject to a limit other than NSL. Traffic Signs Manual says that any such repeaters should be displayed "regularly" although there is no specific distance.
tvrgit said:
[ ... ]
Repeaters are required where a lit road is subject to a limit other than 30, or an unlit road is subject to a limit other than NSL. Traffic Signs Manual says that any such repeaters should be displayed "regularly" although there is no specific distance.
IIRC (DVD correct me please if I am wrong) repeaters have to be a certain size and design and carry certain marks on the rear. FWIW, the temporary 30 signs displayed until very recently along the A325 were all the same size (start and repeaters) and carried no formal markings on the back. I think this makes the limit (imposed for roadworks that finished several weeks ago) unenforceable, but scameras have been reported along that road - Streaky Repeaters are required where a lit road is subject to a limit other than 30, or an unlit road is subject to a limit other than NSL. Traffic Signs Manual says that any such repeaters should be displayed "regularly" although there is no specific distance.
streaky said:
tvrgit said:
[ ... ]
Repeaters are required where a lit road is subject to a limit other than 30, or an unlit road is subject to a limit other than NSL. Traffic Signs Manual says that any such repeaters should be displayed "regularly" although there is no specific distance.
IIRC (DVD correct me please if I am wrong) repeaters have to be a certain size and design and carry certain marks on the rear. FWIW, the temporary 30 signs displayed until very recently along the A325 were all the same size (start and repeaters) and carried no formal markings on the back. I think this makes the limit (imposed for roadworks that finished several weeks ago) unenforceable, but scameras have been reported along that road - Streaky Repeaters are required where a lit road is subject to a limit other than 30, or an unlit road is subject to a limit other than NSL. Traffic Signs Manual says that any such repeaters should be displayed "regularly" although there is no specific distance.
Regs for temporary signs are different - you can "repeat" the original start signs but that is not the same as "repeater" signs on permanent speed limits.
The OP isn't even about "repeaters" at all.
Coombes v DPP [2006]?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/so
and TSGD 2002:
a sign for conveying information or a warning, requirement, restriction, prohibition or speed limit of the description specified under a diagram in Schedules 1 to 7, Part II of Schedule 10 and Schedule 12 to traffic on roads shall be of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram.
dvd
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Sunday 24th December 08:18
BO55 VXR said:
broken link DVD
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:01:31 Hedge helps man beat speed fine
A motorist has won a High Court battle to overturn a speeding fine after arguing he could not see the roadside warning signpost.
John Coombes, from Wells, Somerset, was fined for speeding in a 30mph zone near the city in 2005.
He argued that an overgrown hedge meant he could not see a signpost warning of the restriction.
His conviction was quashed by two senior High Court judges in London on Wednesday.
This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt
They ruled that, because of an obscured sign, he had not had sufficient warning that he was passing from a 40mph zone into a 30 mph stretch.
Mr Coombes' solicitor, Jeffrey Bannister, said: "This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt. "Namely that they should not be convicted if trees and hedges overhanging or obscuring signs mean they cannot properly see the signs, and they are not given adequate notice of changes in the speed limit."
Mr Coombes was caught in a police speed trap on the B3139 Bath Road at Horrington near Wells last July.
He was convicted of speeding by Mendip magistrates in January 2006 and fined £250 and ordered to pay £150 legal costs.
At Bristol Crown Court, both conviction and fine were upheld in April 2006, and he was ordered to pay an extra £229 legal costs.
The High Court said his legal costs should be reimbursed out of public funds.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
BO55 VXR said:
broken link DVD
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:01:31 Hedge helps man beat speed fine
A motorist has won a High Court battle to overturn a speeding fine after arguing he could not see the roadside warning signpost.
John Coombes, from Wells, Somerset, was fined for speeding in a 30mph zone near the city in 2005.
He argued that an overgrown hedge meant he could not see a signpost warning of the restriction.
His conviction was quashed by two senior High Court judges in London on Wednesday.
This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt
They ruled that, because of an obscured sign, he had not had sufficient warning that he was passing from a 40mph zone into a 30 mph stretch.
Mr Coombes' solicitor, Jeffrey Bannister, said: "This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt. "Namely that they should not be convicted if trees and hedges overhanging or obscuring signs mean they cannot properly see the signs, and they are not given adequate notice of changes in the speed limit."
Mr Coombes was caught in a police speed trap on the B3139 Bath Road at Horrington near Wells last July.
He was convicted of speeding by Mendip magistrates in January 2006 and fined £250 and ordered to pay £150 legal costs.
At Bristol Crown Court, both conviction and fine were upheld in April 2006, and he was ordered to pay an extra £229 legal costs.
The High Court said his legal costs should be reimbursed out of public funds.
dvd
The case was in The Times today.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,30589-2522943,00.html
MR JUSTICE WALKER said that the defendant said that the signs indicating the speed limit only became visible at the point at which he drove past them because until that point they were obscured by overgrown hedgerows.
He relied for his defence on section 85 of the 1984 Act which was concerned with traffic signs indicating speed restrictions. The ordinary meaning of the words used in section 85(4) was that two tests had to be met before the defendant could be convicted.
The first was that when the offence was said to have been committed there were such signs as were mentioned in section 85(1) or (2). The second was that those signs indicated the relevant speed limit.
"At the very least, it seemed that the second test involved a requirement that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably have been expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. "
Seems to be suggesting an increased onus on the prosecution to establish that the signs were in order? Is it possible now that a defence to a prosecution based on evidence just inside the new limits that the signs were not visible wil need the prosecution to prove they were visible?
Leftie said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
BO55 VXR said:
broken link DVD
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:01:31 Hedge helps man beat speed fine
A motorist has won a High Court battle to overturn a speeding fine after arguing he could not see the roadside warning signpost.
John Coombes, from Wells, Somerset, was fined for speeding in a 30mph zone near the city in 2005.
He argued that an overgrown hedge meant he could not see a signpost warning of the restriction.
His conviction was quashed by two senior High Court judges in London on Wednesday.
This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt
They ruled that, because of an obscured sign, he had not had sufficient warning that he was passing from a 40mph zone into a 30 mph stretch.
Mr Coombes' solicitor, Jeffrey Bannister, said: "This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt. "Namely that they should not be convicted if trees and hedges overhanging or obscuring signs mean they cannot properly see the signs, and they are not given adequate notice of changes in the speed limit."
Mr Coombes was caught in a police speed trap on the B3139 Bath Road at Horrington near Wells last July.
He was convicted of speeding by Mendip magistrates in January 2006 and fined £250 and ordered to pay £150 legal costs.
At Bristol Crown Court, both conviction and fine were upheld in April 2006, and he was ordered to pay an extra £229 legal costs.
The High Court said his legal costs should be reimbursed out of public funds.
dvd
The case was in The Times today.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,30589-2522943,00.html
MR JUSTICE WALKER said that the defendant said that the signs indicating the speed limit only became visible at the point at which he drove past them because until that point they were obscured by overgrown hedgerows.
He relied for his defence on section 85 of the 1984 Act which was concerned with traffic signs indicating speed restrictions. The ordinary meaning of the words used in section 85(4) was that two tests had to be met before the defendant could be convicted.
The first was that when the offence was said to have been committed there were such signs as were mentioned in section 85(1) or (2). The second was that those signs indicated the relevant speed limit.
"At the very least, it seemed that the second test involved a requirement that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably have been expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. "
Seems to be suggesting an increased onus on the prosecution to establish that the signs were in order? Is it possible now that a defence to a prosecution based on evidence just inside the new limits that the signs were not visible wil need the prosecution to prove they were visible?
No increased onus, nothing has changed.
vonhosen said:
Leftie said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
BO55 VXR said:
broken link DVD
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:01:31 Hedge helps man beat speed fine
A motorist has won a High Court battle to overturn a speeding fine after arguing he could not see the roadside warning signpost.
John Coombes, from Wells, Somerset, was fined for speeding in a 30mph zone near the city in 2005.
He argued that an overgrown hedge meant he could not see a signpost warning of the restriction.
His conviction was quashed by two senior High Court judges in London on Wednesday.
This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt
They ruled that, because of an obscured sign, he had not had sufficient warning that he was passing from a 40mph zone into a 30 mph stretch.
Mr Coombes' solicitor, Jeffrey Bannister, said: "This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt. "Namely that they should not be convicted if trees and hedges overhanging or obscuring signs mean they cannot properly see the signs, and they are not given adequate notice of changes in the speed limit."
Mr Coombes was caught in a police speed trap on the B3139 Bath Road at Horrington near Wells last July.
He was convicted of speeding by Mendip magistrates in January 2006 and fined £250 and ordered to pay £150 legal costs.
At Bristol Crown Court, both conviction and fine were upheld in April 2006, and he was ordered to pay an extra £229 legal costs.
The High Court said his legal costs should be reimbursed out of public funds.
dvd
The case was in The Times today.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,30589-2522943,00.html
MR JUSTICE WALKER said that the defendant said that the signs indicating the speed limit only became visible at the point at which he drove past them because until that point they were obscured by overgrown hedgerows.
He relied for his defence on section 85 of the 1984 Act which was concerned with traffic signs indicating speed restrictions. The ordinary meaning of the words used in section 85(4) was that two tests had to be met before the defendant could be convicted.
The first was that when the offence was said to have been committed there were such signs as were mentioned in section 85(1) or (2). The second was that those signs indicated the relevant speed limit.
"At the very least, it seemed that the second test involved a requirement that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably have been expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. "
Seems to be suggesting an increased onus on the prosecution to establish that the signs were in order? Is it possible now that a defence to a prosecution based on evidence just inside the new limits that the signs were not visible wil need the prosecution to prove they were visible?
No increased onus, nothing has changed.
why not?
It says:
"At the very least, it seemed that the second test involved a requirement that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably have been expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. "
If I am caught just inside a 30mph moving from a 40mph and raise a defence that the signs were not in order and I had had insufficuent time to slow down before the point at which my pseed was recorded, then the prosecution surely have to negate that if my defence is not to suceed?
Leftie said:
vonhosen said:
Leftie said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
BO55 VXR said:
broken link DVD
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:01:31 Hedge helps man beat speed fine
A motorist has won a High Court battle to overturn a speeding fine after arguing he could not see the roadside warning signpost.
John Coombes, from Wells, Somerset, was fined for speeding in a 30mph zone near the city in 2005.
He argued that an overgrown hedge meant he could not see a signpost warning of the restriction.
His conviction was quashed by two senior High Court judges in London on Wednesday.
This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt
They ruled that, because of an obscured sign, he had not had sufficient warning that he was passing from a 40mph zone into a 30 mph stretch.
Mr Coombes' solicitor, Jeffrey Bannister, said: "This judgment has confirmed what many motorists have always felt. "Namely that they should not be convicted if trees and hedges overhanging or obscuring signs mean they cannot properly see the signs, and they are not given adequate notice of changes in the speed limit."
Mr Coombes was caught in a police speed trap on the B3139 Bath Road at Horrington near Wells last July.
He was convicted of speeding by Mendip magistrates in January 2006 and fined £250 and ordered to pay £150 legal costs.
At Bristol Crown Court, both conviction and fine were upheld in April 2006, and he was ordered to pay an extra £229 legal costs.
The High Court said his legal costs should be reimbursed out of public funds.
dvd
The case was in The Times today.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,30589-2522943,00.html
MR JUSTICE WALKER said that the defendant said that the signs indicating the speed limit only became visible at the point at which he drove past them because until that point they were obscured by overgrown hedgerows.
He relied for his defence on section 85 of the 1984 Act which was concerned with traffic signs indicating speed restrictions. The ordinary meaning of the words used in section 85(4) was that two tests had to be met before the defendant could be convicted.
The first was that when the offence was said to have been committed there were such signs as were mentioned in section 85(1) or (2). The second was that those signs indicated the relevant speed limit.
"At the very least, it seemed that the second test involved a requirement that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably have been expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. "
Seems to be suggesting an increased onus on the prosecution to establish that the signs were in order? Is it possible now that a defence to a prosecution based on evidence just inside the new limits that the signs were not visible wil need the prosecution to prove they were visible?
No increased onus, nothing has changed.
why not?
It says:
"At the very least, it seemed that the second test involved a requirement that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably have been expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. "
If I am caught just inside a 30mph moving from a 40mph and raise a defence that the signs were not in order and I had had insufficuent time to slow down before the point at which my pseed was recorded, then the prosecution surely have to negate that if my defence is not to suceed?
& nothing has changed, that's what they would do previously.
Any Police officer should be including in their evidence about the signage in such circumstances.
Just as in ATS offences they should be providing evidence of light phasing being checked.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th December 23:02
I seem to recall a case in Cleveland back in late 2002 in which two police officers were caught by a speed camera in a 30 mph zone.
They were, in fact speeding, and were not, in fact, on police duty. They mounted a defence based on the fact that the background to the oblong with the 30 lolly and the lopsided "submarine
" was black and not white. Thus the sign was "illegal" and the speed limit was thus not enforceable.
The prosecution failed.
I think the concensus was that the signage had to be the "approved type"
Also I think at a speed limti change - there has to be twin lollies at its start and if above 30 mph - repeat lollies as per the earlier post and link
I did ask this question on safespeed's site and have asked sis' to send me a photo.
On the plus side she tells me of very useful VAS signs along her route.
However one of the roads is a 40 mph speed limit. As it approaches a more built up area - changes to a 30 mph. The twin lollies are there. But at some distance before these .. she says it's a "fair distance" .. the road has a painted 30 mph on the tarmac. She reckons the VAS at this point warning of the speed limit and the sharp bend is well placed .. but she does wonder why the road has the paintwork so far from the lollies ahead, and given she once saw a cam van just inside the 30 mph under these lollies.. when exactly would the speed limit start .. at the paint some 200-300 yards distant or at the lollies given the van was only just into this zone when she saw it. (Was some time ago and - nope - she was not zapped!)
They were, in fact speeding, and were not, in fact, on police duty. They mounted a defence based on the fact that the background to the oblong with the 30 lolly and the lopsided "submarine
" was black and not white. Thus the sign was "illegal" and the speed limit was thus not enforceable. The prosecution failed.
I think the concensus was that the signage had to be the "approved type"
Also I think at a speed limti change - there has to be twin lollies at its start and if above 30 mph - repeat lollies as per the earlier post and link
I did ask this question on safespeed's site and have asked sis' to send me a photo.
On the plus side she tells me of very useful VAS signs along her route.
However one of the roads is a 40 mph speed limit. As it approaches a more built up area - changes to a 30 mph. The twin lollies are there. But at some distance before these .. she says it's a "fair distance" .. the road has a painted 30 mph on the tarmac. She reckons the VAS at this point warning of the speed limit and the sharp bend is well placed .. but she does wonder why the road has the paintwork so far from the lollies ahead, and given she once saw a cam van just inside the 30 mph under these lollies.. when exactly would the speed limit start .. at the paint some 200-300 yards distant or at the lollies given the van was only just into this zone when she saw it. (Was some time ago and - nope - she was not zapped!)
Mad Moggie said:
I seem to recall a case in Cleveland back in late 2002 in which two police officers were caught by a speed camera in a 30 mph zone.
They were, in fact speeding, and were not, in fact, on police duty. They mounted a defence based on the fact that the background to the oblong with the 30 lolly and the lopsided "submarine" was black and not white. Thus the sign was "illegal" and the speed limit was thus not enforceable.
The prosecution failed.
I think the concensus was that the signage had to be the "approved type"
Also I think at a speed limti change - there has to be twin lollies at its start and if above 30 mph - repeat lollies as per the earlier post and link
I did ask this question on safespeed's site and have asked sis' to send me a photo.
On the plus side she tells me of very useful VAS signs along her route.
However one of the roads is a 40 mph speed limit. As it approaches a more built up area - changes to a 30 mph. The twin lollies are there. But at some distance before these .. she says it's a "fair distance" .. the road has a painted 30 mph on the tarmac. She reckons the VAS at this point warning of the speed limit and the sharp bend is well placed .. but she does wonder why the road has the paintwork so far from the lollies ahead, and given she once saw a cam van just inside the 30 mph under these lollies.. when exactly would the speed limit start .. at the paint some 200-300 yards distant or at the lollies given the van was only just into this zone when she saw it. (Was some time ago and - nope - she was not zapped!)
They were, in fact speeding, and were not, in fact, on police duty. They mounted a defence based on the fact that the background to the oblong with the 30 lolly and the lopsided "submarine
" was black and not white. Thus the sign was "illegal" and the speed limit was thus not enforceable. The prosecution failed.
I think the concensus was that the signage had to be the "approved type"
Also I think at a speed limti change - there has to be twin lollies at its start and if above 30 mph - repeat lollies as per the earlier post and link
I did ask this question on safespeed's site and have asked sis' to send me a photo.
On the plus side she tells me of very useful VAS signs along her route.
However one of the roads is a 40 mph speed limit. As it approaches a more built up area - changes to a 30 mph. The twin lollies are there. But at some distance before these .. she says it's a "fair distance" .. the road has a painted 30 mph on the tarmac. She reckons the VAS at this point warning of the speed limit and the sharp bend is well placed .. but she does wonder why the road has the paintwork so far from the lollies ahead, and given she once saw a cam van just inside the 30 mph under these lollies.. when exactly would the speed limit start .. at the paint some 200-300 yards distant or at the lollies given the van was only just into this zone when she saw it. (Was some time ago and - nope - she was not zapped!)
We have one particular spot where the limit changes from 'national' to 40mph outside a quarry and the BiB are fond of this site as the 40mph signs are right at the quarry gates, and there is a pullin just after where they can park up. Often the signs are covered in dust and dirt from the lorries.
I am guessing they have a pro-forma statement that includes the fact they checked the signs, whether or not they actually did but I think that in poor visibility those signs would invariably be obscured by dirt and dust in the same way as those in this case stated.
vonhosen said:
No increased onus, nothing has changed.
Except the case law just created, so we may better defend ourselves against invalid attempts to rob us! vonhosen said:
& nothing has changed, that's what they would do previously.
Any Police officer should be including in their evidence about the signage in such circumstances.
Just as in ATS offences they should be providing evidence of light phasing being checked.
I think your view that the police already inspect signage properly is wrong: obviously they don't do this already or they would not have lost this case! I note you use the words 'should be'... which combined with the case result means that quite a lot are not! Any Police officer should be including in their evidence about the signage in such circumstances.
Just as in ATS offences they should be providing evidence of light phasing being checked.
Globulator said:
vonhosen said:
No increased onus, nothing has changed.
Except the case law just created, so we may better defend ourselves against invalid attempts to rob us!I disagree.
The terminal signs have always had to be there as prescribed, this hasn't changed that.
It's just that someone has been acquitted because they were wrongly convicted in the first place.
Globulator said:
vonhosen said:
& nothing has changed, that's what they would do previously.
Any Police officer should be including in their evidence about the signage in such circumstances.
Just as in ATS offences they should be providing evidence of light phasing being checked.
I think your view that the police already inspect signage properly is wrong: obviously they don't do this already or they would not have lost this case! I note you use the words 'should be'... which combined with the case result means that quite a lot are not! Any Police officer should be including in their evidence about the signage in such circumstances.
Just as in ATS offences they should be providing evidence of light phasing being checked.
Police lose lots of cases where they haven't covered all the necessary bases, that's nothing new.
That doesn't mean that an experienced officer wouldn't cover all the bases.
If you think there is a weakness in the Police case against you plead not guilty.
As I said nothing's changed.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 30th December 17:15
Obscured signs has always been a valid defence (obscured doesn't mean a couple of twigs hanging in front or a light coating of dust though). 20 years ago police would phone the council I worked for at the time to ask for overhanging branches to be cut back so that enforcement was less in doubt.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff