Repeater sign removal.
Discussion
They’re up to something. I can feel it in my bladder..
EDP24 said:
A decision to remove speed limit signs in villages across East Anglia was branded “extraordinary” and “completely obscene” last night.
And there were warnings that the government decision could lead to an “Alice in Wonderland” situation where speeding drivers could escape prosecution - because there were signs that shouldn't be there telling them what the speed limit was.
New government rules mean that it is against the law to have extra 30mph signs, known as repeater signs, in areas where there is street lighting. There must be one set of signs where the limit starts, but there can be no further signs to act as reminders. It means that county councils, including Norfolk and Suffolk, must take down their signs.
Suffolk County Council, which is carrying out a speed pilot project for the government in mid-Suffolk, says that the government has also widened the definition of street lighting so it can even include someone's private lighting.
Guy McGregor, Suffolk county councillor for transport, said: “It is extraordinary. It does seem absolute madness to me. I wonder what the Department for Transport is all about and whether they understand what is going on outside London.
“Ridiculous though it may be, if there were repeater signs and someone got prosecuted, they could get off because of it. It is an Alice in Wonderland situation.”
Adrian Gunson, Norfolk county councillor for transport, said: “A lot of our villages have repeater speed limits and this will cause some problems for us. The public and residents set quite a lot of store on speed limits. I think it is likely that drivers will go faster as a result of the lack of repeater signs.”
The issue will be discussed at Suffolk county council's cabinet meeting on Tuesday. A report from road safety group manager David Chenery said: “A much broader definition of what can be considered street lighting has now been adopted and the implications of this are far- reaching. The new definition of a street lighting system would result in a number of parishes losing repeater signs throughout their village 30mph speed limits and this is unlikely to prove popular. However, there is no element of choice in this matter, it is quite simply a legal requirement…Failure to comply with this would invalidate the speed limit.”
Liz Voysey, East Anglian spokesman for RoadPeace, said: “It is absurd. We need extra speed limit signs, not fewer. It is completely obscene.”
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “It has always been the department's view that 30mph signs are not required in street-lit areas that have 30mph limits. Recently we have clarified the regulations to make sure there is no way local authorities can avoid doing this.
“The thinking behind it is that by having 30 signs in street-lit areas you end up with inconsistencies, for example if Suffolk has them and Norfolk doesn't, it creates an inconsistency that could confuse drivers and could mean that there was a way of evading speeding prosecutions.
“There was a way of interpreting the regulations that meant that authorities could get around having to comply with them, but now that is no longer the case.”
And there were warnings that the government decision could lead to an “Alice in Wonderland” situation where speeding drivers could escape prosecution - because there were signs that shouldn't be there telling them what the speed limit was.
New government rules mean that it is against the law to have extra 30mph signs, known as repeater signs, in areas where there is street lighting. There must be one set of signs where the limit starts, but there can be no further signs to act as reminders. It means that county councils, including Norfolk and Suffolk, must take down their signs.
Suffolk County Council, which is carrying out a speed pilot project for the government in mid-Suffolk, says that the government has also widened the definition of street lighting so it can even include someone's private lighting.
Guy McGregor, Suffolk county councillor for transport, said: “It is extraordinary. It does seem absolute madness to me. I wonder what the Department for Transport is all about and whether they understand what is going on outside London.
“Ridiculous though it may be, if there were repeater signs and someone got prosecuted, they could get off because of it. It is an Alice in Wonderland situation.”
Adrian Gunson, Norfolk county councillor for transport, said: “A lot of our villages have repeater speed limits and this will cause some problems for us. The public and residents set quite a lot of store on speed limits. I think it is likely that drivers will go faster as a result of the lack of repeater signs.”
The issue will be discussed at Suffolk county council's cabinet meeting on Tuesday. A report from road safety group manager David Chenery said: “A much broader definition of what can be considered street lighting has now been adopted and the implications of this are far- reaching. The new definition of a street lighting system would result in a number of parishes losing repeater signs throughout their village 30mph speed limits and this is unlikely to prove popular. However, there is no element of choice in this matter, it is quite simply a legal requirement…Failure to comply with this would invalidate the speed limit.”
Liz Voysey, East Anglian spokesman for RoadPeace, said: “It is absurd. We need extra speed limit signs, not fewer. It is completely obscene.”
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “It has always been the department's view that 30mph signs are not required in street-lit areas that have 30mph limits. Recently we have clarified the regulations to make sure there is no way local authorities can avoid doing this.
“The thinking behind it is that by having 30 signs in street-lit areas you end up with inconsistencies, for example if Suffolk has them and Norfolk doesn't, it creates an inconsistency that could confuse drivers and could mean that there was a way of evading speeding prosecutions.
“There was a way of interpreting the regulations that meant that authorities could get around having to comply with them, but now that is no longer the case.”
That is not a new rule.
It has never been permissible (well at least since the mid 1970s, which is as far back as my experience goes) to have 30 mph repeater signs where there is a system of street lamps. Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and the Traffic Signs Manual have always been very clear on this. 30 mph signs at end of limit and nowhere else.
30 markings on the road do not count as a "repeater".
30 mph limits through "unlit" (ie no street lights) must have repeaters - in other words, the driver must be reminded of the limit because there are no street lights. What this story really seems to be about is that the definition of what constitutes "street lighting" has been redefined. We all know what street lighting is - but from the reading of that article, they might also be proposing to include private lighting like floodlights, driveway lighting that casts light onto the street, etc.
That would mean that, if they take out the repeaters, drivers on "unlit" roads with a 30 limit have to remember that they haven't passed an NSL sign yet.
It has never been permissible (well at least since the mid 1970s, which is as far back as my experience goes) to have 30 mph repeater signs where there is a system of street lamps. Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and the Traffic Signs Manual have always been very clear on this. 30 mph signs at end of limit and nowhere else.
30 markings on the road do not count as a "repeater".
30 mph limits through "unlit" (ie no street lights) must have repeaters - in other words, the driver must be reminded of the limit because there are no street lights. What this story really seems to be about is that the definition of what constitutes "street lighting" has been redefined. We all know what street lighting is - but from the reading of that article, they might also be proposing to include private lighting like floodlights, driveway lighting that casts light onto the street, etc.
That would mean that, if they take out the repeaters, drivers on "unlit" roads with a 30 limit have to remember that they haven't passed an NSL sign yet.
Edited by tvrgit on Saturday 3rd February 17:13
I read an article a year back that stated that the common modern type of speed sign with the yellow high-visibility border doesn't constitute a legal road sign (it isn't in the highway code) and is therefore not enforcible. So if a local authority replaced all the signs in a village with the hi-viz version, you could blast through at 60 and it wouldn't be illegal (though if you hit something they could probably still come up with a charge - dangerous driving or driving without due care, something like that).
This answers a question that I've asked before and never had answered. So if a 30 limit has lighting and repeaters, the limit is unenforceable because it shouldn't have repeaters.
I wonder how many people have been wrongly yet successfully prosecuted over the years for speeding in such circumstances?
I wonder how many people have been wrongly yet successfully prosecuted over the years for speeding in such circumstances?
Elsarius said:
I read an article a year back that stated that the common modern type of speed sign with the yellow high-visibility border doesn't constitute a legal road sign (it isn't in the highway code) and is therefore not enforcible. So if a local authority replaced all the signs in a village with the hi-viz version, you could blast through at 60 and it wouldn't be illegal (though if you hit something they could probably still come up with a charge - dangerous driving or driving without due care, something like that).
Urban myth I'm afraid, based on a common confusion between what constitutes a "border" and what is a "backing board"
The prescribed sign itself is the red circle and the bits inside.
You are allowed to put them on backing boards, which can be grey or yellow, and must be rectangular. As long as the sign itself is standard, it's enforceable.
If the backing board was round, it could be argued to be a "border" and you could then be right. A sensible highway authority wouldn't take the chance. Not all highway authorities are sensible.
vonhosen said:
tvrgit said:
30 markings on the road do not count as a "repeater".
Except I believe in areas designated by the sceretary of state.
Such examples being areas of natural beauty like the New Forest.
Quite correct but I didn't want to complicate things in the normal context of street lighting and repeater signs.
mph999 said:
30mph limits in "build up areas" (= with street lighting) don't require repeaters. In fact, I think the repeaters would themselves be illeagal. However, I believe the 30 zone would still be enforcable.
I stand to be corrected ...
M
I stand to be corrected ...
M
You're right - the repeater signs would be illegal as I said earlier - but I've never actually ascertained if that makes the speed limit unenforceable. I think there is an argument that if the limit isn't properly signed in accordance with TSRGD then it can't be enforced.
As I say, a sensible highway authority wouldn't risk it. Not all highway authorities are sensible.
Posters (except OP & FR) appear to have missed the point that: "the government has also widened the definition of street lighting so it can even include someone's private lighting." My interpretation of that is that a road with no street lighting, but with lights at gateways (say) on private property will count as such, thereby making a 30 limit apply. Perhaps even lights showing in front windows will count - Streaky
Edited by streaky on Sunday 4th February 08:02
streaky said:
Posters (except OP) appear to have missed the point that: "the government has also widened the definition of street lighting so it can even include someone's private lighting." My interpretation of that is that a road with no street lighting, but with lights at gateways (say) on private property will count as such, thereby making a 30 limit apply. Perhaps even lights showing in front windows will count - Streaky
You're right, I missed that point
when I said:
We all know what street lighting is - but from the reading of that article, they might also be proposing to include private lighting like floodlights, driveway lighting that casts light onto the street, etc.
That would mean that, if they take out the repeaters, drivers on "unlit" roads with a 30 limit have to remember that they haven't passed an NSL sign yet.
That would mean that, if they take out the repeaters, drivers on "unlit" roads with a 30 limit have to remember that they haven't passed an NSL sign yet.
I sometimes think I post in invisible ink or something.
Sorry
Edited by tvrgit on Sunday 4th February 07:59
tvrgit said:
streaky said:
Posters (except OP) appear to have missed the point that: "the government has also widened the definition of street lighting so it can even include someone's private lighting." My interpretation of that is that a road with no street lighting, but with lights at gateways (say) on private property will count as such, thereby making a 30 limit apply. Perhaps even lights showing in front windows will count - Streaky
You're right, I missed that point
when I said:
We all know what street lighting is - but from the reading of that article, they might also be proposing to include private lighting like floodlights, driveway lighting that casts light onto the street, etc.
That would mean that, if they take out the repeaters, drivers on "unlit" roads with a 30 limit have to remember that they haven't passed an NSL sign yet.
That would mean that, if they take out the repeaters, drivers on "unlit" roads with a 30 limit have to remember that they haven't passed an NSL sign yet.
I sometimes think I post in invisible ink or something.
Sorry
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff