Illegal 20mph limit to 30mph - problem

[motco]

There's a road, called Somerset Road I think, in Wimbledon that joins Parkside (that runs along the east side of the common). It has 20 signs all along it but not start or stop signs as I believe it ought to if it is a 'proper' 20mph zone. There are no traffic calming measures either, making it even more 'iffy'. I assume the locals have clubbed together and bought the signs, the area is VERY wealthy. The problem is, if you head along Somerset Road towards the road that flanks the common (Parkside) there is no indication of the speed limit on Parkside and it is a main road from Wimbledon centre to the Kingston Bypass at Roehampton. If you turn right out of Somerset Road onto Parkside there is a Gatso (new, digital kind) about 30 meters along the road. It is pretty likely that you will have squirted out into the traffic flow into a small gap if you're doing it at rush hours times. The chances that you'll see the camera mounted high up in the dark (if it is dark of course) are very slim and you really have no idea what the speed limit is on Parkside. You will have come from a built-up area with a 30 limit, via a 20 limit, on to a busy main road. It would be credible if the main road were 40 so what would be the legality of any NIP that you received as a result of tripping the camera? Purely hypothetical of course.

[tvrgit]

If there is no entry plates at the start of the limit, it's unenforceable.

If there is no Traffic Regulation Order reducing the limit to 20, it's unenforceable.

Ask the council highways department to show you the TRO, the legally necessary plan and the dates of consultation / advertisement and making of the Order.

If the length on the plan and the length between the end signs on the road is substantially different, it's unenforceable.

[Parrot of Doom]

Better still, if the locals have put them up, the council should remove them.

That'd please the locals no doubt

[tvrgit]

Parrot of Doom said:

Better still, if the locals have put them up, the council should remove them.

That'd please the locals no doubt

Exactly - that was where the questions on TRO / plan / end plates would lead to

[7db]

Parkside is a streetlit restricted road. No exemption in law for poor signage.

[tigger1]

7db said:

Parkside is a streetlit restricted road. No exemption in law for poor signage.

Even if the signage is deliberately illegal (i.e. erected by locals)?

[motco]

tigger1 said:

7db said:

Parkside is a streetlit restricted road. No exemption in law for poor signage.

Even if the signage is deliberately illegal (i.e. erected by locals)?

Exactly my question. If you've come from a road that in all innocence you believe to be subject to a very low limit, and you emerge onto a busy main road, is it possible that you could use this confusion as mitigating argument in the event that you trip the camera near the junction? It might be a technicality, but the law is pedantic, is it not? The next question is, could you sue the people who put the 20 signs up for causing confusion?

[tvrgit]

tigger1 said:

7db said:

Parkside is a streetlit restricted road. No exemption in law for poor signage.

Even if the signage is deliberately illegal (i.e. erected by locals)?

Any 20 mph speed limit (as in the OP) needs a TRO, restricted road or not. I would refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

[tvrgit]

motco said:

The next question is, could you sue the people who put the 20 signs up for causing confusion?

Highways Act 1980. Any person who erects a sign on a public highway without consent commits an offence. That means any sign, whether fixed to a lamp post or existing sign.

The AA get consent for their yellow temporary direction signs, for example.