Illegal 20 mph speed limits!
Discussion
Down my way (as they say), there's an area of roads with 20mph speed limits, but the direction I travel enters the 'zone' where the limit signs have been removed from their posts, but the advisory painted signs have been left on the road. Surely without the signs with the red circles, this cannot be a compulsory speed limit? The signs on the road are painted in white - white 20 in a white circle. Does this count?
There is an obligation under s85 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for SofState/LA to sign the effect of a speed restriction
"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, (LA elsewhere)to erect and maintain the prescribed traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose.
Likewise under Traffic Signs General Directions 2002 Dir 8
" appropriate signs to which this direction applies shall be placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit applying to traffic on a road begins."
If a Traffic Regulation Order has been made in relation to a speed restriction and the length of road involved is not so signed then any limit is illegal.
In relation to roundles (Diagram 1065), AIUI these are not the primary sign giving authority to a limit but can be used in an informatory role/repeater in certain circumstances.
From DT Circular 01/2006
Speed limit carriageway markings can be used without special authorisation from the
Department, provided they are used in conjunction with upright speed limit signing.
They may not be used as 30 mph repeater signs on roads with a system of street lighting.
In exceptional circumstances the Department will consider special authorisation for
carriageway roundels without upright speed limit signing in Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, but traffic authorities are expected to consider how the roundels will be
maintained, as the roundels can become worn and obscured by adverse weather
conditions, which could affect enforcement.
So if there are no uprights the limit is illegal.
As far as the Mersey Tunnel is concerned then there may be something in the legislation for the tunnel on speed limits/signing although for the 40 on approach there should be a TRO and thus signed accordingly.
dvd
"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, (LA elsewhere)to erect and maintain the prescribed traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose.
Likewise under Traffic Signs General Directions 2002 Dir 8
" appropriate signs to which this direction applies shall be placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit applying to traffic on a road begins."
If a Traffic Regulation Order has been made in relation to a speed restriction and the length of road involved is not so signed then any limit is illegal.
In relation to roundles (Diagram 1065), AIUI these are not the primary sign giving authority to a limit but can be used in an informatory role/repeater in certain circumstances.
From DT Circular 01/2006
Speed limit carriageway markings can be used without special authorisation from the
Department, provided they are used in conjunction with upright speed limit signing.
They may not be used as 30 mph repeater signs on roads with a system of street lighting.
In exceptional circumstances the Department will consider special authorisation for
carriageway roundels without upright speed limit signing in Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, but traffic authorities are expected to consider how the roundels will be
maintained, as the roundels can become worn and obscured by adverse weather
conditions, which could affect enforcement.
So if there are no uprights the limit is illegal.
As far as the Mersey Tunnel is concerned then there may be something in the legislation for the tunnel on speed limits/signing although for the 40 on approach there should be a TRO and thus signed accordingly.
dvd
DVD - imagine that some unscrupulous person were to remove (not, of course, that anyone would) a speed limit sign, at what time would the limit become unenforceable? Clearly not at the time the sign was removed, but when its absence is reported to the appropriate authority, maybe? Or some time thereafter if the sign is not replaced? If the latter, how long (reasonably/typically) do you think that would be? - Streaky
streaky said:
DVD - imagine that some unscrupulous person were to remove (not, of course, that anyone would) a speed limit sign, at what time would the limit become unenforceable? Clearly not at the time the sign was removed, but when its absence is reported to the appropriate authority, maybe? Or some time thereafter if the sign is not replaced? If the latter, how long (reasonably/typically) do you think that would be? - Streaky
and to expand on that a bit - what if the signs were not removed, just bent back to face the hedge? A road I regularly travel has this done quite frequently by the local yoof.Davi said:
streaky said:
DVD - imagine that some unscrupulous person were to remove (not, of course, that anyone would) a speed limit sign, at what time would the limit become unenforceable? Clearly not at the time the sign was removed, but when its absence is reported to the appropriate authority, maybe? Or some time thereafter if the sign is not replaced? If the latter, how long (reasonably/typically) do you think that would be? - Streaky
and to expand on that a bit - what if the signs were not removed, just bent back to face the hedge? A road I regularly travel has this done quite frequently by the local yoof.Dwight VanDriver said:
In exceptional circumstances the Department will consider special authorisation for
carriageway roundels without upright speed limit signing in Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, but traffic authorities are expected to consider how the roundels will be
maintained, as the roundels can become worn and obscured by adverse weather
conditions, which could affect enforcement.
This is what has happened on Ashdown Forest where all roads with the exception of the A22 are now a blanket 40mph limit. There are noi signs other than those when entering the forst. But the 40 limit is painted in Roundels on the road surface. They were looking very faded until repainted a few months ago. I understand that specific consent was required to have the limit signed by roundels alone.carriageway roundels without upright speed limit signing in Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, but traffic authorities are expected to consider how the roundels will be
maintained, as the roundels can become worn and obscured by adverse weather
conditions, which could affect enforcement.
Mind you I have yet to see the Police enforcing the 40 limit.
Dwight VanDriver said:
snip...
So if there are no uprights the limit is illegal.
How far is it illegal for? There are loads of places around me where the signage is incorrect/missing. So if there are no uprights, but repeaters for miles and miles (say), where does it become enforceble again? At the next correctly signed change?So if there are no uprights the limit is illegal.
Is only having one upright the same?
Bert
Chrisgr31 said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
In exceptional circumstances the Department will consider special authorisation for
carriageway roundels without upright speed limit signing in Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, but traffic authorities are expected to consider how the roundels will be
maintained, as the roundels can become worn and obscured by adverse weather
conditions, which could affect enforcement.
This is what has happened on Ashdown Forest where all roads with the exception of the A22 are now a blanket 40mph limit. There are noi signs other than those when entering the forst. But the 40 limit is painted in Roundels on the road surface. They were looking very faded until repainted a few months ago. I understand that specific consent was required to have the limit signed by roundels alone.carriageway roundels without upright speed limit signing in Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, but traffic authorities are expected to consider how the roundels will be
maintained, as the roundels can become worn and obscured by adverse weather
conditions, which could affect enforcement.
Remember what I said above Section 85 RTRA 84 and the requirement
"to erect and MAINTAIN the prescribed traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose."
No exemption there for missing signs or those turned round or in TSGD 2002 as far as I have found.
Defective signing can be used as an argument that it does not conform not only for the offence of fail to conform to traffic sign but also speeding and has been.
Remember this case?
In Coombes v DPP [2006] EWHC 3263 (Admin), (2006) The Times, 29 December, a driver's conviction for speeding, contrary to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 89, was quashed by the Divisional Court (following an unsuccessful appeal to the Crown Court) because the road sign imposing the 30-mph limit in question was obscured by overgrown hedgerows, so that it became visible to motorists only at the point where it was passed.
Referring to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 85 (below), Walker J held that this imposed (at the least) 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. Motorists should not be convicted of speeding in the absence of adequate guidance
In the 'not so old' days LA Highways Departments used to have Roads Superintendents (we called them Milestone Inspectors)whose role was to go out and about and ensure everything connected with roads was 'tickey boo' and defects remedied poste haste. Dont think that role exists anymore.
dvd
"to erect and MAINTAIN the prescribed traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose."
No exemption there for missing signs or those turned round or in TSGD 2002 as far as I have found.
Defective signing can be used as an argument that it does not conform not only for the offence of fail to conform to traffic sign but also speeding and has been.
Remember this case?
In Coombes v DPP [2006] EWHC 3263 (Admin), (2006) The Times, 29 December, a driver's conviction for speeding, contrary to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 89, was quashed by the Divisional Court (following an unsuccessful appeal to the Crown Court) because the road sign imposing the 30-mph limit in question was obscured by overgrown hedgerows, so that it became visible to motorists only at the point where it was passed.
Referring to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 85 (below), Walker J held that this imposed (at the least) 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. Motorists should not be convicted of speeding in the absence of adequate guidance
In the 'not so old' days LA Highways Departments used to have Roads Superintendents (we called them Milestone Inspectors)whose role was to go out and about and ensure everything connected with roads was 'tickey boo' and defects remedied poste haste. Dont think that role exists anymore.
dvd
- StreakyIn Smith v. Rankin, 1977 S.L.T. (albeit a Scottish case, but the statute was identical), one of the terminal signs was missing; it was lying on the verge having been damaged by a passing vehicle.
It was not known how long it had been like that, but evidence was provided to the effect that it had been O.K. one week beforehand.
It was held that the accused was not to be convicted, despite the fact that he was a local, and must have been aware that the road was 'previously properly restricted', and that as well as the remaining terminal sign, he had also passed several repeaters before reaching the locus of the alleged offence.
It was not known how long it had been like that, but evidence was provided to the effect that it had been O.K. one week beforehand.
It was held that the accused was not to be convicted, despite the fact that he was a local, and must have been aware that the road was 'previously properly restricted', and that as well as the remaining terminal sign, he had also passed several repeaters before reaching the locus of the alleged offence.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff