Speed limit repeater signs

[jm doc]

Isn't it the case though that the presence of a repeater sign is misleading as it should not be there in a 30 zone? And therefore the OP thought it was a 40mph zone? They are quite difficult to read as you drive past them, a lot of people might just glance over and see the repeater and not necessarily the speed displayed.

[Riley Blue]

jm doc said:

Isn't it the case though that the presence of a repeater sign is misleading as it should not be there in a 30 zone? And therefore the OP thought it was a 40mph zone? They are quite difficult to read as you drive past them, a lot of people might just glance over and see the repeater and not necessarily the speed displayed.

[jm doc]

Riley Blue said:

jm doc said:

Isn't it the case though that the presence of a repeater sign is misleading as it should not be there in a 30 zone? And therefore the OP thought it was a 40mph zone? They are quite difficult to read as you drive past them, a lot of people might just glance over and see the repeater and not necessarily the speed displayed.

It's not a 30 if there's a repeater there.

[agtlaw]

jm doc said:

Isn't it the case though that the presence of a repeater sign is misleading as it should not be there in a 30 zone? And therefore the OP thought it was a 40mph zone? They are quite difficult to read as you drive past them, a lot of people might just glance over and see the repeater and not necessarily the speed displayed.

Ludicrous.

[surveyor_101]

agtlaw said:

Ludicrous.

I know, I want the OP to take it to court, well I saw speed kills repeaters and its confused me so naturally assumed its a 40mph

[anonymous-user]

agtlaw said:

jm doc said:

Isn't it the case though that the presence of a repeater sign is misleading as it should not be there in a 30 zone? And therefore the OP thought it was a 40mph zone? They are quite difficult to read as you drive past them, a lot of people might just glance over and see the repeater and not necessarily the speed displayed.

Ludicrous.

... and beyond.

[ghe13rte]

jm doc said:

Isn't it the case though that the presence of a repeater sign is misleading as it should not be there in a 30 zone? And therefore the OP thought it was a 40mph zone? They are quite difficult to read as you drive past them, a lot of people might just glance over and see the repeater and not necessarily the speed displayed.

You are of course correct, the error in the sign means no speed limit applies. The OP should have done 250mph, he would have been OK.

You divvy!

[LordBretSinclair]

As the sign in question is not a prescribed sign as defined in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, it has no legal standing (whoever erected it) .

[jm doc]

ghe13rte said:

jm doc said:

Isn't it the case though that the presence of a repeater sign is misleading as it should not be there in a 30 zone? And therefore the OP thought it was a 40mph zone? They are quite difficult to read as you drive past them, a lot of people might just glance over and see the repeater and not necessarily the speed displayed.

You are of course correct, the error in the sign means no speed limit applies. The OP should have done 250mph, he would have been OK.

You divvy!

That's not what I said, as you well know. Just for the record, and for those at the back of class who can't keep up including some of the legal types on here, I said if there are repeater signs then it's not a 30mph limit in place. Are you saying this is incorrect?

[Pica-Pica]

You often see conflicting signs where road works say 40, but the standard 50 limit signs are still in place.

Or tonight, going west on th A494, the road had clear 50 signs as usual, but all the slip roads coming in said 40 just before the main road. All signs full size and correct colours. Daft.

[ashleyman]

There's a 30 road near me but people have stuck '20 Slow Down' Repeaters on the posts outside a school.

[QuickQuack]

jm doc said:

That's not what I said, as you well know. Just for the record, and for those at the back of class who can't keep up including some of the legal types on here, I said if there are repeater signs then it's not a 30mph limit in place. Are you saying this is incorrect?

Yes that is incorrect. There are many places where 30mph repeaters are necessary and allowed, for example in villages where street lighting is insufficient. Ergo, the presence of repeaters does not mean that the speed limit is higher than 30mph.

[ghe13rte]

jm doc said:

ghe13rte said:

jm doc said:

Isn't it the case though that the presence of a repeater sign is misleading as it should not be there in a 30 zone? And therefore the OP thought it was a 40mph zone? They are quite difficult to read as you drive past them, a lot of people might just glance over and see the repeater and not necessarily the speed displayed.

You are of course correct, the error in the sign means no speed limit applies. The OP should have done 250mph, he would have been OK.

You divvy!

That's not what I said, as you well know. Just for the record, and for those at the back of class who can't keep up including some of the legal types on here, I said if there are repeater signs then it's not a 30mph limit in place. Are you saying this is incorrect?

It is a 30mph limit with repeater signs when the repeater signs contain a 30. What planet are you on?

[Mike335i]

jm doc said:

That's not what I said, as you well know. Just for the record, and for those at the back of class who can't keep up including some of the legal types on here, I said if there are repeater signs then it's not a 30mph limit in place. Are you saying this is incorrect?

It might be the case that if its 30 then in many places there should not be a repeater sign, but it does not follow that the presence of a repeater excludes the limit being 30.

Edited by Mike335i on Tuesday 19th June 08:39

[agtlaw]

jm doc said:

That's not what I said, as you well know. Just for the record, and for those at the back of class who can't keep up including some of the legal types on here, I said if there are repeater signs then it's not a 30mph limit in place. Are you saying this is incorrect?

Yes. Incorrect.

[agtlaw]

ghe13rte said:

It is a 30mph limit with repeater signs when the repeater signs contain a 30. What planet are you on?

Not one with intelligent life.

[Red Devil]

QuickQuack said:

jm doc said:

That's not what I said, as you well know. Just for the record, and for those at the back of class who can't keep up including some of the legal types on here, I said if there are repeater signs then it's not a 30mph limit in place. Are you saying this is incorrect?

Yes that is incorrect. There are many places where 30mph repeaters are necessary and allowed, for example in villages where street lighting is insufficient. Ergo, the presence of repeaters does not mean that the speed limit is higher than 30mph.

And even more common, completely absent. For example:

Limit entry - https://goo.gl/maps/3JFHRGJsgG22
Repeater - https://goo.gl/maps/wVdzbQKdrA82
Repeater - https://goo.gl/maps/ZSvCdEqLwqF2
Repeater - https://goo.gl/maps/SpMr8Sj5xGB2
Repeater - https://goo.gl/maps/nutCzNjf9t72

[Jon39]

For decades, we have been used speed limit entry signs being a pair, one post with sign on each side of the road or carriageway.

I have seen a 20mph speed limit, with just a single post and 20 sign at the limit entry.

Is just having one sign a new basis, and when did the law change?

[SS2.]

Jon39 said:

Is just having one sign a new basis, and when did the law change?

It can be, following a change which commenced on 22 April 2016.

TSRGD 2016 Explanatory Note said:

Removal of directions

One terminal sign or two

3.11 For regulatory signs indicating the beginning of a restriction, requirement,prohibition or speed limit, direction 8(3) of TSRGD 2002 required the placing of one terminal sign on each side of a single-carriageway road, and the placing of one terminal sign on each side of the appropriate carriageway of a dual carriageway road (i.e. on the near side and on the central reservation).

3.12 In 2011 this requirement was set aside in England for signs other than speed limits by way of an area-wide special direction issued to every English traffic authority. This allowed the placing of only one terminal sign on either side of the road as appropriate, thereby reducing their environmental impact.

3.13 This relaxation has now been included in TSRGD 2016 and extended to speed limit signs. In deciding whether to reduce terminal signing provision, the following factors could be taken into account:

• turning angles
• junction layouts
• one way traffic conditions
• sign mounting height

3.14 This relaxation has been made to reduce environmental impact. However, care should be taken to ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to road users and does not give rise to issues relating to enforcement or road safety. This might require the sign in some instances to be placed on the off side of the road. There will be some situations where two signs will still be preferable. Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction.

Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 19th June 12:56

[Cliftonite]

SS2. said:

Jon39 said:

Is just having one sign a new basis, and when did the law change?

It can be, following a change which commenced on 22 April 2016.

TSRGD 2016 Explanatory Note said:

Removal of directions

One terminal sign or two

3.11 For regulatory signs indicating the beginning of a restriction, requirement,prohibition or speed limit, direction 8(3) of TSRGD 2002 required the placing of one terminal sign on each side of a single-carriageway road, and the placing of one terminal sign on each side of the appropriate carriageway of a dual carriageway road (i.e. on the near side and on the central reservation).

3.12 In 2011 this requirement was set aside in England for signs other than speed limits by way of an area-wide special direction issued to every English traffic authority. This allowed the placing of only one terminal sign on either side of the road as appropriate, thereby reducing their environmental impact.

3.13 This relaxation has now been included in TSRGD 2016 and extended to speed limit signs. In deciding whether to reduce terminal signing provision, the following factors could be taken into account:

• turning angles
• junction layouts
• one way traffic conditions
• sign mounting height

3.14 This relaxation has been made to reduce environmental impact. However, care should be taken to ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to road users and does not give rise to issues relating to enforcement or road safety. This might require the sign in some instances to be placed on the off side of the road. There will be some situations where two signs will still be preferable. Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction.

Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 19th June 12:56

Giving local authorities discretion re road signage when they often could not get it right when exact rules were prescribed does not seem sensible to me .