Speed limit repeater signs

[t140v]

I have recently been photographed by a mobile speed camera (an UltraLyte 1000).
The road in question has signs on the edge of the carriage way which are a red disc, white background and the number 30 with text underneath "SPEED CHECK"


Repeater signs are prohibited where there is an adequate system of lighting and the default speed limit of 30mph applies. (direction 11(4)) which would mean that I could not be prosecuted if this is a repeater sign.

Does anyone know if this is a repeater sign or just an information sign about speed checks?


Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

[Mike335i]

Not sure I follow, you did more than 30mph in a 30mph zone that was clearly a 30mph zone.

Regardless of signage which may or may not conform to some regulations, were you still done fair and square?

Not trying to be 'that guy', but surely arguing that there were too many signs indicating the limit is not going to help?

[BertBert]

A cursory look here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedu... makes me think that that is not a repeater. The speed check wording shouldn't be there.
Bert

[ghe13rte]

t140v said:

I have recently been photographed by a mobile speed camera (an UltraLyte 1000).
The road in question has signs on the edge of the carriage way which are a red disc, white background and the number 30 with text underneath "SPEED CHECK"


Repeater signs are prohibited where there is an adequate system of lighting and the default speed limit of 30mph applies. (direction 11(4)) which would mean that I could not be prosecuted if this is a repeater sign.

Does anyone know if this is a repeater sign or just an information sign about speed checks?


Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

that is not a lawful sign. It doesn't make the speed limit non-enforceable. It wouldn't invalidate a speeding ticket even if the sign was a proper 30 sign.

where is it? I agree they are not something that should be there in that form

[Pica-Pica]

I may be wrong, but to my mind, if there is street lighting etc., etc., 30mph repeaters are not NECESSARY. Having 30 repeaters does not invalidate the 30 limit.

[Pica-Pica]

I may be wrong, but to my mind, if there is street lighting etc., etc., 30mph repeaters are not NECESSARY. Having 30 repeaters does not invalidate the 30 limit.

[LosingGrip]

Its a residential area with street lighting with no other signs saying its not 30mph.

The sign you have posted is an advisory sign reminding you of the speed limit and that there could be speed checks in the area.

Bad obs...they tried their best to help you not get caught!

[BertBert]

The OP is right, repeater signs are prohibited (in restricted roads aka built up areas).
Whether that would have any effect on the enforcement is a more technical question than I can answer.
My learned friend has an answer, but I bet he can't provide any references for it in law

[Mandat]

Mike335i said:

Not sure I follow, you did more than 30mph in a 30mph zone that was clearly a 30mph zone.

Regardless of signage which may or may not conform to some regulations, were you still done fair and square?

Not trying to be 'that guy', but surely arguing that there were too many signs indicating the limit is not going to help?

If you are going to be prosecuted for a technical breach of the regulations, then why can't a defence be based on a technical breach of the regulations by the authorities.

As others have already said, it's unlikely that such a defence will be successful but the principle stands.

[Roofless Toothless]

I wonder if that has been put up by a local resident.

[surveyor_101]

It’s a built up area with street lights , not sure who taught your h to drive but it’s 30 unless signs say otherwise.

Hanging on a to 30 because it’s says speed check is pathetic!

Your bang to rights.

[Tomo1971]

I think in the days before 20mph repeaters you may have a small argument - ie, if a repeater was there, you would expect it to say at least 40 without even properly reading the sign.

[herewego]

They could argue that the wording prevents it being a valid repeater therefore it isn't a repeater.

[Helicopter123]

t140v said:

I have recently been photographed by a mobile speed camera (an UltraLyte 1000).
The road in question has signs on the edge of the carriage way which are a red disc, white background and the number 30 with text underneath "SPEED CHECK"


Repeater signs are prohibited where there is an adequate system of lighting and the default speed limit of 30mph applies. (direction 11(4)) which would mean that I could not be prosecuted if this is a repeater sign.

Does anyone know if this is a repeater sign or just an information sign about speed checks?


Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

OP, I would imagine arguing in front of a judge that speeding despite passing a sign stating "30mph SPEED CHECK" does not count won't go down too well. Still, if you give it a whirl, do pop back and update?

[Nickyboy]

t140v said:

This is a repeater sign



This is not a repeater sign

[Red 4]

That road does not need repeater signs due to the lampposts.

That sign is not a repeater sign but I can't see the argument here.

You don't need repeaters - you haven't got any.

Nil point for thinking of excuses. Must try harder.

[agtlaw]

t140v said:

I have recently been photographed by a mobile speed camera (an UltraLyte 1000).
The road in question has signs on the edge of the carriage way which are a red disc, white background and the number 30 with text underneath "SPEED CHECK"

Repeater signs are prohibited where there is an adequate system of lighting and the default speed limit of 30mph applies. (direction 11(4)) which would mean that I could not be prosecuted if this is a repeater sign.

Does anyone know if this is a repeater sign or just an information sign about speed checks?


Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

An LTI 20.20 Ultralyte 1000 is not a camera so I'm extremely doubtful that you were photographed by it. If you've seen 'photographs' then they are stills from video footage.

The Direction mentioned above was revoked in 2016. Even if it had not been revoked, the assertion "I could not be prosecuted ..." is incorrect - whether you mean prosecuted or, more accurately, convicted.

The sign, whatever it is, is not prescribed. However, it appears that you were driving on a restricted road.

[ElectricPics]

The sign looks like something a local resident knocked up to try to get people to slow down.

[Pica-Pica]

ElectricPics said:

The sign looks like something a local resident knocked up to try to get people to slow down.

Disagree, in that case it would have ‘POLITE’ on it as well.

[surveyor_101]

Red 4 said:

That road does not need repeater signs due to the lampposts.

That sign is not a repeater sign but I can't see the argument here.

You don't need repeaters - you haven't got any.

Nil point for thinking of excuses. Must try harder.

This guy gets it, built up area with lamp posts!