Unlawful speed limit in Luton
Discussion
Last year there was a 30 mph road works limit imposed on the road from Luton Airport to Junct 10 of the M1.
This was used as a cash-generator by the Bedfordshire lot with a laser van on the bridge by the entrance to the new business park almost every day - they caught thousands!
Apparently one person challenged the legality of this limit on several grounds and he won this challenge together with all his costs.
There were several grounds on which his challenge was based, including the fact that after the road was no longer obstructed by the road works the limit was left in place for a while, contrary to the RTA, which rendered the limit unlawful, and the fact that there were possibly no repeater signs as required.
Thus, anyone else convicted has, I believe, the right to their money back, points removed and damages for any other losses they incurred.
How do we publicise this?
This was used as a cash-generator by the Bedfordshire lot with a laser van on the bridge by the entrance to the new business park almost every day - they caught thousands!
Apparently one person challenged the legality of this limit on several grounds and he won this challenge together with all his costs.
There were several grounds on which his challenge was based, including the fact that after the road was no longer obstructed by the road works the limit was left in place for a while, contrary to the RTA, which rendered the limit unlawful, and the fact that there were possibly no repeater signs as required.
Thus, anyone else convicted has, I believe, the right to their money back, points removed and damages for any other losses they incurred.
How do we publicise this?
Given the facts I'm happy to run a story on PH about it.
Also, contact the ABD, they've successfully publicised a number of cases like this in the past.
www.abd.org.uk
Also, contact the ABD, they've successfully publicised a number of cases like this in the past.
www.abd.org.uk
This does not affect me, but I still want to thank you guys.Cooperman said:
<...> including the fact that after the road was no longer obstructed by the road works the limit was left in place for a while, contrary to the RTA, which rendered the limit unlawful, <...>
Do you have more details of this? This practice seem to be spreading like a virus; presumably because of its cash generation.
The broad details ae as follows:
The defendant was one Andrew Tollington and the case was Case No. A/C: 03045397 in the Luton Magistrates Court. Unfortunately I don't have the date.
Mr. Tollington was alleged to have been exceeding a temporary speed limit in force on Airport way, Luton - the main road from Junction 10A of the M1 to Luton Airport. He was travelling towards the M1. His speed was recorded by a police van with a laser camera unit.
The 30 mph limit sign was in what would otherwise have been a wide road subject to the NSL of 60 mph, but going to 70 mph after a short distance when the dual carriageway started.
The road works for which the 30 limit was temporarily applied were complete, but the sign was still in place several days later. All obstructions had been removed.
Section 36 of the 'Traffic Sign Regulations & General Directions' (TSRDG) addresses 'Restrictions on placing of temporary signs' and it states:
"...any sign so placed and any other sign shown in a diagram in schedules 1 to 11 so placed shall not be retained on or near the road after completion of works or the removal of the obstructon as the case may be, unless (a) it is a sign of the type shown in diagram 7012 (loose Chippings sign) or (b) it is of a type shown in diagram7012 (no road markings sign).
Schedule 2 of 1 to 11 includes diagram 670 'maximum speed limit ....'.
In this case the sign was not removed, there was, therefore, a failure to comply with TSRGD and the sign was not lawful.
The Magistrates found in favour of Mr. Tollington, who was awarded his costs.
'WELL DONE THAT MAN!'
The alleged offence took place approximately 12 months ago, but I do know that, literally, hundreds of other drivers were convicted. Will the Chief Constable now look into the matter and ensure that all those wrongly convicted have their convictions overturned - don't hold your breath!
The defendant was one Andrew Tollington and the case was Case No. A/C: 03045397 in the Luton Magistrates Court. Unfortunately I don't have the date.
Mr. Tollington was alleged to have been exceeding a temporary speed limit in force on Airport way, Luton - the main road from Junction 10A of the M1 to Luton Airport. He was travelling towards the M1. His speed was recorded by a police van with a laser camera unit.
The 30 mph limit sign was in what would otherwise have been a wide road subject to the NSL of 60 mph, but going to 70 mph after a short distance when the dual carriageway started.
The road works for which the 30 limit was temporarily applied were complete, but the sign was still in place several days later. All obstructions had been removed.
Section 36 of the 'Traffic Sign Regulations & General Directions' (TSRDG) addresses 'Restrictions on placing of temporary signs' and it states:
"...any sign so placed and any other sign shown in a diagram in schedules 1 to 11 so placed shall not be retained on or near the road after completion of works or the removal of the obstructon as the case may be, unless (a) it is a sign of the type shown in diagram 7012 (loose Chippings sign) or (b) it is of a type shown in diagram7012 (no road markings sign).
Schedule 2 of 1 to 11 includes diagram 670 'maximum speed limit ....'.
In this case the sign was not removed, there was, therefore, a failure to comply with TSRGD and the sign was not lawful.
The Magistrates found in favour of Mr. Tollington, who was awarded his costs.
'WELL DONE THAT MAN!'
The alleged offence took place approximately 12 months ago, but I do know that, literally, hundreds of other drivers were convicted. Will the Chief Constable now look into the matter and ensure that all those wrongly convicted have their convictions overturned - don't hold your breath!
Excellent, thanks Cooperman.
Interestingly the word 'obstruction' is used.
I have often seen cones left in temporary works, say along the hard shoulder line, presumably to try and justify that the 'works' still exist. Is a cone in such circumstances an 'obstruction'?
Does leaving them there artificially mean that the works are not complete? Food for thought.
Also, is a damaged crash barrier on a bridge an obstruction? It may be a danger, but it would appear not to be an obstruction; it could be works, though. Also, I suppose the cones would be an obstruction in that case.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 18th June 00:14
Interestingly the word 'obstruction' is used.
I have often seen cones left in temporary works, say along the hard shoulder line, presumably to try and justify that the 'works' still exist. Is a cone in such circumstances an 'obstruction'?
Does leaving them there artificially mean that the works are not complete? Food for thought.
Also, is a damaged crash barrier on a bridge an obstruction? It may be a danger, but it would appear not to be an obstruction; it could be works, though. Also, I suppose the cones would be an obstruction in that case.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 18th June 00:14
Now that's an interesting thing, Jeffrey.
Taking this a bit further, suppose there is some work going on and the limit is set for those works. Then every night, the workmen clear the carriageway and remove all the cones to form a line along the side of the road without any obstruction of the carriageways.
Could the regulation be taken that until the workmen return and physically move the cones back into the carriageway, then the limit does not apply, as there is no work site or obstruction and the sign does not apply since the regulation precludes it? In the event of a summons, would the CPS want to proceed in case it caused a percedent?
It's just a thought.
In the Luton case the signs were, I know, left there for some time and the Talivan turned up EVERY day just to catch thousands.
Taking this a bit further, suppose there is some work going on and the limit is set for those works. Then every night, the workmen clear the carriageway and remove all the cones to form a line along the side of the road without any obstruction of the carriageways.
Could the regulation be taken that until the workmen return and physically move the cones back into the carriageway, then the limit does not apply, as there is no work site or obstruction and the sign does not apply since the regulation precludes it? In the event of a summons, would the CPS want to proceed in case it caused a percedent?
It's just a thought.
In the Luton case the signs were, I know, left there for some time and the Talivan turned up EVERY day just to catch thousands.
If that was the case
(1) The "work not completed" until the fat lady sings if you get my drift.
(2) The Order for the roadworks in that case 10 to 1 would have a daily time limit for the restriction?
I get the impression that in actual fact in relation to dates the Order for the roadworks had expired and had not been renewed. Council by default left the restriction sign out and nobody cottoned on until it was raised.
DVD
(1) The "work not completed" until the fat lady sings if you get my drift.
(2) The Order for the roadworks in that case 10 to 1 would have a daily time limit for the restriction?
I get the impression that in actual fact in relation to dates the Order for the roadworks had expired and had not been renewed. Council by default left the restriction sign out and nobody cottoned on until it was raised.
DVD
Another issue is that in some cases the posted temporary limit may not be enforceable anyway, if the temporary traffic order hasn't been processed or even submitted.
I have 1st hand knowledge of this, a few years ago I was (jointly) responsible for a laner closure that had to be set up at short notice. There wasn't time to get an appropriate traffic order creating an enforceable speed limit, so we just put up 30mph signs anyway.
The police who came out to check up the arrangements were happy enough that we had done this, but told us that they couldn't police the 30mph limit, which was fair enough (they didn't have a scam pratnership in those days!) This is fairly common.
Anyway, the upshot of this is that if you get done for speeding through roadworks, it would be a good idea to get a confirmation that the temporary speed limit is indeed valid at all.
I have 1st hand knowledge of this, a few years ago I was (jointly) responsible for a laner closure that had to be set up at short notice. There wasn't time to get an appropriate traffic order creating an enforceable speed limit, so we just put up 30mph signs anyway.
The police who came out to check up the arrangements were happy enough that we had done this, but told us that they couldn't police the 30mph limit, which was fair enough (they didn't have a scam pratnership in those days!) This is fairly common.
Anyway, the upshot of this is that if you get done for speeding through roadworks, it would be a good idea to get a confirmation that the temporary speed limit is indeed valid at all.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff