20 mph A roads - signage requirements

[Fore Left]

The London Borough of Waltham Forest in it's infinite wisdom appears to have made the A503 Forest Road and the A112 Hoe Street 20 mph zones. However, other than a single small "20mph Zone" sign like the one below at what I presume is the start of the zone (incidentally, there is no indication that you're leaving the 20 mph zone going the other way) the only indication you're in a 20 mph zone is white roundels painted on the road. There are no repeater signs and no traffic calming measures. Is the 20 mph speed limit actually in effect and if you were stopped doing 30 mph (the previous speed limit) would a prosecution be successful (and no I haven't, just curious)?

[Repel_Max]

20mph rounders on the road are speed limit repeater signs. So yes, a prosecution is allowed in the circumstance you describe.

[Pica-Pica]

Repel_Max said:

20mph rounders on the road are speed limit repeater signs. So yes, a prosecution is allowed in the circumstance you describe.

Are you sure?

[Graveworm]

Fore Left said:

The London Borough of Waltham Forest in it's infinite wisdom appears to have made the A503 Forest Road and the A112 Hoe Street 20 mph zones. However, other than a single small "20mph Zone" sign like the one below at what I presume is the start of the zone (incidentally, there is no indication that you're leaving the 20 mph zone going the other way) the only indication you're in a 20 mph zone is white roundels painted on the road. There are no repeater signs and no traffic calming measures. Is the 20 mph speed limit actually in effect and if you were stopped doing 30 mph (the previous speed limit) would a prosecution be successful (and no I haven't, just curious)?

A 20mph zone is supposed to come with calming measures. 20 limits are just signs . A 20mph zone should have a terminating sign as well.
Local authorities are no longer forced to comply with the manuals (Which are still the same as before the 2016 changes) as they have been changed to "guidance". A failure to do so does not automatically render the limit unenforceable but. where they don't comply, it will be for a court to determine, as a matter of fact, if the signage was adequate, The second report below will almost certainly have an impact on this. They are required to have "Robust risk analysis" to show why they haven't complied with the manual.
Given the problems with 20mph limits in general they may be interesting reading.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/20mph-...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/20-mph-...

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 9th February 18:21

[Repel_Max]

Pica-Pica said:

Repel_Max said:

20mph rounders on the road are speed limit repeater signs. So yes, a prosecution is allowed in the circumstance you describe.

Are you sure?

Not only am I sure but TSRGD defines sign Diagram 1065, Road marking indicating the maximum speed limit



It always amazes me why there are speculative discussions on these sort of things when the source in the law is freely available.

[Graveworm]

Repel_Max said:

Not only am I sure but TSRGD defines sign Diagram 1065, Road marking indicating the maximum speed limit



It always amazes me why there are speculative discussions on these sort of things when the source in the law is freely available.

It does but they don't comply with the manual as repeaters or speed limit signs they are just signs that can be lawfully placed on a road.
It may be enforceable but not automatically. P117 has the details
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

[Pica-Pica]

Graveworm said:

Repel_Max said:

Not only am I sure but TSRGD defines sign Diagram 1065, Road marking indicating the maximum speed limit



It always amazes me why there are speculative discussions on these sort of things when the source in the law is freely available.

It does but they don't comply with the manual as repeaters or speed limit signs they are just signs that can be lawfully placed on a road.
It may be enforceable but not automatically. P117 has the details
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

Indeed. I have that pdf file saved also.

Edited by Pica-Pica on Saturday 9th February 18:59

[Fore Left]

Repel_Max said:

Pica-Pica said:

Repel_Max said:

20mph rounders on the road are speed limit repeater signs. So yes, a prosecution is allowed in the circumstance you describe.

Are you sure?

Not only am I sure but TSRGD defines sign Diagram 1065, Road marking indicating the maximum speed limit



It always amazes me why there are speculative discussions on these sort of things when the source in the law is freely available.

Thanks. I thought they didn't count as they don't have a red ring round them. Looks like I wasn't the only one Best slow down then

[Repel_Max]

Graveworm said:

Repel_Max said:

Not only am I sure but TSRGD defines sign Diagram 1065, Road marking indicating the maximum speed limit



It always amazes me why there are speculative discussions on these sort of things when the source in the law is freely available.

It does but they don't comply with the manual as repeaters or speed limit signs they are just signs that can be lawfully placed on a road.
It may be enforceable but not automatically. P117 has the details
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

They are repeater signs. That’s what the regulations say.
While they are “...just signs that can be placed on a road...” the number indicates the maximum speed, I.e. a speed limit repeater.

[Graveworm]

Repel_Max said:

They are repeater signs. That’s what the regulations say.
While they are “...just signs that can be placed on a road...” the number indicates the maximum speed, I.e. a speed limit repeater.

Which doesn't change that they are non complaint with the guidelines which require "Conventional" signs of the size and type specified at the side of the road. So it only may be enforceable and needs to be able to show that it is "..specially authorised, sufficient to encourage compliance, and gives reasonable grounds for a case to be upheld in court". Given that the independent report found only 18% of inspected 20mph limits scored high for sufficiency of signage that is not a forgone conclusion.

[Pica-Pica]

Graveworm said:

Repel_Max said:

They are repeater signs. That’s what the regulations say.
While they are “...just signs that can be placed on a road...” the number indicates the maximum speed, I.e. a speed limit repeater.

Which doesn't change that they are non complaint with the guidelines which require "Conventional" signs of the size and type specified at the side of the road. So it only may be enforceable and needs to be able to show that it is "..specially authorised, sufficient to encourage compliance, and gives reasonable grounds for a case to be upheld in court". Given that the independent report found only 18% of inspected 20mph limits scored high for sufficiency of signage that is not a forgone conclusion.

Indeed (again), and possibly why you still see incorrect speed limit signs on the road surface, when the speed limit and the post signs have been changed.

[V8 Fettler]

Graveworm said:

A 20mph zone is supposed to come with calming measures. 20 limits are just signs . A 20mph zone should have a terminating sign as well.
Local authorities are no longer forced to comply with the manuals (Which are still the same as before the 2016 changes) as they have been changed to "guidance". A failure to do so does not automatically render the limit unenforceable but. where they don't comply, it will be for a court to determine, as a matter of fact, if the signage was adequate, The second report below will almost certainly have an impact on this. They are required to have "Robust risk analysis" to show why they haven't complied with the manual.
Given the problems with 20mph limits in general they may be interesting reading.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/20mph-...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/20-mph-...

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 9th February 18:21

This shouldn't create any issues because we can rely on the local authorities to be fair, reasonable and competent.

[Repel_Max]

Graveworm said:

Which doesn't change that they are non complaint with the guidelines which require "Conventional" signs of the size and type specified at the side of the road. So it only may be enforceable and needs to be able to show that it is "..specially authorised, sufficient to encourage compliance, and gives reasonable grounds for a case to be upheld in court". Given that the independent report found only 18% of inspected 20mph limits scored high for sufficiency of signage that is not a forgone conclusion.

Guidelines make no requirements.

[Graveworm]

Repel_Max said:

Guidelines make no requirements.

Strange point but happy to concede it. It does not change the underlying point though that if they fail to follow the guidelines then one cannot assert they will be enforceable.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 10th February 11:02

[agtlaw]

TRSGD 2002 was revoked in 2016. TSM Chapter 3 refers throughout to TSRGD 2002.

[Repel_Max]

Graveworm said:

Repel_Max said:

Guidelines make no requirements.

Strange point but happy to concede it. It does not change the underlying point though that if they fail to follow the guidelines then one cannot assert they will be enforceable.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 10th February 11:02

One can, one does and enforcement succeeds.

Is the guiance provided by big white prescribed signs on the roadway satisfactory guidance to signal a maximum speed to drivers? Yes.

Next!

[Graveworm]

Repel_Max said:

One can, one does and enforcement succeeds.

Is the guiance provided by big white prescribed signs on the roadway satisfactory guidance to signal a maximum speed to drivers? Yes.

Next!

It could be satisfactory, but given the findings of the governments independent survey far from always. We see examples time and time again when insufficient signage has been identified, where enforcement has succeeded because it had not previously been challenged. Also this is a 20mph zone, so should be self enforcing by other measures, which the OP says are absent.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 10th February 11:41

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 10th February 11:43

[deeen]

Repel_Max said:

Graveworm said:

Repel_Max said:

Guidelines make no requirements.

Strange point but happy to concede it. It does not change the underlying point though that if they fail to follow the guidelines then one cannot assert they will be enforceable.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 10th February 11:02

One can, one does and enforcement succeeds.

Is the guiance provided by big white prescribed signs on the roadway satisfactory guidance to signal a maximum speed to drivers? Yes.

Next!

If they are "only" repeaters, I thought there had to be two "real" signs, one either side of the road, denoting the start of the limit? OP only mentions one.

[Fore Left]

deeen said:

If they are "only" repeaters, I thought there had to be two "real" signs, one either side of the road, denoting the start of the limit? OP only mentions one.

Correct, there is only a single sign at the entrance to the zone.

[agtlaw]

deeen said:

If they are "only" repeaters, I thought there had to be two "real" signs, one either side of the road, denoting the start of the limit? OP only mentions one.

It's 2019.