The wrong speed limit signs installed
Discussion
Mandat said:
Jon39 said:
If residents of an unadopted road have installed 20 mph speed limit signs, when the speed limit is actually 30 mph, have they committed any offence, or broken a law?
..and if so does the limit default to 30... or NSL?
If it’s unadopted then NSL applies unless there is a physical barrier.
Lots of councils and of course retail parks stick up 20 advisories, which are not enforceable but seen by the road owners as their advice as to how to derisk a road that is not up to highway standards.
I can’t see how the signs themselves are illegal.
Lots of councils and of course retail parks stick up 20 advisories, which are not enforceable but seen by the road owners as their advice as to how to derisk a road that is not up to highway standards.
I can’t see how the signs themselves are illegal.
Devon and Cornwall police said:
Local authorities have powers to regulate traffic in their areas via Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) as a result of the 1984 Act. The powers are generally exercisable in relation to roads, and again the word ‘road’ being defined in section 142 of the 1984 Act in the same way as in the 1988 Act, as ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes’. There is a general speed limit of 30 mph for ‘restricted roads’, and a road is a restricted road if it has a system of street lighting with lights less than 200 yards apart. However the local authority can include or exclude roads from the category of ‘restricted roads’, as it thinks fit. The 200-yard rule is thus not absolute. Apart from this general limit, there is power to vary speed limits on roads. Hence a private road to which the public has access may or may not have a speed limit, but if it has street lights less than 200 yards apart the 30 mph limit is likely to apply. Local authorities do have a general power to put up traffic signs. If a private road is a “restricted road” because of its lighting, a speeding offence may be committed even if there are no signs indicating the speed limit; but if the road is restricted by virtue of a decision by the local authority, no speeding offence can be committed in the absence of signs.
https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/FOI/Doc/60873...
signs irrelevant i guess you'd need to see the TRO for that stretch of roadhttps://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/FOI/Doc/60873...
Johnnytheboy said:
Mandat said:
Jon39 said:
If residents of an unadopted road have installed 20 mph speed limit signs, when the speed limit is actually 30 mph, have they committed any offence, or broken a law?
..and if so does the limit default to 30... or NSL?
Dr Jekyll said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Mandat said:
Jon39 said:
If residents of an unadopted road have installed 20 mph speed limit signs, when the speed limit is actually 30 mph, have they committed any offence, or broken a law?
..and if so does the limit default to 30... or NSL?
Dr Jekyll said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Mandat said:
Jon39 said:
If residents of an unadopted road have installed 20 mph speed limit signs, when the speed limit is actually 30 mph, have they committed any offence, or broken a law?
..and if so does the limit default to 30... or NSL?
Thank you to everyone who has contributed. Don't think there is a clear consensus yet.
To give a little more information.
A TRO 20 mph applies to roads in the area, including the portion of road leading to, and as far as, the commencement of the unadopted road in question.
Think the residents just assumed they were in the 20 mph Zone so put up the 20 mph signs, but the unadopted section has been clearly excluded on the TRO. I don't think councils are keen to use TROs, for roads which they nether own or maintain.
The privately owned, unadopted section has public right of way and there are street lights spaced less tha 200 metres, so that unadopted section I am fairly sure, must therefore be subject to a 30 mph limit (NSL with street lights).k
Sorry don't understand. Please explain your reasoning more fully for, [i]'If there's an actual limit, enforceable or not then, nether the NSL nor the '30 where there are street lamps applies.'[i]
Jon39 said:
Thank you to everyone who has contributed. Don't think there is a clear consensus yet.
To give a little more information.
A TRO 20 mph applies to roads in the area, including the portion of road leading to, and as far as, the commencement of the unadopted road in question.
Think the residents just assumed they were in the 20 mph Zone so put up the 20 mph signs, but the unadopted section has been clearly excluded on the TRO. I don't think councils are keen to use TROs, for roads which they nether own or maintain.
The privately owned, unadopted section has public right of way and there are street lights spaced less tha 200 metres, so that unadopted section I am fairly sure, must therefore be subject to a 30 mph limit (NSL with street lights).k
Sorry don't understand. Please explain your reasoning more fully for, [i]'If there's an actual limit, enforceable or not then, nether the NSL nor the '30 where there are street lamps applies.'[i]
If a road has no specific speed limit in place then it's either NSL or 30. Once the paperwork for a specific limit, say 40, has gone through correctly then it's a 40 limit. If the signage isn't right, then the 40 limit isn't enforceable. So if caught doing 45 you can't be booked for exceeding it. But if the 45MPH driver (or a 39MPH driver) is charged with exceeding 30, because there are street lamps, they can point out that since the 40 limit was applied there is no 30 limit on that road, after all, streetlamps only mean a 30 limit if no other limit is in place. It can also be argued that if there are no streetlamps the driver doing 80MPH can't be charged with exceeding the NSL because the NSL only applies to otherwise derestricted roads.
The limit only defaults to 30 or NSL if the new limit itself isn't applied correctly, if it's applied correctly but not signed properly it's the new limit, but unenforceable. Presumably you could fail your driving test for exceeding it, but not be convicted.
Dr Jekyll said:
The limit only defaults to 30 or NSL if the new limit itself isn't applied correctly, if it's applied correctly but not signed properly it's the new limit, but unenforceable. Presumably you could fail your driving test for exceeding it, but not be convicted.
Thank you DJ. An interesting point.
The unadopted public right of way road, for decades would have been NSL with street lights ie 30mph limit.
When the TRO was introduced for the 20 mph Zone, the unadopted road was excluded.
The limit therefore would have continued as before, 30 mph.
You have described how the display of 20 mph signs (wrong speed limit), has meant even the 30 mph speed limit cannot now be enforced.
The residents probably think hardly anyone would know that legal point, and might obey the 20 mph signs.
Foss62 said:
I would have thought that if it is unadopted then the owners can do more or less whatever they want, subject to any covenants? They could in theory ban motor vehicles not belonging to or visiting the residents altogether - and some around here do put up signs implying that.
Highway rights don't really care who owns or maintains the actual road (or even who 'owns' the land beneath) and these rights can be accrued if its been open to the public for long enough. And once a highway, always a highway.S2r said:
Foss62 said:
I would have thought that if it is unadopted then the owners can do more or less whatever they want, subject to any covenants? They could in theory ban motor vehicles not belonging to or visiting the residents altogether - and some around here do put up signs implying that.
Highway rights don't really care who owns or maintains the actual road (or even who 'owns' the land beneath) and these rights can be accrued if its been open to the public for long enough. And once a highway, always a highway.S2r said:
Foss62 said:
I would have thought that if it is unadopted then the owners can do more or less whatever they want, subject to any covenants? They could in theory ban motor vehicles not belonging to or visiting the residents altogether - and some around here do put up signs implying that.
Highway rights don't really care who owns or maintains the actual road (or even who 'owns' the land beneath) and these rights can be accrued if its been open to the public for long enough. And once a highway, always a highway.There are mainly two types of unadopted roads. (Unadopted meaning not maintained at public expense.)
1. Unadopted, but with complete public right of way.
2. Unadopted, but with restricted public right of way, often called a private road. Gates have to be closed, I think at least once a year, to maintain the restricton rights, otherwise it would become road type 1.
I think residents of private roads (type 2.) can decide to impose restrictions such as no parking, whereas type 1. residents have no powers to restrict anything.
Dr Jekyll said:
Something I was told by a professional expert in traffic signs.
If a road has no specific speed limit in place then it's either NSL or 30. Once the paperwork for a specific limit, say 40, has gone through correctly then it's a 40 limit. If the signage isn't right, then the 40 limit isn't enforceable. So if caught doing 45 you can't be booked for exceeding it. But if the 45MPH driver (or a 39MPH driver) is charged with exceeding 30, because there are street lamps, they can point out that since the 40 limit was applied there is no 30 limit on that road, after all, streetlamps only mean a 30 limit if no other limit is in place. It can also be argued that if there are no streetlamps the driver doing 80MPH can't be charged with exceeding the NSL because the NSL only applies to otherwise derestricted roads.
The limit only defaults to 30 or NSL if the new limit itself isn't applied correctly, if it's applied correctly but not signed properly it's the new limit, but unenforceable. Presumably you could fail your driving test for exceeding it, but not be convicted.
Without casting aspersions against your expect, when you use it to get off 80mph in a non-conforming 30 it does start to sound like barfly barrister logic If a road has no specific speed limit in place then it's either NSL or 30. Once the paperwork for a specific limit, say 40, has gone through correctly then it's a 40 limit. If the signage isn't right, then the 40 limit isn't enforceable. So if caught doing 45 you can't be booked for exceeding it. But if the 45MPH driver (or a 39MPH driver) is charged with exceeding 30, because there are street lamps, they can point out that since the 40 limit was applied there is no 30 limit on that road, after all, streetlamps only mean a 30 limit if no other limit is in place. It can also be argued that if there are no streetlamps the driver doing 80MPH can't be charged with exceeding the NSL because the NSL only applies to otherwise derestricted roads.
The limit only defaults to 30 or NSL if the new limit itself isn't applied correctly, if it's applied correctly but not signed properly it's the new limit, but unenforceable. Presumably you could fail your driving test for exceeding it, but not be convicted.
I understood the NSL to be the national speed limit for that class of road, and derestricter signs are simply stating "beyond this sign, the speed limit you are driving through no longer applies", hence why it's a derestricter (removes the restriction, raises speed limit to NSL) rather than a speed limit sign. So whilst you might get away with 60 (or even 67) you couldn't use this argument to get away with 80 on a public road in GB. Wasn't there a related loophole until ~20 years ago, where people got let off speeding fines due to the presence of 30mph repeaters? These repeaters having been added to help drivers understand the speed limit, but due to not being allowed road signage at the time they somehow invalidated the 30mph limit.
Edited by donkmeister on Saturday 17th April 02:24
donkmeister said:
Without casting aspersions against your expect, when you use it to get off 80mph in a non-conforming 30 it does start to sound like barfly barrister logic I understood the NSL to be the national speed limit for that class of road, and derestricter signs are simply stating "beyond this sign, the speed limit you are driving through no longer applies", hence why it's a derestricter (removes the restriction, raises speed limit to NSL) rather than a speed limit sign. So whilst you might get away with 60 (or even 67) you couldn't use this argument to get away with 80 on a public road in GB.
Wasn't there a related loophole until ~20 years ago, where people got let off speeding fines due to the presence of 30mph repeaters? These repeaters having been added to help drivers understand the speed limit, but due to not being allowed road signage at the time they somehow invalidated the 30mph limit.
But the question is, which speed limit would you be charged with breaking? I understood the NSL to be the national speed limit for that class of road, and derestricter signs are simply stating "beyond this sign, the speed limit you are driving through no longer applies", hence why it's a derestricter (removes the restriction, raises speed limit to NSL) rather than a speed limit sign. So whilst you might get away with 60 (or even 67) you couldn't use this argument to get away with 80 on a public road in GB. Wasn't there a related loophole until ~20 years ago, where people got let off speeding fines due to the presence of 30mph repeaters? These repeaters having been added to help drivers understand the speed limit, but due to not being allowed road signage at the time they somehow invalidated the 30mph limit.
To put it another way, if you did 80MPH where there was a perfectly well signed and enforceable 40 limit, could you be charged with exceeding the NSL as well as exceeding the 40? Or would the NSL no longer apply because of the 40 limit?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff