Missing 30mph sign
Discussion
Out of interest, I was wondering about the legality of the following situation....
Driving into the local town where I work, the road narrows from an NSL dual carriageway (70 limit) to an NSL single carriageway (60 limit). The single carriageway runs for about 100m into town, and then changes to a 30mph limit.
At the start of the 30 limit, the 30mph sign at the left side of the road has been missing for several weeks. By missing, I mean that the sign and post are not there - it's just a hole in the grass verge. The 30mph sign on the opposite side of the road is still present. There is also a red section on the road with 30mph written in white paint.
If anyone was caught speeding after the start of the 30mph section, would the conviction still stand based on the missing sign? Or does the presence of street lighting etc mean the 30 limit is still enforceable?
Note: I'm not advocating speeding in a 30 zone - this is just to satisfy my curiosity!
Driving into the local town where I work, the road narrows from an NSL dual carriageway (70 limit) to an NSL single carriageway (60 limit). The single carriageway runs for about 100m into town, and then changes to a 30mph limit.
At the start of the 30 limit, the 30mph sign at the left side of the road has been missing for several weeks. By missing, I mean that the sign and post are not there - it's just a hole in the grass verge. The 30mph sign on the opposite side of the road is still present. There is also a red section on the road with 30mph written in white paint.
If anyone was caught speeding after the start of the 30mph section, would the conviction still stand based on the missing sign? Or does the presence of street lighting etc mean the 30 limit is still enforceable?
Note: I'm not advocating speeding in a 30 zone - this is just to satisfy my curiosity!
From what I understand, they need signs on both sides of the road to legally enforce it. The red road markings are useful, but not legally binding, but the signs are (and any lighting of the signs, if needed.)
However, the Mag may not actually see it that way.
I wouldn't speed through there either if it's a villiage.
However, the Mag may not actually see it that way.
I wouldn't speed through there either if it's a villiage.
ashes said:
What happens when the first sign into a new limit is not to the regulations (e.g. on a yellow background)? Does the limit start at the first 'real' sign?
Just a thought to counter scams where they are targetting just on the limit change....
Ashes, did you not ask the same question on this thread
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=10&t=219840&h=0&hw=yellow+sign
and I answered in more or less the same terms as DVD above?
Is it not clear that the regs don't need to be changed - they ARE legal?
A friend of my father claimed to have avoided points due to the abscence of road signs. He got cought within a 30 limit on his way to work, when he arrived at work and explained why he was late a workmate asked him "were the signs still down" he went out and checked and indeed both were lying on the verges with ball of cement having been dug up to be moved. The next step was to the local police station to protest he did not know he had entered a 30 limit due to the lack of signs, apparently everything was dropped & he didn't get points/fine despite him living 5 miles from the village, travelling through it every day and the local police man (whom he was known to) questioning if he was serious.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Limit incorrectly signed. Requirement at law for it to be so.
Argument at Court for dismissal of charge of exceeding the limit.
dvd
In that case would it not depend if the the area has lamp post with the correct spacing? If so then it would be correctly signed I would have guessed.
[quote=RTRA(1984)-S85]
(4) Where no system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart is provided on a road, but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above.[/quote]
This gives a cast iron get-out for unrestricted roads improperly signed. I cannot find a similar one for restricted roads (although they are to be signed according to TSRGD, but not sure that it creates a statutory defence if they are not).
I will ask in another place.
(4) Where no system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart is provided on a road, but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above.[/quote]
This gives a cast iron get-out for unrestricted roads improperly signed. I cannot find a similar one for restricted roads (although they are to be signed according to TSRGD, but not sure that it creates a statutory defence if they are not).
I will ask in another place.
bluepolarbear said:
Limit incorrectly signed. Requirement at law for it to be so.
Argument at Court for dismissal of charge of exceeding the limit.
dvd
In that case would it not depend if the the area has lamp post with the correct spacing? If so then it would be correctly signed I would have guessed.
Depends on the history of road and whether Speed Order present or previous. On your piece of road are 30 repeaters present?
dvd
There are no 30mph repeaters present after the missing sign. The next speed related sign is on the far side of town where the limit goes from 30 to 40 (dual carriageway). There are 40mph repeaters after this point until the NSL limit sign when leaving the town.
The lampposts look to be less than the regulation 200 yards apart - but I have not measured the exact distance! So if a relevant Speed Order is in place, the lampposts are "signing" the limit - correct?
>> Edited by pallison on Tuesday 15th November 10:58
The lampposts look to be less than the regulation 200 yards apart - but I have not measured the exact distance! So if a relevant Speed Order is in place, the lampposts are "signing" the limit - correct?
>> Edited by pallison on Tuesday 15th November 10:58
One could also argue 7db that under Section 85(1) RTRA 84 for the purposes of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on ANY ROAD, it shall be the DUTY of Sec of State, in the case of trunk road, to ERECT and MAINTAIN the prescribed traffic signs (TSGD 2002) in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose Section 85(2) makes the same requirement on LA's in relation to roads other than trunk road.
This together what is contained in TSGD 2002 of the requirement for a limit to be signed indicates to me that where there is street lighting present less than 200 yards apart then speed limit under Sect 81 is 30 because it is a restricted road but if not signed at the start as to the requirement under Sect 85 and TSGD then this gives the arguement against prosecution under a converse play on Section 85 (5) - absence of NSL signs on lamp posts it is a restricted road. But does not this also mean that under a restricted road limit there is no need for repeaters which would be the case if an Order was in place?.
dvd
This together what is contained in TSGD 2002 of the requirement for a limit to be signed indicates to me that where there is street lighting present less than 200 yards apart then speed limit under Sect 81 is 30 because it is a restricted road but if not signed at the start as to the requirement under Sect 85 and TSGD then this gives the arguement against prosecution under a converse play on Section 85 (5) - absence of NSL signs on lamp posts it is a restricted road. But does not this also mean that under a restricted road limit there is no need for repeaters which would be the case if an Order was in place?.
dvd
Interesting point DVD.... in this case, the road is the A78 going into Greenock, which I believe is a trunk road and is maintained by AMEY on behalf of the Scottish Executive. I would assume it's down to AMEY to erect and maintain the proper signs, and not the local council.
I would call them up to let them know, but don't know if it's worth the effort. I told them about 10-12 unlit/missing bollards a few weeks ago, but they haven't bothered to get them fixed.
<Edited to fix typos>
>> Edited by pallison on Wednesday 16th November 09:10
I would call them up to let them know, but don't know if it's worth the effort. I told them about 10-12 unlit/missing bollards a few weeks ago, but they haven't bothered to get them fixed.
<Edited to fix typos>
>> Edited by pallison on Wednesday 16th November 09:10
DVD - I think there are two issues. Given that the signage is incorrect.
1) Is the Sos / LA in breach of their duty and potentially liable?
2) Is there a defence for the motorist against a charge of speeding?
In turn:-
1) SoS clearly in breach, but might have a defence of reasonable notice and action. There is also a section of TSRGD about signs uder repair, that whilst reading I lost the will to live so do not fully understand.
2) Regardless of SoS/LA's liability, the motorist is exceeding the limit on the road, and as a strict liability offence has committed the offence, irrespective of singage. UNLESS the Act gives his a defence on the grounds of signage. There is a clear statutory defence in S4 for roads without streetlighting (regardless of whether they are restricted or not!). Is there a similar defence for ones with streetlighting (I don't have a full copy of the Act)?
Unfair though it is - lack of signage, but presence of streetlights seems to provide no defence to the poor motorist who has no notice of the change in limit, other than the lights, and no defence.
1) Is the Sos / LA in breach of their duty and potentially liable?
2) Is there a defence for the motorist against a charge of speeding?
In turn:-
1) SoS clearly in breach, but might have a defence of reasonable notice and action. There is also a section of TSRGD about signs uder repair, that whilst reading I lost the will to live so do not fully understand.
2) Regardless of SoS/LA's liability, the motorist is exceeding the limit on the road, and as a strict liability offence has committed the offence, irrespective of singage. UNLESS the Act gives his a defence on the grounds of signage. There is a clear statutory defence in S4 for roads without streetlighting (regardless of whether they are restricted or not!). Is there a similar defence for ones with streetlighting (I don't have a full copy of the Act)?
Unfair though it is - lack of signage, but presence of streetlights seems to provide no defence to the poor motorist who has no notice of the change in limit, other than the lights, and no defence.
7db
Remember eighteen months/2 years ago a North Yorks Police Officer (off duty) got off exceeding a 50 limit because signing guru Richard Bentley (he was the chap that was on McDonalds programme last week)pointed out that the 50 signs has a border around the backing plate. This is not authorised in TSGD so no action taken. But on the same stretch of road there was a system of street lighting less than 200 yards apart. So if the 50 was illegal why wasn't the 30 restricted road offence proceeded with?
I cannot answer as I do not know the history of the road. I would tend to believe that restricted road status was removed by Order and then the 50 Order imposed.
Hey, faced with a fizzer for exceeding and signing missing or not up to scratch would you plead guilty?
dvd
Remember eighteen months/2 years ago a North Yorks Police Officer (off duty) got off exceeding a 50 limit because signing guru Richard Bentley (he was the chap that was on McDonalds programme last week)pointed out that the 50 signs has a border around the backing plate. This is not authorised in TSGD so no action taken. But on the same stretch of road there was a system of street lighting less than 200 yards apart. So if the 50 was illegal why wasn't the 30 restricted road offence proceeded with?
I cannot answer as I do not know the history of the road. I would tend to believe that restricted road status was removed by Order and then the 50 Order imposed.
Hey, faced with a fizzer for exceeding and signing missing or not up to scratch would you plead guilty?
dvd
DVD - that is my understanding - ie that the restricted road status was revoked to put the 50 limit in place and then that was incorrectly signed. This does not tally with the ACT as I read it, but is consistent with the interpretation that what S4 means by a road with street ligthing is a restricted road.
Nicely this means that where the signage is incorrect in anything other than a restricted road, it is not that it reverts to NSL or similar, but that in fact there is no enforceable limit.
This still doesn't answer the issue of whether the 30 limit stands without the initial signage.
Would I plead Guilty? Certainly not. IF I notice an incorrect signage, then I'll consider myself relievd of the obligation to obwserve the speed limit, and drive with reference to the safe speed for the road and conditions, not the number that some chap in the LA has thought up... They can come and have a go with a careless charge if they like.
Nicely this means that where the signage is incorrect in anything other than a restricted road, it is not that it reverts to NSL or similar, but that in fact there is no enforceable limit.
This still doesn't answer the issue of whether the 30 limit stands without the initial signage.
Would I plead Guilty? Certainly not. IF I notice an incorrect signage, then I'll consider myself relievd of the obligation to obwserve the speed limit, and drive with reference to the safe speed for the road and conditions, not the number that some chap in the LA has thought up... They can come and have a go with a careless charge if they like.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff