distance between repeater signs

[londonbabe]

Is there still a law that says that if the first repeater sign is more than 250 metres (or something) after the initial limit sign the posted limit is unenforceable and does not apply?

I'm specifically thinking of a stretch of 6 lane dual carriageway which has 40 limits posted where the first repeater is over a kilometre from the initial 40 sign.
I'm pretty sure therefore that it isn't really a 40 limit.

However for some of its length this road has a footpath to the side. If we assume that the 40 limit is invalid would the presence of this footpath drag it down to a 30 or would the fact that it's a 6 lane dual carriageway take precedence and it's NSL?

[Dwight VanDriver]

Enjoy

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/signsandsi...

dvd

[jeffreyarcher]

No; the requirement for specific distances was removed in the 1995 (IIRC) TSRGDs.
The only currect requirement is that they be 'regular', whatever that means (no case law, AFAIK).
There is DfT guidance (01/95 IIRC) [Edit: see DVD's link], whether that would cut any ice, I doubt, unless the distances were way out (which may be the case here).
The footpath is irrelevent.
The speed imit is still 40 MPH (so the street lights can't make it 30), even if the signs are defective, it's just that its enforcability may be affected.
Are there street lights?

Edited by jeffreyarcher on Wednesday 6th August 12:15

[londonbabe]

There are street lights but they are the type found on motorways and nsl dual carriageways.

[Taita]

Road signage is the most confusing and contradictory thing ever.

GO and make a pot of tea and read. Come back in 3 days

[londonbabe]

I've just read that DfT link. I'm not sure I like the thinking behind that legislation. Surely the reason such things as size, distance, placement, form, colour and so forth are prescribed is to remove the element of doubt, and make sure the public know which signs are legal instructions and which are not, and whether they are in a non-standard limit should they have missed the initial sign. It's there to keep the councils and other enforcers honest. To water that down is the wrong approach in my book. After all the councils can read the regulations too and just obey them, then there would be no need to change the law. And surely a few more speed limit repeater signs would be cheaper than the parliamentary process needed to change this law.

Oh well, lets hope they never change the one requiring them to paint the double yellow lines properly.

[jeffreyarcher]

Doesn't matter what type they are (as long as they are carriageway, and not footway lamps, which these are).
Is this a theoretical discussion, or have you been zapped?
You do say an 'intial 40 sign'. If you actually mean that, you have sound defence.

The reason that they removed the statutory distances was to prevent that being used as a defence.
As to the cost of changing the law, it is nothing. The regs. are just an S.I., not primary legislation.

Edited by jeffreyarcher on Wednesday 6th August 12:28

[7db]

For a court to decide in the specific circumstances whether they are regular enough, sufficiently obscured etc for the driver not to have been well informed.

[jeffreyarcher]

7db said:

For a court to decide in the specific circumstances whether they are regular

Agreed.

7db said:

enough, sufficiently obscured etc for the driver not to have been well informed.

Sorry, disagree. Well etsablished case law. Defective signs is a statutory defence, no mental element [*] by the accused is required.
Smith v Rankin (Scottish case)
Waryzynck (sp?) v CC Staffs,
Coombe v DPP (Coombe also suggested, although did leave it open for further litigation, that even although the signs were obscured, that did comply with the regulations (hence the statutory defebce was not invoked)).

[*] The exception being a restricted road via the street lights; still an absolute offence, and defective signs doesn'r help, but if the accused is misled by the defects, that may be a special reason for not endorsing (Burgess v West).

Edited by jeffreyarcher on Wednesday 6th August 12:42

[londonbabe]

I have not been zapped. However, if I were to obey the 40mph limit on my motorbike I suspect I would be squashed flat by all the other road users, as 60-70 seems to be the norm on this road, so there is a chance that I might be one of these days ;-) More cameras have appeared recently

[5lab]

its interesting that 20mph limits don't have to have repeaters, but in the section below (if road is longer than 250m) it does - which applies?

my road is 300m long - the road at both ends are 20mph limits, but mine has no signs - whats the limit?? there's no change of speed limit signs on the way in or way out (incidentally, you'd be nuts to do 30 anyway, so its a little irrelivent)

[7db]

jeffreyarcher said:

7db said:

For a court to decide in the specific circumstances whether they are regular

Agreed.

7db said:

enough, sufficiently obscured etc for the driver not to have been well informed.

Sorry, disagree. Well etsablished case law. Defective signs is a statutory defence, no mental element [*] by the accused is required.
Smith v Rankin (Scottish case)
Waryzynck (sp?) v CC Staffs,
Coombe v DPP (Coombe also suggested, although did leave it open for further litigation, that even although the signs were obscured, that did comply with the regulations (hence the statutory defebce was not invoked)).

[*] The exception being a restricted road via the street lights; still an absolute offence, and defective signs doesn'r help, but if the accused is misled by the defects, that may be a special reason for not endorsing (Burgess v West).

Edited by jeffreyarcher on Wednesday 6th August 12:42

Whether a sign is obscured is a fact to be established by the court.

Does a dead fly on the sign count as obscured? Well certainly that fly is not featured in TSRGD. Do ten thousand dead flies count? For the court to say.

Notice the peculiarity with repeaters is that if the first repeater in a series of 50 is missing then technically the signage is deficient for the whole length, even though you might be caught down by numbers 47-49, say. The court - where repeaters are concerned - tend to go for whether the signage was deficient where caught. Terminal signs are a different matter.

[londonbabe]

So have I got this right, you're saying that the 40 limit is indeed still unenforceable despite the change in the law because of the 1.1km gap between the 40 sign and the first 40 repeater?

[tvrgit]

londonbabe said:

So have I got this right, you're saying that the 40 limit is indeed still unenforceable despite the change in the law because of the 1.1km gap between the 40 sign and the first 40 repeater?

No you haven't.

There is nor specified distance for repeaters, merely a requirement that they must be at "regular intervals". So if one is missing but the rest are still regular, then the limit is probably still enforceable.

[jeffreyarcher]

londonbabe said:

So have I got this right, you're saying that the 40 limit is indeed still unenforceable despite the change in the law because of the 1.1km gap between the 40 sign and the first 40 repeater?

Neither I or 7db are saying that. As 7db has said, in the absence of specific authoriity, it would come down to the circumstances of the specific case, and how the accused was affected by any defect.
E.g, if you were caught 1Km in, i.e. there having been no repeaters (Mackereth v Madge) and, after three missing (as per the guidance), you would probably have (and should have) a very good chance. If you were caught down by repeater 50, 25 miles on, and only 1, 2 and 3 were missing, I think that you would have little chance (notwithstanding the unequivocal wording of Smith v Rankine (Scottish case (therefore not binding), and involved a missing terminal sign), which essentially said, inter alia, that subsequent (after the defect) good signing, did not overcome the defect).