my OH recently received a speeding ticket dated 1st of January

after inspecting the site a second time together we found unclear signage leading up to the fixed camera in a 20mph zone

we want to dispute the charge on the grounds of insufficient signage and because she had exited a junction on to the main road which she then reasonably assumed was a 30mph zone

so, what we need to know is;
what is the legal standing?
is it reasonable to assume a 30mph speed limit when exiting a side road of an estate?
or should one assume a continuation of the 20mph speed limit?

my OH assumed the speed limit was 30 as there were no clear indicators or signs to say otherwise (you can see from the image attatched the '20' in the road had been partly tarmac'd over and NO signs were between the junction she left and the fixed camera. -

also, the next junction on the right after she turned right had 20 signs at the end, indicating (to my mind) that this road was a different speed limit...

doesn't one assume a 30mph speed limit when driving on main road with no signage? even if the side road before had been a 20?

thanks in advance for any help
Ember

OK. thanks. the distance from last 20 to fixed camera is 320m

The references to TSRGD 2016 are important here. The law hasn't changed, S85 of the RTRA 1984 mandates that drivers are given "adequate guidance" of limits.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/85

The changes to TSRGD removed many of the rules about minimum speed limit signage and so adequate guidance is now much more open for a court to decide. Gone are the days when one missing sign could make an entire limit unenforceable.

Your wife's contention of course is that there wasn't adequate guidance which is why she wasn't aware of the correct limit. As others have said you need to get away from the junction, probably most roads don't have a limit change at the junction and so there is no reason to assume the limit change would be there. It would only be useful if the road changed significantly in character to the point drivers needed greater guidance of the limit.

Effectively what you need to do is video the journey your wife made and get independent advice on here or elsewhere as to whether they believe there was adequate guidance to a careful and competent driver that it was a 20mph limit. Without being rude your are quite rightly biased in your wife's favour but ultimately you would have to convince some dispassionate magistrates that your wife didn't have adequate guidance of the limit as well.

As others have said the risk of failure is high, an income related fine + points + £620 costs + victim's surcharge. So tempting as it is to prove a point you want to be confident of your chances of success to plead not guilty.

I hope that doesn't sound too downbeat. When I used to work as a manager for a large supermarket I always used to tell staff that if someone complained something was misleading there was zero point arguing about it even if it was very clear when you went and checked as once someone thinks they have been mislead they will never admit it isn't misleading. You need to check you're not in that camp.

I would say that the road DID change quite significantly in character - tho like you say I'm biased - but Leighton Rd is an estate with lots of cars parked at the sides and no white lines in the middle, whereas Lansdown Ln is a typical 'A' road in appearance; white lines, other signs, etc...



yep. already video'd the journey. will share it as soon as it's uploaded..



yes.. have been and will continue to check on that.. thanks

The trouble is that you (or rather your OH) set out your stall with an unreasonable (or incorrect) assumption:



The plain answer, as has been explained, is that, whether reasonable or not, such an assumption is incorrect. From the circumstances you describe your OH passed no sign indicating that the 20mph limit had changed and so should have assumed it remained the same.

The constructive advice you have received is the best than can be offered. Your OH's choice is clear: she will almost certainly be offered either a course or a fixed penalty. The first will cost her a little under £100 and half a day of her time; the second will cost her £100 and three points. Alternatively she can plead Not Guilty in court. I doubt very much she'd be acquitted and the cost of failure can quite easily approach four figures,. The minimum the CPS will ask for in costs is around £350 and, as mentioned, it could be as much as £620. It will also cost her half a week's net income by way of a fine and a surcharge of 10% of the fine (minimum £30). I know what choice I would make.

So to summarise - approached from North on Lansdown Lane and entered the 20mph here, passed one repeater. Turned right into Leighton Road, passed another repeater.

Stop 5 mins - return journey. Streetview (SV) is 2012 prior to 20mph limit so can't check if repeaters are present. (Otherwise, being a restricted road by virtue of the system of street lighting one can presume it's 30mph if there are not signs to the contrary - notwithstanding the 20mph limit was passed on the approach earlier, is one expected to remember?) Were there any 20mph repeaters on the Leighton Road eastbound?

SV is also not up to date for the camera. The roundels on the road are readable though then.

I still think it's going to be difficult - more so if one admits to have entered the 20mph area only 5 minutes prior. But equally there's an argument that starting the journey within the zone without any repeaters may not have adequately conveyed the limit and the 30mph limit was a reasonable assumption. (Which is why I asked what the alleged speed was because if it was 31+ this would obviously counter any argument)

It's still a risk at court. Worth rejecting the inevitable SAC/FP offer? (If points are critical, e.g. totting then perhaps, but a large bill of say £500-800 is not impossible - still only 3 points though)

I have just read through the thread and I have some sympathy because I think the signing in Lansdown Lane is poor, although Streetview may not be up to date, and I think you have cropped the photo of the damaged road marking to remove the road marking on the other side of the road. However, against that she knew she was in a 20mph limit when she was in Lansdown Lane initially, she turned off it and came back on to it 5 minutes or so later, so it is not correct to say it was a new road to her. But the fundamental point is that she knew she was in a 20mph limit when she was at her destination, when she made her way back to Lansdown Road she passed no terminal signs to indicate the limit had changed, so it was unreasonable to assume it had. I cannot see a court deciding otherwise, and unless 3 points would make her a totter, my advice would be to accept the course or fixed penalty she will be offered. Going to court is liable to prove expensive, as explained above, and not a particularly pleasant experience for her anyway.

video of journey

regarding the issue of my OH 'knowing she was returning to Lansdown Ln', well to her it *was* a new road, she was not aware she was returning anywhere as she doesn't have a great intuition of direction and location and was just following the satnav.

so as far as she was concerned this was an entirely new route and hence the road she came to seemed to be a 30 limit...



i haven't cropped the photo, but why would one be watching the markings on the other side of the road? the plain fact is that for her second journey (which was new to her - she didn't know she was 'returning' to Lansdown Ln - there was a single small 20 sign, then 320m of no signage before the speed camera, at which time she was traveling 30. she is a careful and conscientious driver and would not have been traveling 30 if it had been plainly signed otherwise.

What speed limit did the sat nav show?

Passing the 20 repeater doesn't assist but I agree the limit could be signed better. But that doesn't necessarily give a clear cut defence. Many camera sites have a limit sign shortly before the camera. The roundel at the junction too could be taken to assist in the adequacy.

If it is taken to court make sure the correct arguments are used - trying the assuming a new limit at the junction isn't a good idea.

I think you *might* persuade a sympathetic bench, providing you're willing to take the risk. A course, if it is offered, might be a more pragmatic option.

I thought that to be enforceable no part of the 20 zone could be more than 50 metres from a repeater sign, rounded or physical calming device?

Is this just a myth?

Is it Also worth checking that the tro is in order?

I did not say it was plainly signed, I said it was poorly signed. OK you have not cropped the photo but you have a very unusual camera that takes a tall narrow picture that happens not to show both sides of the road. One might notice the other side of the road when one came to a partially obliterated road marking and wondered what limit it was showing. As for not remembering she had travelled down a road five minutes earlier, what can I say? Her sat-nav would of course be telling her the name of the road.



But we can now see from the video that road was after the camera.

You seem want us simply to agree with you that she has a good case to take to court, and I am afraid I think it is a very weak case, I do not say a hopeless case, but a very weak one. Personally, I would convict her. You may not really want advice but mine would be not to subject your other half to a court case which she is likely to lose and would then be very costly.

Isn't that how all camera phones take pictures?

If the prevailing limit for the beginning of that journey was 20mph (which you do not seem to dispute), where do you suggest it changed to 30mph and why? That is a question a trial Bench may ask itself.

The only possible defence I can see is that I understood (though may be wrong) that unless "traffic calming" measures are present, then "20" repeaters are necessary. I'm not sure about that, but even if I was, I don't think I'd risk a trial on that basis. If it was the case it would jeopardise all prosecutions in that area and I believe somebody might have picked up on it by now.

A zone requires traffic calming measures (repeaters not required). A limit needs to be signed as normal.

So does "signed as normal" involve repeaters?

Yes.

as one of the following commenters points out - this is how most phones take pictures..

it may seem perfectly logical to you, and I too remember very easily and well which direction i came from and what road I was on. my OH however does not have that mental gift (many people don't and it is not reasonable to assume they do). it was early on new years day and the estate had a number of turns she did not store to eidetic (vulcan?) memory


what road was after the camera?


that's a big assumption there. i have not stated that implicitly OR explicitly. what i HAVE asked for is helpful and constructive advice, ie, specifics on the statutes and civil interaction.. I want to know if there are reasonable grounds - in the eyes of the law - to dispute this.. many have aired their doubts and that is perfectly fair, reasonable and even welcome... you are also entitled to make assumptions as long as you check them, and here i am checking yours - i do not simply want you all to agree with me, so thank you for your input, but you need not repeat your doubts again



i suggest it would change when joining the Lansdown Ln which differs quite strongly in 'character' from Leighton Rd (white central lines, bus stop areas, etc). who is to say that the lack of signs on that road between the junction and the camera was not an indicator of a general lack of signage, in the event of inadequate signage one assumes 30... 320m without repeaters..

no traffic calming, no repeaters. broken roundel in the road (and not everyone can easily and quickly read numbers upside-down.. are we expected to as part of the highway code?)

i'm just trying to get to the core of this - not trying to be funny..




thank you. i'm not trying to make things up or get anyone to 'agree with me' i just want to get to the facts of this - either way... and with co-operation it seems possible

This post has been edited by catrisit: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 01:57

If you turn your phone through 90 degrees most phones take a landscape picture just fine, if you just hold it upright like so many YouTube numpties it stays in portrait, they are smart phones but not bright enough to know when you should use Landscape.

Repeaters are needed but not every 50m, in fact in 20mph zones the traffic calming should be circa every 100m, so circa 100m is the shortest which would generate any form of a defence at all.

How far is it from the road junction to the camera?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 07:12

From the junction to the camera is around 230 metres. (OP mentioned this earlier)

Some of the reasoning behind the specifics in previous TSGRD's being relaxed was because of the cost and complexity of installing large swathes of signs to reduce a limit (to 20mph generally). This will inevitably lead to cases such as this and there are a number of known hot spots that do feature on here from time to time (Some London boroughs and particularly Gunnersbury Avenue for example). The number of repeaters in Leighton Road seems testament to this... Personally, I think there should be have been a repeater on Lansdown Road prior to the camera but this is not mandated. The onus has swung a little to the motorist that they should be expecting such limits and paying appropriate attention.

Previously the recommended distance between repeaters was specified for each limit. Not that failing this was an instant defence but helped considerably as it was objective rather than subjective.

Now this is the situation - there's no killer point identified so far to significantly increase the chances at court. As the bench will have to decide subjectively whether the limit was reasonably conveyed and they can consider those upside down roundels. But if a court defence is attempted it's about the presentation. Like I said earlier if the (false) assertion that turning at the junction somehow nulls the 20mph then I would suggest they'll convict.

Might be worth checking the TRO but I would be surprised if there was anything that assists.

We can't say whether it's worth taking to court or not - unfortunately, there is the risk of a large costs bill which makes these harder to challenge. At least you know the parameters before deciding.


This is a limit, not a zone. Zones are 'self enforcing' by a series of different characteristics such as humps, narrowed lanes, chicanes etc.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 09:22