20mph speed limit zones - Tunbridge Wells, Question re requirements for signage |
20mph speed limit zones - Tunbridge Wells, Question re requirements for signage |
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 08:48
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 143 Joined: 11 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,422 |
I'm not sure where best to post this - please move if necessary.
We recently received a telling-off letter from Kent Police following a speedwatch initiative in Tunbridge Wells, alleging our car had been clocked at 30mph in a 20mph speed zone. We were very surprised by this as we had literallly no idea the road in question was within a 20 mph zone, as we aren't local to the area. Further googling reveals that some pretty extensive 20mph speed zones have been rolled out in TW. In this instance, after driving the route this morning, I can see that there are (in my opinion) not very easily seen signs a little like the third sign on page 2 of this document: http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/UsefulRep...t_TAL-09-99.pdf. The signs are located as you turn into Silverdale Road here, though are not visible on Streetview as they are relatively recent: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1469379,0...3312!8i6656 The speedwatch team was located somewhere around here, after a number of junctions: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1412386,0...3312!8i6656 In this whole area, other than these fairly incongruous 'gateway' signs, which I've missed every single time I've turned in at this junction, there are no repeater signs, roundels on the road, traffic calming or any other indication whatsoever that this is a 20mph zone. Thankfully on this occasion there was no notice to prosecute, but I would like to think that there would be a good chance of contesting it if there had been. What are the esteemed contributors' views on the legality of this whole zone? Many thanks, |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 08:48
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 08:52
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
The signs are located as you turn into Silverdale Road here, though are not visible on Streetview as they are relatively recent: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1469379,0...3312!8i6656 So GSV of no use at all. Photos of signs would assist if you want comments about them. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 09:00
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 143 Joined: 11 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,422 |
If I can get pictures of the entrance signs I'll do so, but it won't be for another day or two. The point of the two GSV pics was intended to illustrate the extent of the zone. The entrance signs look exactly like those referred to in the referenced document.
My question is not so much around the entrance signs but the lack of any further prompts that the limit is 20. The whole area looks like a normal 30mph area. |
|
|
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 09:44
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
My question is not so much around the entrance signs but the lack of any further prompts that the limit is 20. The whole area looks like a normal 30mph area. Without repeaters then it's not so clear. Enforcement of such zones is not clear which is why the 'nice letter' approach is being used. (Although a 60mph measurement may been treated differently) Either repeaters, roundels or calming measures should self regulate but the updated 2016 TSGRD lowered the requirements and a court may need to consider whether the limit was adequately conveyed. Not a perfect situation imho. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 10:15
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 143 Joined: 11 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,422 |
Many thanks for that tip. Am I right in referring to page 182/3 of this document: http://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd-2016.pdf
This suggests, if I'm reading it correctly, that to be effective the speed zone must have a traffic calming feature at least every 50 metres...? If that's the case then the zone would definitely not be compliant. |
|
|
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 12:39
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
As a zone, such 'calming' features should prevent 20mph from being realistically exceeded. Without those features, personally, I think repeaters or roundels should be present - but the context is important, e.g. how far from the terminal signs.
Are you looking to respond to the letter? -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 13:40
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 143 Joined: 11 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,422 |
I am intending to respond, because I do think the 20 zone is very extensive and doesn't comply with the guidelines. The whole zone looks like a very normal built up area. Absolutely no repeaters or traffic calming of any description.
|
|
|
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 14:17
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
It will probably fall on deaf ears but you could make the point that the signage doesn't support their allegation. (That the terminal signs alone are not sufficient...)
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 14:20
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 143 Joined: 11 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,422 |
Thanks for the input!
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 09:10
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 143 Joined: 11 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,422 |
Just FYI, key bullet points of my interchange with the Speedwatch co-ordinator:
======= First email: I’ve recently received a notice of advice ... astonished this is a 20mph limit ... no compliant repeating signage / road furniture ... cites TSRGD 2016 ... appearance of a regular default 30mph zone ... zone legally & morally unenforceable ... why expect motorists comply with the rules if enforcing authority doesn’t bother to comply with the rules intended to communicate these restrictions ... please feed back to appropriate authorities. Response: Speedwatch is educational only ... no direct enforcement unless we have repeat offending ... Kent County Council Highways are responsible for the signage ... signage is required at the entry to the zone ... contact KCC Highways yourself. My follow-up: TSRGD 2016 is clear entry signage *alone* is insufficient ... repeat offending will continue as signage wholly non-compliant ... direct enforcement will fail ... if there was a genuine concern about speed & compliance it is well within your remit to take it up ... surprised you're not going to. ======= Clearly if someone is exceeds 30mph there probably wouldn't be a defence. But it does annoy me that these people seem to have no genuine interest doing things properly. |
|
|
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 12:53
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
It is true the Police aren't responsible for the signage. But obviously the signage has to be correct for them to enforce limits. But it's always someone else's problem isn't it?
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 22:11
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Virtually all these 20 mph zones are political and have no basis on road safety, other than if speed is NIL, no accidents can occur so lets try to get to zero !. A lot of police forces oppose these limits because they are essentially unenforceable because everybody breaks them, and usually at well over the CPSO guidelines, as this is 10% plus 2 mph so anything over 23 is a NIP. Yes it is totally stupid and driven by the Blob.
Having said the above, I can think of several places in and around where I live where a 20 mph limited zone might be a good thing, but speeds are on that level already, so one could say it would be pointless anyway. The plain fact is that we have got to a state of complete insanity in central and local government on speed limits. The real problem is the level of traffic. In the horse age there were fatal road accidents, and it is mendacious to push for nil accidents.We are human and accidents will occur, even with self-driving cars. Just look at a film of pre-WW1 Market Street in Manchester. People commonly walked out in front of moving traffic and occasionally got knocked-down or killed. We need to deal with excessive traffic in places that can't handle it,but this means spending real money as the Buchanan Report pointed out 45 year ago. |
|
|
Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 06:19
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 109 Joined: 18 Sep 2017 Member No.: 94,099 |
The key point you would need to make is not the legality of the signs but that the signs that were there did not provide drivers with adequate guidance.
The new sign regulations allow hardly any signs to be erected, something you have experienced by the look of it, so challenging the signs that are there is futile. Saying that you acknowledge there are signs but you were not properly guided by them is likely to be more successful. This post has been edited by superSmiffy: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 06:19 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:09 |