PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP for 29mph in 20mph VSL on M5
Based on the video, what do you think?
Is it reasonable that I got a NIP for this?
Yes [ 16 ] ** [30.77%]
No [ 8 ] ** [15.38%]
That's irrelevant, it was the speed limit [ 28 ] ** [53.85%]
Total Votes: 49
Guests cannot vote 
rartiger
post Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 23:03
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 24 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,194



Hi everyone,

I've just received a NIP for passing the first and only 20mph variable speed limit sign on the M5 at 29mph. The road was clear, visibility was perfect, the road well lit, there was no traffic, but there were 3 well signed and fully coned and lit lane closures coming into effect. The speed limit had reduced from 60, to 40, then to 20, although the next sign showing 40 was already visible. I was surprised by the 20mph limit as given perfect visibility I could see there was no issue in the road ahead (and to be honest I didn't know it was possible to have a 20mph on the motorway), but sought to slow down gradually from 40mph. Essentially as soon as I saw the sign I clicked my adaptive cruise control down to 20mph and let it gradually slow down. The HADECS3 camera was enforcing at the exact point of the change in speed limit and at that point I had apparently only got down to 29mph. In surprise at seeing the flash I then instinctively braked to slow down to well below 20mph. Bizarrely the speed limit then increased again as I approach the traffic lighted junction, which was busier and more dangerous than the 20mph limit section.

See it for yourself from my dash cam: https://youtu.be/FBBllqt_BkY (you'll notice that my big failure was not seeing that the car ahead had been caught by the speed camera and responding accordingly - but that was harder to see in real life than in the video!)

Up to now I have a totally clean record and always obey the speed limit and so am feeling extremely bruised by this. I accept that I could have braked to slow down more to the 20mph limit rather than coasting down with the brake pedal covered, but do not feel what I did was in any way dangerous and that both the speed limit and the extremely aggressive application of it was extremely unusual and more than a little unreasonable.

Do you think I stand any hope of fighting this? I feel rather hard done by that being caught doing 29mph in a 20mph limit implies I was driving fast or dangerously near a school or something, when in fact I was driving safely on a pretty empty M5. It'll cost me on my insurance for years I assume.

I can't find any reference to 20mph speed limits that isn't close to schools or in very urban areas, but presumably there is at least some governance and guidance on the setting of variable speed limits to prevent them just being used as a blatant cash raising scheme? So the person setting the limit must have some solid safety or congestion justification for the 20mph limit being in force?

Grateful for views - including on whether the limit itself appears reasonable and whether i am wrong to believe that I was driving safely given the video.

If I can't fight this, I can only assume that the expected behaviour is to always brake immediately you see a change in VSL to ensure you never ever pass the first sign above the speed limit - even in busy environments where this feels less comfortable given traffic behind. But I'm not sure anybody drives like that in reality - when I have obeyed 40mph VSLs on the M25 in the past I've always been terrified by every lane of traffic smashing past at 80mph.

Thanks for your insights,

rartiger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 23:03
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 01:49
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,600
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (rartiger @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 00:03) *
Do you think I stand any hope of fighting this? I feel rather hard done by that being caught doing 29mph in a 20mph limit implies I was driving fast or dangerously near a school or something, when in fact I was driving safely on a pretty empty M5. It'll cost me on my insurance for years I assume.
Your best course of action is to contact the Regional Control Centre for that section of motorway and ask them to confirm that the speed limit was correctly set. If they say the speed limit was correct, your chances of fighting this appear low. If on the other hand they confirm the speed limit was incorrectly set, the prosecution should get dropped.

QUOTE (rartiger @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 00:03) *
Grateful for views - including on whether the limit itself appears reasonable and whether i am wrong to believe that I was driving safely given the video.
Whether you were driving safely or not is totally irrelevant I'm afraid

QUOTE (rartiger @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 00:03) *
If I can't fight this, I can only assume that the expected behaviour is to always brake immediately you see a change in VSL
You are expected to pass every speed limit sign (whether variable or not) while travelling at or below the posted limit, this is nothing new.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 04:45
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,414
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I find it strange how people often comment about braking for VSL changes, yet there are lots of roads I drive on where I have to brake for new speed limits as the visibility distance for the signs is shorter than the coast down distance from the speed I'm doing. Yes if you have to brake so as not to break the law, you are supposed to brake.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redtech
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 06:33
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 23 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,182



What time of day was this ??

I was caught by the same 20mph camera

However the previous signs that show 60 and 40 in your video had been raised to NSP(off) and 50 in my video this was 1.15am Sunday morning
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 07:04
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



Stand and deliver...........
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 07:51
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,792
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (fedup2 @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 08:04) *
Stand and deliver...........

Indeed, but unlike Redtech's incident the camera's produced a gradual slowdown in relation to the closed road. 20mph feels unbelievably painfully slow in such conditions but the camera has no discretion.

In the present case I cannot see any defence. An awareness course should result to at least avoid the points.


--------------------
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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rartiger
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 08:15
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 24 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,194



Thanks for the views. A few further thoughts.

QUOTE
Whether you were driving safely or not is totally irrelevant I'm afraid

I agree and acknowledge this, but my fundamental belief is that all speed limits (and all rules of the road) exist for a purpose - safety. So if the consensus was that I'd missed something and was actually driving unsafely for some reason, that would be helpful and I'd learn something to make me a better driver. I agree it has no relevance to the alleged offence here.

QUOTE
I find it strange how people often comment about braking for VSL changes, yet there are lots of roads I drive on where I have to brake for new speed limits as the visibility distance for the signs is shorter than the coast down distance from the speed I'm doing. Yes if you have to brake so as not to break the law, you are supposed to brake.

I agree with this too but there must be some variation for different circumstances. Where I live you come off a 70mph dual carriageway and 100 metres onto the slip road it becomes a 30 limit. There's a blind crest and you go straight into town - I always brake firmly to be at or below the 30mph speed limit, and would for any fixed speed limit. With visibility in the hundreds of metres, this *felt* different although I acknowledge that the law is the same. The reality is that I imagine the police have NIPd 98% of drivers who passed this sign.

I think my overriding confusion here is that changing a permanent speed limit is very well governed in this country - there is immense guidance for authorities on taking into account accidents, risk etc. There's even a tool to help you calculate them. (Setting Local Speed Limits) However, it seems for variable speed limit there is no governance on the setting of the limit other than the "credible and appropriate" wording in the guidance (http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/s...0Operations.pdf).

My aim in asking the question about whether it was reasonable to be fined was an attempt to understand whether this speed limit met the "credible and appropriate" definition for people. Redtach's post suggests that this 20mph limit was in force for at least 5 hours, as I passed the sign at about 8.30pm. Given the conditions that still feels a deeply inappropriate speed limit limit to me.

Overall the position seems to be:
1. Nobody's identified that I'd missed anything about conditions to suggest that I drove unsafely.
2. I did break the law and unlike almost all other law there is basically no recourse even if it seems manifestly inappropriate for a 20mph speed limit to be in force in this instance.
3. Thinking about the "credible and appropriate" guidance is a waste of time, I don't stand any hope unless they'll admit to a mistake.

Sounds like I need to suck it up, which is a shame. As someone who works in Whitehall making new laws every day, I think the variable speed limit system needs some more checks and balances to work effectively.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superSmiffy
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 08:30
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 18 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,099



The video shows that you were above the indicated speed limit at every sign other than the last 40mph sign where you were slowing for the traffic lights on the slip road.

At the start of the video you are driving at a speed that was in excess of the NSL (70).

It can be seen that you attempted to comply with the illuminated speed limits but did so well after they were indicated to you. For instance you drove 450m past the 60mph sign before you were below 60mph. It took 990m before you averaged less than 40mph in the 40 limit. You didn't achieve the required speed in the 20 limit.

So is it reasonable that you got a NIP for this?
I think it is. While you make an attempt to comply with the limits you do so at an unreasonable time and distance in relation to where the limits are indicated. The speed limit was posted for a good reason, 3 lanes reducing to 0 lanes and at 33 seconds in your video you can see a car stopped in the hard shoulder, probably broken down. All traffic is being forced off the motorway at the junction.

Is the speed limit reasonable?
Being someone who works on the road network with only a few cones and a tentative hope that drivers will take reasonable notice of traffic signs and regulations; that is a very thin protective line from a vehicle careering towards you as you as you carry out your work. Your obvious ire at being caught in breech of the traffic regulations because you seem to have put your own conditions on whether you take note of them and when indicate that you are probably in need of some education in your driving. Putting up a poll on the Internet and having a rant about a ticket given because you operate your own rules of the road makes you the perfect candidate for retraining.

Do the authorities operate speed limits and their enforcement as a "blatant cash raising scheme"?
While the fine revenue goes directly to the treasury with no direct route to return them to the authorities who have spent their budget enforcing the limits this is a silly claim. Why would Highways England and the Police spend £millions to raise money for the treasury when the treasury seem to be cutting the budgets to both? Does that make sense? No it doesn't. Some money can be reclaimed if drivers choose to go to a retraining course but does that cover the £100's millions and what is the risk involved in that for both? Very high I should say.

It should be in the knowledge of every driver that the speed limit applies as soon as the sign is reached, not 100's of metres after the sign is passed. Well done to you for making an attempt at complying, you almost did, but too late in every case. Well! I say that, you did comply with the last 40 limit but that was presumably because you were applying the same rule and accelerated to 40 from 20 some 100's of metres after the sign. I think not, it was because you were coming to a stop at the traffic lights.

As you invited open comments I do hope this has been of some use to you. As you can see a video is very informative. wink.gif

Edited to add: The vote doesn't seem to be going the way you thought it might.

QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 08:51) *
QUOTE (fedup2 @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 08:04) *
Stand and deliver...........

Indeed, but unlike Redtech's incident the camera's produced a gradual slowdown in relation to the closed road. 20mph feels unbelievably painfully slow in such conditions but the camera has no discretion.

In the present case I cannot see any defence. An awareness course should result to at least avoid the points.

It will have at least 3mph discretion triggering at 24mph probably. This event was 29mph.

This post has been edited by superSmiffy: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 08:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 08:41
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,792
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 09:30) *
It will have at least 3mph discretion triggering at 24mph probably. This event was 29mph.

The tolerance would be +10%+2, so would flash at 24mph indeed. But no discretion as to the circumstances described.


--------------------
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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 09:13
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



As its been said its only fair that its corrected!

"Do the authorities operate speed limits and their enforcement as a "blatant cash raising scheme"?
While the fine revenue goes directly to the treasury with no direct route to return them to the authorities who have spent their budget enforcing the limits this is a silly claim. Why would Highways England and the Police spend £millions to raise money for the treasury when the treasury seem to be cutting the budgets to both? Does that make sense? No it doesn't. Some money can be reclaimed if drivers choose to go to a retraining course but does that cover the £100's millions and what is the risk involved in that for both? Very high I should say. "

A very high percentage of drivers who have strayed over the limit have ended up on courses.We know that Private company's have been setup up to provide these courses and anyone who thinks it isnt profit driven lives in cookoo land.
Theres course cost about 100 a pop seat 26 drivers x 2 courses a day at each venue.Work that out over the week,then year then venues.Id love a business as lucrative.
Then we started with speeding courses,but thats evolving as qualifying drivers wernt running high enough so the courses have evolved.There is even courses now for motorway 'speeders' which means 'normal' speeders can qualify even if they have sat one of the others.Was it 5 different courses now even im losing track,i think there was one for nose picking.
so if you owned one of these partnerships/course company's its fair to say you would want to maximize profits,unless you think they do it for love?
Confusion and unrealistic limits is being used.Time after time we see 'smart' motorways with stupid limits,limits that go up and down for no apparent reason whatsoever.Limits that come on in a morning just before rush hour by default and then tell you its because of congestion when infact the only thing causing it,if its there at all is the signs themselves.
Now dont get me wrong,im all for improving driver standards,but in most cases of speed strayers there was nothing to improve and even if there was the courses dont work.If they did then we wouldnt see so many repeat offenders and the insurance company's would recognize newly 'trained' drivers to be 'safer'

The real fact is is a money making exercise that is not only NOT improving safety but has lowered the standards directly.Bear in mind that most accidents are NOT caused by 'speeders' at all but them that cant even seem to reach it.

Being a money making racket isnt what gets my goat the most its,the massive amount of familys torn apart when they lose their licence for trivialitys. Nobody ever talks about the costs of that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-33...ss-courses.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-33...ed-cameras.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/617990/Ol...eputy-Transport

This post has been edited by fedup2: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 09:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 09:18
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,414
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Wikepdia no longer accepts the daily wail as a reference source due to its frequent inaccuracies and neither do I!


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superSmiffy
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 09:24
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 18 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,099



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 10:04) *
QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 10:01) *
The discretion being the 3mph before the 24mph was reached.

I'm talking about a different kind of discretion that the camera cannot apply. The threshold before triggering is what it is.

...and I acknowledge that. Cameras do not apply discretion and speed limit enforcement with automatic unattended cameras as a traffic management tool has a numerical discretion. What it doesn't have is "no discretion".

If this section of road works was enforced by a mobile unit then the operator could look at the circumstances and apply other discretion. The problem with that is the limits will not be adhered to and traffic management will be at risk of failure is drivers know they can defy the limit when the conditions allow.

There are 2300 miles of motorway and 5300 miles of trunk roads in the UK. Quite a lot of it seems to be undergoing some form of works at the moment, I speculate smile.gif, why would the authorities deploy human assessors of conditions every few miles that will give motorists a chance when it is simpler to expect them to do what they are told. Loads of petrolheads on web forums reckon they would stick to the speed limits if there were more real traffic police on the roads; why? If you would do it when there was a cop there why not do it anyway, especially if there is a risk you will be caught speeding. Come-on, everyone who drives the motorways knows that the speed cameras work...don't they?

So is it reasonable to expect the sort of discretion you suggest is reasonable. I can't really see why there should be anything more than the numerical discretion because to supply the discretion you suggest is not practical, possible and is therefore certainly not reasonable.

If you can come up with a way of making it reasonable on 2300 miles of motorway 356/24/7 for every motorist who applies their own conditions to the applicability of a speed limit then go-ahead; I and thousands of colleagues await your wisdom.

QUOTE (fedup2 @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 10:13) *
As its been said its only fair that its corrected!

"Do the authorities operate speed limits and their enforcement as a "blatant cash raising scheme"?
While the fine revenue goes directly to the treasury with no direct route to return them to the authorities who have spent their budget enforcing the limits this is a silly claim. Why would Highways England and the Police spend £millions to raise money for the treasury when the treasury seem to be cutting the budgets to both? Does that make sense? No it doesn't. Some money can be reclaimed if drivers choose to go to a retraining course but does that cover the £100's millions and what is the risk involved in that for both? Very high I should say. "

A very high percentage of drivers who have strayed over the limit have ended up on courses.We know that Private company's have been setup up to provide these courses and anyone who thinks it isnt profit driven lives in cookoo land.
Theres course cost about 100 a pop seat 26 drivers x 2 courses a day at each venue.Work that out over the week,then year then venues.Id love a business as lucrative.
Then we started with speeding courses,but thats evolving as qualifying drivers wernt running high enough so the courses have evolved.There is even courses now for motorway 'speeders' which means 'normal' speeders can qualify even if they have sat one of the others.Was it 5 different courses now even im losing track,i think there was one for nose picking.
so if you owned one of these partnerships/course company's its fair to say you would want to maximize profits,unless you think they do it for love?
Confusion and unrealistic limits is being used.Time after time we see 'smart' motorways with stupid limits,limits that go up and down for no apparent reason whatsoever.Limits that come on in a morning just before rush hour by default and then tell you its because of congestion when infact the only thing causing it,if its there at all is the signs themselves.
Now dont get me wrong,im all for improving driver standards,but in most cases of speed strayers there was nothing to improve and even if there was the courses dont work.If they did then we wouldnt see so many repeat offenders and the insurance company's would recognize newly 'trained' drivers to be 'safer'

The real fact is is a money making exercise that is not only NOT improving safety but has lowered the standards directly.Bear in mind that most accidents are NOT caused by 'speeders' at all but them that cant even seem to reach it.

Being a money making racket isnt what gets my goat the most its,the massive amount of familys torn apart when they lose their licence for trivialitys. Nobody ever talks about the costs of that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-33...ss-courses.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-33...ed-cameras.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/617990/Ol...eputy-Transport

What a shame all of your references are from the media and all of it bollocks. Hey-ho.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 10:18) *
Wikepdia no longer accepts the daily wail as a reference source due to its frequent inaccuracies and neither do I!

Very wise. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 09:25
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,792
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



I'm actually agreeing with you - I'm not suggesting otherwise. Which links back to the OP's assertion about 'driving safely' - yes, I'm sure they were but that's the legal test.


--------------------
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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 09:40
Post #14


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,112
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



Enough. If you want to debate speed limits and enforcement policy there are other sections of the forums set up for that purpose - don'tl clog up the active cases section with it.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 09:57
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,600
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (rartiger @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 09:15) *
My aim in asking the question about whether it was reasonable to be fined was an attempt to understand whether this speed limit met the "credible and appropriate" definition for people. Redtach's post suggests that this 20mph limit was in force for at least 5 hours, as I passed the sign at about 8.30pm. Given the conditions that still feels a deeply inappropriate speed limit limit to me.


If the limit was correctly posted, then it is perfectly reasonable to enforce it. You seem to feel quite strongly that the speed limit was unreasonable and not within the "credible and appropriate" guidelines. So you need to contact the RCC and confirm with them whether they feel the speed limit posted at the time was correct. They might say "Oops, that wasn't meant to be there for so long" and that would result in the prosecution being dropped, or they might say the speed limit was there for safety reasons and you should have complied with it (you're generally entitled to written reasons for the decision of a public body so you'll be able to see what factors they took into account when making the decision).

In the latter scenario, if you still feel the decision was unreasonable, you'll have to take the matter to judicial review to get the decision to maintain a speed limit of 20mph at the material time quashed as unlawful. This is a difficult, expensive route but it is nonetheless the only legal route open to you if you feel the speed limit was wrong as a matter of law. But as a rule of thumb you would need to show the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker would make it (i.e. no reasonable person working in the RCC would ever lower the speed limit to 20mph in the circumstances of the case).

Once you have the RCC's response, you'll know where you stand.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trax
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 18:56
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 28 Oct 2016
Member No.: 88,081



Its not really hard to see the Gatso's on the gantry. If you are driving in unknown territory, why don't you use Waze? Its free, and you know which gantries are OK to drive through at a 'safe' speed, and which to slow down at before speeding up again to a 'safe' speed.

Note I use the term 'safe' speed, as opposed to drive like a loony, not that you were though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rartiger
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 19:23
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 24 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,194



@SuperSmiffy

Thanks for the challenging view, which I appreciate and has made me really think about it. I am not sure how you calculated your figures, but they surprised me a lot. Obviously I was focusing on the road more than speed, so can't say whether I believe they are accurate - and wasn't calculating an average in the 40mph in my head at all! The two I would challenge are that I was breaking the NSL at the start - when I know for certain the cruise control was set to 70mph exactly as it always is (although it does waver by a few mph here and there when applying it), and that I never got below the 20mph - I know for certain that my dashboard indicated 17 mph when I looked at it in that section.

What I have learned from this and you reply is that my approach, which I previously felt sensible and pragmatic, of responding to a change in VMSL by immediately clicking my adaptive cruise control down to the new speed limit and concentrating on the road ahead is not good enough. Whilst it does ensure I never break the speed limit once I've got down to the speed set, saves fuel and gives a smoother ride and traffic impact, it does not guarantee abiding by the letter of the law. I had never heard of enforcement at the exact point a limit came into force, but in future I will always brake whenever necessary to never pass any VMSL sign above the indicated limit.

@cp8759

Thanks for the guidance on the way forward. I do feel strongly that a 20mph limit on a motorway should have a very high bar to be used. It is less than a third of the usual speed limit - indicating very seriously different conditions, presumably requiring you to stop within 12 metres. As superSmiffy points out, when there are people in the road, especially on a motorway, that makes sense.

My experience is that VMSLs are very often utterly disregarded by the majority, so to be a success in influencing safety and behaviour they need to be believable - part of my issue here was I paused to make sure I hadn't misread the sign as I was so surprised to see 20. The guidance gives the example of an oncoming vehicle in the wrong direction requiring a 20mph limit. Personally I think 20mph would be too fast in that instance! If I had been passing an accident investigation I absolutely think 20 or lower would be appropriate, and I found it odd that the 20 was showing in lanes that were closed - and that also made me pause to wonder if it was a mistake, ultimately affecting how quickly I slowed down.

One final question - do you have any advice on how one actually goes about contacting the RCC to ask whether the limit was correctly set in accordance with the guidance? The letter I have received has no contact details of any kind, for anyone including the police. I have searched for some time but not been able to find it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 11:41
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 271
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



Have you considered a Freedom of Information request for the following information timed from ***** to ***** on ** September 2017 regarding all variable speed cameras between M5 J16 and J17. I would suggest that you make it reasonably wider than required to help establish the facts:

- A copy of the data logs containing all signal settings on gantries.
- A copy of the data logs containing all gantry faults relayed to the service manager.
- Respective gantry identifiers and if this differs from what the gantry in question displayed, please also include what was displayed.

Examples:

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url...lt%2520logs.xls
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url...ng%2520logs.xls

FOI email address: info@highwaysengland.co.uk

Highways England Customer Contact Centre
Highways England Company Limited
Bridge House,
1 Walnut Tree Close
Guildford
GU1 4LZ

Customer Contact Centre - 0300 123 5000
Switchboard - 0845 9 55 65 75

Area Office

Temple Quay House
2 The Square,
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6HA
Switchboard - 0845 9 55 65 75
Direct Dial - 0300 470 + Ext

Asset Support Contractor - Somerset, Avon, Wiltshire & Gloucestershire (Area 2)

Skanska
Unit 2
St. Brendan’s Court
Bristow Broadway
Avonmouth
Bristo
BS11 9FB
Tel: 0845 600 9993
Email: area2.ncc@skanska.co.uk
Asset Delivery Manager - Rachel Nichols Tel: 0300 470 4243


--------------------
As there is nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 20:33
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,600
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 12:41) *
Have you considered a Freedom of Information request for the following information timed from ***** to ***** on ** September 2017 regarding all variable speed cameras between M5 J16 and J17. I would suggest that you make it reasonably wider than required to help establish the facts:

- A copy of the data logs containing all signal settings on gantries.
- A copy of the data logs containing all gantry faults relayed to the service manager.
- Respective gantry identifiers and if this differs from what the gantry in question displayed, please also include what was displayed.


In addition to the above, make sure you ask for written reasons explaining why the speed limits were set to the level they were set to, if you're looking to challenge the lawfulness of the decision (to implement a set speed limit) the reasons are absolutely crucial.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
morrisman
post Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 20:37
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,668



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 21:33) *
In addition to the above, make sure you ask for written reasons explaining why the speed limits were set to the level they were set to, if you're looking to challenge the lawfulness of the decision (to implement a set speed limit) the reasons are absolutely crucial.


In what way does the decision to reduce the speed limit have to be 'lawful', what would lead to a reduction in the speed limit being unlawful?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 19th September 2018 - 00:19
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.