PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Repeater intervals
Motorist12
post Wed, 18 Jan 2023 - 21:18
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 18 Jan 2023
Member No.: 118,896



Firstly, may I say I am new to this forum so hello, I do hope I am posting this in the right place. I have tried my best to search for an answer to my question on this forum and beyond however I keep getting differing answers, so I thought I would put it to everyone to offer their thoughts.

Attached is a diagram of a 30mph gateway (right hand side) however, immediately prior to it (62m) there is a 40 repeater sign, now I know this sounds like a large distance, but when you see a photo and drive past these signs, they may as-well be on top of each other.

My question is this, is there a minimum distance that a repeater sign has to be away from a following gateway in order to not be misleading?

If I have posted this in the wrong place or you would like me to better word the question then I am all ears.

Thank you in advance.

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 47)
Advertisement
post Wed, 18 Jan 2023 - 21:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 09:14
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 08:50) *
QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 08:26) *
You have to present your case to the court beforehand

The hearing has already happened!

Point still stands though.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 09:38
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 08:50) *
I still think in law the OP was guilty

A couple of hundred metres into a restricted road is pushing it imho. But we don't have all the facts.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Motorist12
post Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 14:36
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 18 Jan 2023
Member No.: 118,896



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 09:38) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 08:50) *
I still think in law the OP was guilty

A couple of hundred metres into a restricted road is pushing it imho. But we don't have all the facts.


I have tried my best to present all the facts that I am able, for simplicity, if you consider the signs totally obscured, then it is signposted correctly for a 40 limit where a section is lit. This was upheld in court and ultimately I was acquitted.



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 29 Jan 2023 - 20:12) *
QUOTE (Motorist12 @ Sun, 29 Jan 2023 - 17:42) *
Most of whom were probably innocent, I doubt they will get a refund and their licences/lives back.

I didn't realise the death penalty was a punishment for speeding, seems a little harsh.


My apologies, people's 'livelihoods' may be a more appropriate term.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 15:10
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Did the prosecutor raise the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984?
QUOTE
(5)In any proceedings for a contravention of section 81 of this Act, where the proceedings relate to driving on a road provided with [F11such a system of street or carriageway lighting] , evidence of the absence of traffic signs displayed in pursuance of this section to indicate that the road is not a restricted road for the purposes of that section shall be evidence that the road is a restricted road for those purposes.


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Motorist12
post Tue, 31 Jan 2023 - 09:19
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 18 Jan 2023
Member No.: 118,896



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 15:10) *
Did the prosecutor raise the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984?
QUOTE
(5)In any proceedings for a contravention of section 81 of this Act, where the proceedings relate to driving on a road provided with [F11such a system of street or carriageway lighting] , evidence of the absence of traffic signs displayed in pursuance of this section to indicate that the road is not a restricted road for the purposes of that section shall be evidence that the road is a restricted road for those purposes.




He did not, however, the defence was not just one of absence of signs, it was one of the incorrect signs due to the 40 repeater on the first post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 31 Jan 2023 - 09:51
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Which doesn't change anything.

I'm glad you were acquitted as that signage is poor both for the obscuration of the 30 signs and the fact the last 40 repeater hasn't been removed or moved to have less impact.

However to the letter of the law I think you should have been found guilty (although a case for Special Reasons Not To Endorse could certainly be made) which IMO means no 'innocent' motorists were penalised. That said I think the law is wrong, it was written when the vast majority of street lit roads were a 30 limit and that is no longer the case making it more important that the signage 'adequately conveys' the limit so as not to cause confusion.


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Motorist12
post Tue, 31 Jan 2023 - 10:46
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 18 Jan 2023
Member No.: 118,896



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 31 Jan 2023 - 09:51) *
Which doesn't change anything.

I'm glad you were acquitted as that signage is poor both for the obscuration of the 30 signs and the fact the last 40 repeater hasn't been removed or moved to have less impact.

However to the letter of the law I think you should have been found guilty (although a case for Special Reasons Not To Endorse could certainly be made) which IMO means no 'innocent' motorists were penalised. That said I think the law is wrong, it was written when the vast majority of street lit roads were a 30 limit and that is no longer the case making it more important that the signage 'adequately conveys' the limit so as not to cause confusion.


I am slightly confused but also fascinated. I do appreciate your in-depth look at this because although I was acquitted it is very interesting the state of both our road signage, how changing legislation has been implemented and the way it is enforced.

The bit that does somewhat frustrate me, is that so many convictions and even serious incidents could have been avoided or reduced if the signage was more abundant. I don't think repeater signs are a bad thing at all and recent moves away from them is, IMHO a step away from safer roads. But that's a bit of a side topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 31 Jan 2023 - 11:01
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



There is no recent move away from repeaters, they have not been permitted on a restricted road for 90 years!

Because repeaters aren't allowed on a restricted road (as the street lighting acts as a repeater) it does however make the terminal signs more critical.

Coombes is interesting case law on this, Para 24 is key in looking at how far into the poorly signed 30 the defendant was when he was caught. The appeal court doesn't make ANY findings of fact, it applies the law to the findings of fact from the lower court which was silent on the matter so they had to address it on the assumption Coombes was only just into the 30 limit. But a long way into the limit and his appeal would likely have failed (as para 24 suggests though doesn't state) which is the basis for my conclusion in your case.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 - 11:02


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:50
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here