PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Variable speed limits and public law
122basy
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 07:27
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,721



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 23:07) *
I would put in a FOI request asking why the limit was in force, when it was imposed and when it was lifted. It's a very, very long shot but if you can show the speed limit was imposed in circumstances where no reasonable decision maker would have imposed it, you *might* have a case.

That excercise is futile. There is absolutely no chance this will form a defence.

The limit, correctly displayed, is just that. The reason why it is displayed is not the driver’s concern, how can it be?

There is nothing stopping the OP doing that but don’t expect the magistrates to be convinced by it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 34)
Advertisement
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 07:27
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
122basy
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 07:06
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,721



If the sign says 40 then that is the limit. It matters not what the limit is set for the limit is what is displayed.

The variable limit is legislated in a SLO, challenge that if you think the limit is not lawful.

Drivers have no reasonable way to determine the rationale behind a variable limit and how it is set at any time and there is no reasonable person who would legislate for that to be part of a variable speed limit. Suggestions that drivers have some option in compliance with variable speed limits and need to mind-read operators in the control room or an automatic system is not sensible or realistic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 10:14
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 22:17) *
So it's not provning someone has set that sign wrong. You would have to prove the entire incident had a characteristic such that no reasonable person would have entered the incident and activated the signs. Or that they didn't adequately chase confirmation that the incident was finished.

So we agree that while unlikely, it's not impossible that the speed limit was unlawful, as it isn't impossible that the incident was such that no reasonable person would have entered the incident and activated the signs. Or that they didn't adequately chase confirmation that the incident was finished.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 19:59) *
For once I agree with 122basy. If you accept that system - and for the most part it is highly effective, much more than humans could be - then it is by definition a rational decision maker even if a small number of limits aren't optimal.

I don't believe this has ever been tested in court so while I see the logic in what you're saying, it goes a bit far to take it for granted that the courts would agree all the decisions made by such a system must "by definition" be lawful. Unless you have some legal authorities to show otherwise, I can't think of any reason why the High Court couldn't quash the speed limit that so annoyed Incandescent as being unlawful on the grounds of irrationality. I'm not saying the court would quash the limit as unlawful, just that it could (so the limit can't be assumed to be lawful "by definition").

QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 08:06) *
If the sign says 40 then that is the limit. It matters not what the limit is set for the limit is what is displayed.

The variable limit is legislated in a SLO, challenge that if you think the limit is not lawful.

Drivers have no reasonable way to determine the rationale behind a variable limit and how it is set at any time and there is no reasonable person who would legislate for that to be part of a variable speed limit. Suggestions that drivers have some option in compliance with variable speed limits and need to mind-read operators in the control room or an automatic system is not sensible or realistic.

You seem to have some sort of obsession with what drivers did or didn't have any reasonable way to determine. As far as questions of public law over the enforcability of speed limits are concerned, the knowledge, belief or state of mind of the driver are irrelevant as there is no need to show mens rea for this offence. That's why it's commonly referred to as a strict liability offence. The question of whether the speed limit was lawfully displayed is a different matter entirely.

I suggest that we refrain from further, hypothetical discussions on this topic, at least until the OP comes back and confirms the outcome of his FOI request. I'm sure we can all agree there's at least a 99% chance the speed limit was rationally and lawfully imposed, at which point all of the above becomes rather academic.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 10:16
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 08:06) *
If the sign says 40 then that is the limit. It matters not what the limit is set for the limit is what is displayed.

The variable limit is legislated in a SLO, challenge that if you think the limit is not lawful.

Drivers have no reasonable way to determine the rationale behind a variable limit and how it is set at any time and there is no reasonable person who would legislate for that to be part of a variable speed limit. Suggestions that drivers have some option in compliance with variable speed limits and need to mind-read operators in the control room or an automatic system is not sensible or realistic.

You manage to still be wrong.

The enforceability of a speed limit does not in any way depend on whether motorists know it is enforceable at the time. It is an absolute fact.

E.g. the issues with fonts on VSL signs a while back. The limits were unenforceable despite appearing enforceable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
122basy
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 14:16
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,721



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 11:16) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 08:06) *
If the sign says 40 then that is the limit. It matters not what the limit is set for the limit is what is displayed.

The variable limit is legislated in a SLO, challenge that if you think the limit is not lawful.

Drivers have no reasonable way to determine the rationale behind a variable limit and how it is set at any time and there is no reasonable person who would legislate for that to be part of a variable speed limit. Suggestions that drivers have some option in compliance with variable speed limits and need to mind-read operators in the control room or an automatic system is not sensible or realistic.

You manage to still be wrong.

The enforceability of a speed limit does not in any way depend on whether motorists know it is enforceable at the time. It is an absolute fact.

E.g. the issues with fonts on VSL signs a while back. The limits were unenforceable despite appearing enforceable.

You are quite wrong. In the test case the DJ decided the issue with the fonts was of no consequence as they were lawful. At least when I sat in court and listened to him explain that, it is exactly what he decided. All defendants were duly convicted.

He was very critical of the nonsense that was used as a challenge to the signs.

There are a number of aspects making the limit enforceable, in terms of signs they should be compliant with regulations and they must provide adequate guidance to a driver. There is no legislation or case law that I am aware of that says "...a driver needs to understand the limit has been set for a good enough reason and the driver needs to be aware of that reason otherwise the limit is not correctly placed...".

This post has been edited by 122basy: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 14:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 14:43
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 15:16) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 11:16) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 08:06) *
If the sign says 40 then that is the limit. It matters not what the limit is set for the limit is what is displayed.

The variable limit is legislated in a SLO, challenge that if you think the limit is not lawful.

Drivers have no reasonable way to determine the rationale behind a variable limit and how it is set at any time and there is no reasonable person who would legislate for that to be part of a variable speed limit. Suggestions that drivers have some option in compliance with variable speed limits and need to mind-read operators in the control room or an automatic system is not sensible or realistic.

You manage to still be wrong.

The enforceability of a speed limit does not in any way depend on whether motorists know it is enforceable at the time. It is an absolute fact.

E.g. the issues with fonts on VSL signs a while back. The limits were unenforceable despite appearing enforceable.

You are quite wrong. In the test case the DJ decided the issue with the fonts was of no consequence as they were lawful. At least when I sat in court and listened to him explain that, it is exactly what he decided. All defendants were duly convicted.

He was very critical of the nonsense that was used as a challenge to the signs.

There are a number of aspects making the limit enforceable, in terms of signs they should be compliant with regulations and they must provide adequate guidance to a driver. There is no legislation or case law that I am aware of that says "...a driver needs to understand the limit has been set for a good enough reason and the driver needs to be aware of that reason otherwise the limit is not correctly placed...".

You seem to have some sort of obsession with this idea that anyone is suggesting that "...a driver needs to understand the limit has been set for a good enough reason and the driver needs to be aware of that reason otherwise the limit is not correctly placed...", nobody has said this is the case, the only person who keeps making this point is you. Nobody in this thread apart from you has said a driver needs to understand, think or believe anything.

The bottom line is, if someone goes to the High Court seeking a judicial review of the decision by Highways England to set a VSL to, say, 50 or 40, then if (and it's a very big if) the High Court quashes that decision, the posted limit is not enforceable and only the national speed limit can be enforced. That decision would be binding on any DJ who had to deal with an allegation of a driver exceeding that particular VSL on that particular occasion.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 15:02
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 15:16) *
You are quite wrong. In the test case the DJ decided the issue with the fonts was of no consequence as they were lawful. At least when I sat in court and listened to him explain that, it is exactly what he decided. All defendants were duly convicted.

He was very critical of the nonsense that was used as a challenge to the signs.

There are a number of aspects making the limit enforceable, in terms of signs they should be compliant with regulations and they must provide adequate guidance to a driver. There is no legislation or case law that I am aware of that says "...a driver needs to understand the limit has been set for a good enough reason and the driver needs to be aware of that reason otherwise the limit is not correctly placed...".

After the issue came to light the CPS discontinued or offered no evidence in all outstanding cases.

If the CPS won't pursue cases then it is de facto unenforceable in the real world, where the rest of us live.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 16:03
Post #27


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 15:43) *
You seem to have some sort of obsession with this idea that anyone is suggesting that...


Whilst I do not always agree with you, most of your posts display at least a fair understanding of the law and an ability to reason logically.

However, continuing to argue with a troll who repeatedly relies on countering a point that nobody ever sought to rely on (a variation on 'begging the question') tends to hide the fact that you are better than him.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
122basy
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 16:35
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,721



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 15:43) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 15:16) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 11:16) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 08:06) *
If the sign says 40 then that is the limit. It matters not what the limit is set for the limit is what is displayed.

The variable limit is legislated in a SLO, challenge that if you think the limit is not lawful.

Drivers have no reasonable way to determine the rationale behind a variable limit and how it is set at any time and there is no reasonable person who would legislate for that to be part of a variable speed limit. Suggestions that drivers have some option in compliance with variable speed limits and need to mind-read operators in the control room or an automatic system is not sensible or realistic.

You manage to still be wrong.

The enforceability of a speed limit does not in any way depend on whether motorists know it is enforceable at the time. It is an absolute fact.

E.g. the issues with fonts on VSL signs a while back. The limits were unenforceable despite appearing enforceable.

You are quite wrong. In the test case the DJ decided the issue with the fonts was of no consequence as they were lawful. At least when I sat in court and listened to him explain that, it is exactly what he decided. All defendants were duly convicted.

He was very critical of the nonsense that was used as a challenge to the signs.

There are a number of aspects making the limit enforceable, in terms of signs they should be compliant with regulations and they must provide adequate guidance to a driver. There is no legislation or case law that I am aware of that says "...a driver needs to understand the limit has been set for a good enough reason and the driver needs to be aware of that reason otherwise the limit is not correctly placed...".

You seem to have some sort of obsession with this idea that anyone is suggesting that "...a driver needs to understand the limit has been set for a good enough reason and the driver needs to be aware of that reason otherwise the limit is not correctly placed...", nobody has said this is the case, the only person who keeps making this point is you. Nobody in this thread apart from you has said a driver needs to understand, think or believe anything.

The bottom line is, if someone goes to the High Court seeking a judicial review of the decision by Highways England to set a VSL to, say, 50 or 40, then if (and it's a very big if) the High Court quashes that decision, the posted limit is not enforceable and only the national speed limit can be enforced. That decision would be binding on any DJ who had to deal with an allegation of a driver exceeding that particular VSL on that particular occasion.

It isn't an obsession. My way of putting the point is different to yours but mine takes your point one step further. I am simply using the only possible need for a reason to be material is for a driver to be aware, in some way, of the reason the limit has been set.

Put that to one side and forget the driver, at your insistence. The reason the variable limit is set is not material to whether it is enforceable or not or indeed it is lawful. Once the SLO is passed, the variable limit can be set and unset at any time for any reason or indeed for absolutely no reason.

My opinion is, in the unlikely event a High Court is asked whether a variable limit set for no good reason is not a speed limit, the court would say the speed limit was lawfully set. You may differ, of course you can, but I think you are likely to be wrong and you reciprocate you opinion of mine. Hey-Ho. Let's return here when the High Court has made the decision. I think it is likely the wait will be lengthy.

Having sat in a number of courts when the defendant has put forward a MIDAS log and an absence of reason for the speed limit argument and seen them dismissed before the submission was even heard beyond its introduction, I can't see why there is any advice to seek them out. Good luck everyone who does it, as it is needed. If the alternative view is a troll view so be it.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 16:02) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 15:16) *
You are quite wrong. In the test case the DJ decided the issue with the fonts was of no consequence as they were lawful. At least when I sat in court and listened to him explain that, it is exactly what he decided. All defendants were duly convicted.

He was very critical of the nonsense that was used as a challenge to the signs.

There are a number of aspects making the limit enforceable, in terms of signs they should be compliant with regulations and they must provide adequate guidance to a driver. There is no legislation or case law that I am aware of that says "...a driver needs to understand the limit has been set for a good enough reason and the driver needs to be aware of that reason otherwise the limit is not correctly placed...".

After the issue came to light the CPS discontinued or offered no evidence in all outstanding cases.

If the CPS won't pursue cases then it is de facto unenforceable in the real world, where the rest of us live.

CPS postponed cases as a precaution because there was a case pending to form the decision on whether the signs were prescribed or not. It is not an unreasonable precaution and was sensible.

Yes it was, in the period pending the court case, unenforceable. When the court case was completed and bollocks declared on the defence case normal service was resumed.

In the real world, where we all live, the same signs that were subject to the challenge have been used ever since the case was completed; CPS resumed prosecutions using the signs that were subject to challenge in exactly the same way they did before they took the precaution to postpone.

The challenges in the case went to extreme lengths to find fault. At one stage it was mooted that the colour definitions for the printer of the DfT signs manual were the only colours that were allowed to be shown on the road. I can of course commend the imagination of the challengers.

This post has been edited by 122basy: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 16:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 17:58
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 17:35) *
The reason the variable limit is set is not material to whether it is enforceable or not or indeed it is lawful. Once the SLO is passed, the variable limit can be set and unset at any time for any reason or indeed for absolutely no reason.

That is where you and I differ. The courts have repeatedly held that a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could make it, that decision is unlawful and subject to quashing. Hopefully you'll at least agree that, once a High Court judge or master quashes a decision, in law it is as if that decision had never been made and it ceases to have any effect. The decision to set a variable speed limit is self-evidently a decision because it is something the Highways Authority has a discretion to do.

You seem to suggest that if someone had decided set the limit due to some arbitrary or capricious reason, i.e. if he decided to lower the limit for the hell of it, or even, say, because he knew a colleague he had a dispute with would be communing to the control room along that road so he lowered the limit in an attempt to make him late for work, for the purpose of getting said colleague in trouble with management, the High Court would still not have any jurisdiction to quash the decision to lower the limit.

As we're obviously not going to agree on this, let's just leave it at that.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 18:24
Post #30


Member


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



QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 17:35) *
Once the SLO is passed, the variable limit can be set and unset at any time for any reason or indeed for absolutely no reason.

That is quite simply not correct as a matter of law. That is not an opinion, it is the law.


--------------------
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
122basy
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 19:32
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,721



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 19:24) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 17:35) *
Once the SLO is passed, the variable limit can be set and unset at any time for any reason or indeed for absolutely no reason.

That is quite simply not correct as a matter of law. That is not an opinion, it is the law.

You have made it up before so no different now.
Point out where the conditions are that says the limit has to have a reason.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 20:00
Post #32


Member


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



QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 20:32) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 19:24) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 17:35) *
Once the SLO is passed, the variable limit can be set and unset at any time for any reason or indeed for absolutely no reason.

That is quite simply not correct as a matter of law. That is not an opinion, it is the law.

You have made it up before so no different now.
Point out where the conditions are that says the limit has to have a reason.

I’ve made it up before, right... trolling is one thing, being an arse is another. Don’t come back.

Simple matter of public law that anyone with a law degree knows.


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 20:21
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 21:00) *
Simple matter of public law that anyone with a law degree knows.

Indeed, but 122basy has apparently been in the public gallery to every important motoring case, as well as single handedly installing most of the equipment for Highways England.

He also used to work very closely with North Yorkshire Police until they told him to stop saying that. I notice it has now evolved into working with all police fores.

You? Ex-policeman and apparently very expensive solicitor. Probably explains why you had no time to sit in court on every relevant case.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 20:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 21:26
Post #34


Member


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



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 21:21) *
apparently very expensive solicitor.

Reassuringly expensive, please.


--------------------
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
The Rookie
post Sun, 1 Jul 2018 - 06:41
Post #35


Member


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



Buy cheap, buy twice......only with legal advice you don’t always get the option!


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

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:38
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