Assuming 30 speed limit after a junction |
Assuming 30 speed limit after a junction |
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 12:05
Post
#1
|
||
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 3 Feb 2018 From: somerset, UK Member No.: 96,301 |
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 |
|
|
||
Advertisement |
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 12:05
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 12:23
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
So the road she was on was a 20 and there was nothing to say that limit had chang d? If so, why assume it had changed?
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 12:26
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,508 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
What’s the alleged speed?
For the limit to change to a 30 there would need to be terminal signs (otherwise the limit continues). There may be an argument if the distance is significant between repeaters but TSGRD2016 will work against you. Any challenge would be a not guilty plea at court which carries risk. (Particularly prosecution costs which are listed as £620 for a contested trial) -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:10
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 3 Feb 2018 From: somerset, UK Member No.: 96,301 |
So the road she was on was a 20 and there was nothing to say that limit had chang d? If so, why assume it had changed? the assumption of change was because she was leaving a side road and going on to a main road. the assumption was because there were NO 20 signs and, as the picture shows, the 20 in the road was damaged. the assumption of 30mph was because she was on a road with no markings saying otherwise. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:10
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
It might help if you can show that the signage along the entire length of Lansdown Lane is inadequate, where are the repeater signs further up the road? And in what condition are they?
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:16
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 3 Feb 2018 From: somerset, UK Member No.: 96,301 |
What’s the alleged speed? the alleged speed of her vehicle was 30mph, as she assumed this was the limit on the road (there being nothing to indicate otherwise between the junction and the camera) QUOTE For the limit to change to a 30 there would need to be terminal signs (otherwise the limit continues). There may be an argument if the distance is significant between repeaters but TSGRD2016 will work against you. Any challenge would be a not guilty plea at court which carries risk. (Particularly prosecution costs which are listed as £620 for a contested trial) between the address she had visited an the fixed camera there was only ONE SMALL 20 sign roughly 100yds before the junction. nothing further AT the junction or before the fixed camera... i don't know about the legality, but this seems pretty unreasonable and unclear to me! It might help if you can show that the signage along the entire length of Lansdown Lane is inadequate, where are the repeater signs further up the road? And in what condition are they? there ARE signs further up the road, but she had only been here once and doesn't have a memory for which road she's turned on and off... to her it was an entirely new road. she was just following her sat nav... This post has been edited by catrisit: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:14 |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:18
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 272 Joined: 19 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,499 |
Removed - camera not on Google maps so got confused!
This post has been edited by mdann52: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:21 |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:27
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,508 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Your assumptions are flawed as terminal signs are the general indication of a change in limit.
Legally I don't rate your chances but stranger things do happen at Mags. The damaged roundel adds very little. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:31
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 3 Feb 2018 From: somerset, UK Member No.: 96,301 |
does one not assume the limit is 30 when there is nothing to say/show otherwise?
when turning onto a new road (with unknown limit) wouldn't one fairly assume 30? one small sign a long way from the junction seems insufficient for signage... |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:34
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,508 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
You seem to know best - let us know how the court case goes.
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:35
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
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 I'd assume limit is 20mph until a new limit is displayed. -------------------- |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:42
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,508 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
In terms of strategy a not guilty plea would be risky. Unless a sound defence that the limit was not reasonably conveyed.
Alternatively, a guilty plea with a plea for special reasons not to endorse. Less risky but unless points are going to cause major issue it's probably not worth it over a course or fixed penalty. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:05
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 3 Feb 2018 From: somerset, UK Member No.: 96,301 |
|
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:06
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,508 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
See subsequent post. Either take the safe option of a course/fixed penalty or it will go to court. (The Police won't be convinced usually)
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:09
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
You seem to know best - let us know how the court case goes. i'm just saying what seems reasonable.. i never said i knew best actually just looking for helpful, constructive advice... And the helpful constructive advice is “no, you cannot assume the limit changes just because you go through a junction”. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:16
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 3 Feb 2018 From: somerset, UK Member No.: 96,301 |
You seem to know best - let us know how the court case goes. i'm just saying what seems reasonable.. i never said i knew best actually just looking for helpful, constructive advice... And the helpful constructive advice is “no, you cannot assume the limit changes just because you go through a junction”. seems to me you have a strange definition of helpful constructive advice! the most helpful and constructive thing so far has been QUOTE There may be an argument if the distance is significant between repeaters but TSGRD2016 will work against you. i wonder if anyone can expand on this, ie specifics of what statutes and clauses are relevant? |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:19
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
What do you want, we can tell you what you want to here by telling you an untruth, or what you don’t want to hear which is that you have no case and may as well accept whatever the police offer to minimise the damage.
The law is clear, the limit continues until you pass either a terminal sign or if having exited a side road onto with a higher limit pass a repeater, as 30 limits have no repeaters on a restricted road there would be a terminal sign. Your OHs inexperience/lack of familiarity with the Highway Code has lead here to this position and maybe she’ll be offered a course that will help her out from here on. There are no specifics, the new TRSGD 2016 just requires limits to be adequately conveyed, if a careful and competent driver would know they were in a 20 then an acquittal is not realistic. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:20 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:24
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 3 Feb 2018 From: somerset, UK Member No.: 96,301 |
|
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:26
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
the most helpful and constructive thing so far has been QUOTE There may be an argument if the distance is significant between repeaters but TSGRD2016 will work against you. i wonder if anyone can expand on this, ie specifics of what statutes and clauses are relevant? That could be explored if the OP tells us the distance between the junction (or the last 20 mph repeater sign) and the camera. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:32
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
...the new TRSGD 2016 just requires limits to be adequately conveyed,.. that's my point. that it WASN'T clear.. It depends on that unanswered question as to how far from the junction to where they were caught, the fact it’s not clear to you (who didn’t appear to know how limits were signed at the start of this thread) doesn’t mean it’s not to a someone who does. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:15 |