Speeding - No Speed Limit Signs or Repeaters Dual Carriagway |
Speeding - No Speed Limit Signs or Repeaters Dual Carriagway |
Thu, 22 Mar 2018 - 00:49
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,143 |
Hi,
I have received an NIP from a fixed camera (A580 Walkden Road, Walkden approach heading towards Liverpool). The speed limit on the NIP is 40mph, the speed recorded by the camera at the time was 55mph and I was in the outside (3rd) lane. From the junction where I joined the road (Roe Green), up until just before the camera, (one sign literally just before the camera on the opposite side of the road I was driving and could have been easily obscured by the vehicle I was overtaking), there are no limit signs or repeaters indicating this is a 40mph zone whatsoever. I have attached a video of me driving along the stretch of road from where I joined, this shows there are no signs. Street view does show there was a 40mph sign at the junction at one point, although as the video will show, this is now absent. A580 - Roe Green Junction heading to Walkden Road I'm just wondering if there are any grounds to argue that the speed limit wasn't clear for this road and that the signage was inadequate (non existent!). Any help and advice on how to proceed is greatly appreciated. This post has been edited by CamelForce: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 - 00:55 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 22 Mar 2018 - 00:49
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Mar 2018 - 02:03
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
What did you think the speed limit was?
The video starts in a 20 zone, then you leave it for the dual carriageway where, as you say, no signs are visible before the junction with the camera. On an ordinary lit road, where street lights are placed less than 200 yards apart (such as the dual carriageway shown in your video), the default speed limit is 30 mph unless signs say otherwise. Saying you did 55 because you didn't see any signs is not going to make the magistrates very sympathetic (Which will make them less inclined to accept a technical defence). You could run a technical defence on the grounds that if the 40 mph zone is not correctly signposted you can't be convicted of exceeding the 40 limit (This relies on the magistrates accepting that the 40 mph limit isn't sufficiently well signposted, which they might or might not accept), you can't be convicted of exceeding 30 because the TRO that creates the 30 limit has lifted the 30 mph limit, and therefore where the speed limits are defective in this way the only enforceable speed limit is the 70 mph limit which you did not exceed. The chances of success are frankly not great and if you lose you're looking at the better part of £1,000 in fines and costs, to be honest if they're offering a fixed penalty notice that would probably be a more pragmatic solution. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 12:00
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,143 |
What did you think the speed limit was? The video starts in a 20 zone, then you leave it for the dual carriageway where, as you say, no signs are visible before the junction with the camera. On an ordinary lit road, where street lights are placed less than 200 yards apart (such as the dual carriageway shown in your video), the default speed limit is 30 mph unless signs say otherwise. Saying you did 55 because you didn't see any signs is not going to make the magistrates very sympathetic (Which will make them less inclined to accept a technical defence). You could run a technical defence on the grounds that if the 40 mph zone is not correctly signposted you can't be convicted of exceeding the 40 limit (This relies on the magistrates accepting that the 40 mph limit isn't sufficiently well signposted, which they might or might not accept), you can't be convicted of exceeding 30 because the TRO that creates the 30 limit has lifted the 30 mph limit, and therefore where the speed limits are defective in this way the only enforceable speed limit is the 70 mph limit which you did not exceed. The chances of success are frankly not great and if you lose you're looking at the better part of £1,000 in fines and costs, to be honest if they're offering a fixed penalty notice that would probably be a more pragmatic solution. Thanks for the advice! I'll take it on the chin! Does anyone have any advice regarding awareness course? I understand I am 2mph over the guideline, yet this is still to the discretion of the force. If I attached a letter holding my hands up, say I have learnt from my mistakes and this is my first offence, would this help or go against myself? |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 12:09
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
You can always try an polite letter to the police pointing out the missing 40mph sign and ask them if they would consider discretion as it was a genuine mistake. Costs nothing, the only danger is they treat it as disputing the offence and don't offer a fixed penalty.
There is next to no discretion around courses even if it exists in theory. It will definitely be 3pts/£100. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 12:10 |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 13:10
Post
#5
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,143 |
You can always try an polite letter to the police pointing out the missing 40mph sign and ask them if they would consider discretion as it was a genuine mistake. Costs nothing, the only danger is they treat it as disputing the offence and don't offer a fixed penalty. There is next to no discretion around courses even if it exists in theory. It will definitely be 3pts/£100. Cheers! It's a tough one as you said, I accept I was going over the limit, albeit the signs really should be there so it's a little on the unfair side, gutted I wasn't doing just 2mph less! Live and learn I guess, I may try write out a letter and see how it comes across |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 19:01
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
You could run a technical defence on the grounds that if the 40 mph zone is not correctly signposted you can't be convicted of exceeding the 40 limit (This relies on the magistrates accepting that the 40 mph limit isn't sufficiently well signposted, which they might or might not accept), And what does the statutory defence regarding inadequate signage say about street lighting? If you can't guess, the answer is in s. 85(4) RTRA 1984. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 19:29
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
You could run a technical defence on the grounds that if the 40 mph zone is not correctly signposted you can't be convicted of exceeding the 40 limit (This relies on the magistrates accepting that the 40 mph limit isn't sufficiently well signposted, which they might or might not accept), And what does the statutory defence regarding inadequate signage say about street lighting? If you can't guess, the answer is in s. 85(4) RTRA 1984. s85 (4) only applies to roads without a system of streetlighting. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:01
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Simplistically yes,......However it provides a defence ONLY where there is no system to street lighting, ergo in a system of street lighting there is no such defence, as such it does apply here.
This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:07 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:13
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
There are lots of pieces of legislation that don't apply to the OP's case, it would be tedious to list them all.
The law is very simple, a non-special road with a system of streetlighting is 30mph unless their is signage indicating a higher limit. So in the OP's case the limit could only be 20mph, 30mph or 40mph depending on what signs the OP did or didn't see. The police have chosen the most advantageous one for the OP. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:21
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
You miss the point, it’s not how it affects the limit, it’s that it removes a defence based on a lack of signage (or rather the statutory defence doesn’t apply) so the signage could never be used for a not guilty verdict. That’s the point AF was making I believe and you failed to ‘get’.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:45
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
You could run a technical defence on the grounds that if the 40 mph zone is not correctly signposted you can't be convicted of exceeding the 40 limit (This relies on the magistrates accepting that the 40 mph limit isn't sufficiently well signposted, which they might or might not accept), And what does the statutory defence regarding inadequate signage say about street lighting? If you can't guess, the answer is in s. 85(4) RTRA 1984. s85 (4) only applies to roads without a system of streetlighting. Indeed. And since s 85(4) is the defence if the road doesn’t have a system of street lighting it not applying is a bit of a problem. Does the road the OP was caught on have a system of street lighting or not? -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:46
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Because (4) details unrestricted roads, it doesn't mean that restricted roads cannot have the same provisons. Otherwise it would say unrestricted roads only.
For instance, if you come off a 70mph indicated dual carriageway in Scotland onto a 30mph restricted dual carriageway without 30mph terminal signage and were caught shortly after - would a court find inadequate signage gave you a defence, or would they find that the road was restricted by virtue of no NSL repeaters and thus no defence of inadequate signage existed? AFAIK that defence could not be excluded by (4). This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:53 |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:46
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
There are lots of pieces of legislation that don't apply to the OP's case, it would be tedious to list them all. But only one which provides a defence from inadequate signage. It does not apply to the OP's case, but it is relevant to debunk the twaddle you posted. QUOTE The law is very simple Not simple enough for some it seems... QUOTE a non-special road with a system of streetlighting is 30mph unless their is signage indicating a higher limit. The law does not say that. It is 30mph unless a TRO (other other applicable order) makes it otherwise. Such a limit can be higher or lower than 30mph. Signs do not create a limit (other than in rolling roadworks where the TRO specifies the limit as applying between the signs). QUOTE So in the OP's case the limit could only be 20mph, 30mph or 40mph depending on what signs the OP did or didn't see. Drugs are bad, m'kay? QUOTE The police have chosen the most advantageous one for the OP. The police chose what now? -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:55
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
If you can explain how (4) excludes the same defence applying to restricted roads, then I will accept that (4) is relevant.
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:55
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If so then s85 (5) would be the "valid" paragraph in your terms. If you "get" that. Not really as it’s not a restricted road being a 40 limit is it. That’s fairly basic I thought? It doesn’t mention restricted roads does it, but roads with a system of street lighting, it provides a defence based on lack of signage ONLY IF it’s not got a system of street lighting. Time to put that particular shovel down. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:57 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 20:56
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Because (4) details unrestricted roads, Does it? Can you quote it? QUOTE it doesn't mean that restricted roads cannot have the same provisons. Does it not? QUOTE Otherwise it would say unrestricted roads only. If that was anything close to the language used, perhaps. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 23:02
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
I have had far too much codeine and rted wine to ahree with ahy of yo " YAAAU s85 (4) itapliedt to everyoe! Hope you don#t mirder smeone bedcause 85 (4) will allst certaoinly het drawn into it"
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 23:15
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Unfortunately that is the most sense you've made today.
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 09:39
Post
#19
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,143 |
So to clarify, am I best adding a cover letter saying sorry and mentioning the signage in a hope of a SAC or just take it on the chin?
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 10:28
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
You can include a cover letter, just make sure it doesn't sound too much like a challenge or they may decide to just let you defend it in court, chances of it having any effect are very close to zero so almost certainly not worth bothering in my opinion.
-------------------- 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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:17 |