Repeater intervals |
Repeater intervals |
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. |
|
|
||
Advertisement |
Wed, 18 Jan 2023 - 21:18
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Mon, 30 Jan 2023 - 14:36
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 18 Jan 2023 Member No.: 118,896 |
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. 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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Tue, 31 Jan 2023 - 09:19
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 18 Jan 2023 Member No.: 118,896 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Tue, 31 Jan 2023 - 10:46
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 18 Jan 2023 Member No.: 118,896 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:21 |