Simple questions:

- does anyone know what a 20 MPH SPEED LIMIT ZONE is - is there a 3rd 20mph category defined in English Law and if so where's it defined please?

- would a Traffic Order which has the words '20 MPH SPEED LIMIT ZONE' in its title have any validity under English Law?

I am fully aware that 20mph Limits and 20mph Zones exist and that both of these are adequately and quite differently defined in English Law.

At present it seems that 20 MPH SPEED LIMIT ZONE is a misnomer, but since both 'Limits' and 'Zones' do exist and since each of these is properly defined, is it the case that there would be good cause to argue that a TO which has the words 20 MPH SPEED LIMIT ZONE in its title will be invalid since it is neither one, nor the other of the defined options? If correct therefore should the Authority concerned be asked to re issue a new correctly defined TO and to cancel all enforcement actions which have ensued since the first order was processed [several years ago in this particular case!].

Does this relate to a live case?

If not, press "report" and ask a mod to move to the Flame Pit.

Yes I have an active NIP

OK, just a minor point worth mentioning...

Fill out the NIP Wizard and paste the answers into this thread.

IMO, no. What it's called shouldn't matter. If it lawfully imposes an order that vehicles are not to travel above a certain speed along a length of road and if that order is given effect by lawful signs I don't see what issue could be taken.

How fast were you going and where's the road?

26

Bedfordshire.

If the TO descriptor is ambiguous then it seems that there's potential cause to challenge which legislation applies to the area in question. Is it a zone or a limit? The title infers both, but doesn't the legislation really require that the authorities should define which provisions they rely on by defining each area as either a zone or a limit and not attempting to define it as both at the same time by using an ambiguous title?

Facts are that signage is certainly not good, gateways are badly positioned, badly orientated and the repeater signs are sparse and do not meet guidance for such being a confusion of the 2 options identified for a 20mph limit in table 14.4 of the Traffic Signs manual 2008.

The area is a former 30 zone with traffic calming in one part and poor signs in another, so users can exit the calming zones and fail to recognise that its become an ill defined limit area.

And also fail to see any signs advising of a higher limit...

GSV? NIP Wizard?

NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - August 2016
Date of the NIP: - 9 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 10 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Drovers Way towards Houghton Regis Dunstable Beds UK
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Keeper
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - Approach from Tring, 26 at the camera, fooled by badly positioned and badly orientated gateway signs followed by one offside repeater located opposed to junction and immediately following bus stop.

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.
  
  You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:08:53 +0000

I would have thought that what the order actually says is rather more important than the title.

Agreed, the title of itself is an irrelevance, it is the content that is crucial

Dyslexia! I can read what I want to see rather than the written word - I am doing it again!

I will attach the TO
It revokes the previous speed limit and imposes the new one with exceptions under regulation 3[4].

What it does not specifically confirm [perhaps in part because of the conflicts embodied in the title] is that this is a 20mph speed limit or that it is a 20mph zone and my point is that without this definition there can be uncertainties concerning the detail of sign requirements, leaving a council able to argue both ways though in the parts where there are no calming measures one would hope that its reasonable to argue that signs must be provided.

For example if its a zone there can be no repeaters whilst if its a limit then guidance directs that there should be repeaters in accord with table 14.4 of the 2008 Traffic Signs Manual. [abstract attached]

There are deficiencies in the road sign provisions but when the new 2016 regulations are dropping the prescriptive requirements and noting that the information in the signs manual is 'guidance' there's going to be a potential for wriggle room in any arguement and I was looking for a firm option which I am probably unlikely to find. This still leaves me feeling agrieved.


As noted the installed repeaters are neither as TSM table 14.4 column 3 nor as column 4 being offside, offside beyond the camera then nearside when the approach is from the B489 and there's only the first of these signs before the camera. A technicality which I suspect will carry little weight!

Unlike other cameras in the local realm there's no colocated speed camera and speed limit sign associated with this camera. Another technicality.

Also the gateway signs: When the approach is from the Tring direction, one sign is edge on [perpendicular] to the line of approach and because of the way the carriageway arcs during the approach, the other is offset far left [it's also actually hidden from view at anything more than a distance of 32 mts] then within the 30 mts I now find that it's concealed by my own rear view mirror until I'm at the threshold of the mini roundabout [and there are other obstructions in these sightlines too].

So there is cause to argue that the minimum clear visibility distance is NOT provided in accord with 14.19 and table 14.3 of the TSM guidance since gateway signs are badly placed, badly orientated and do not deliver the clear sightlines over the required distance. [Unless the arguement is that this is a side road and not a roundabout junction simply because its only a mini roundabout.][Second abstract from TSM attached - table 14.3, third abstract from TSM clause 14.19]

The problem seems to be that these are all debateable and even though the gateway signs should be better located and better orientated, especially since everyone's approach is around the roundabout, its still able to be a subjective assessment issue.

This badly positioned sign?:

20mph Terminal Sign

IMO, the order shouldn't need to specify whether it is a limit or a zone. The order needs to impose a restriction on driving at more than 20 mph. How the order is given effect (by signing it as a limit with repeater signs or a zone without repeaters but with traffic calming measures) shouldn't really matter.

I agree that the 20 mph is applicable but the type of order [limit or zone] has relevance when considering the requirements for sign requirements and the confusion of the words used in the title and the words used in the text of the TO does not then specifically clarify which it is. Moving on....

Having regards to the gateway signs - yes that's one of them. This is a view as should be seen for a good uninterupted distance by drivers coming from Dunstable.
See my first image at about 32mts from the Tring Road approach - same sign cant yet be seen. Note the far gateway sign in front of the black car on the junction - second sign cant be read, perpendicular to approach. Note the layout of the road and where I am going first swinging right then left in the n/s lane.

At this first image point I also still remain on the previous mini roundabout where I'm accounting other traffic on that roundabout.

As I go forwards the first sign has moved further left, its there but its now hidden behind my rear view mirror [my problem]. At the T of the Drovers mini - its now far left across my passenger seat, behind the pole of the nearer weight limit sign [image 2] and I have a focus on traffic on my right side and coming from my far right around the mini roundabout. The offside sign still remains very oblique to my line of approach and still in the tree.

The TSM says that drivers in the most disadvantaged approach lane should have clear vision of both signs for 30 mts and that for a roundabout junction they should both be clearly visable for this distance. These signs are compromised by their siting and orientation when the approach is n/s lane from Tring unless visible does not mean legible.

I thought I recognised that location - here on a previous thread.

If you are relying on the visibility of the sign being obscured from a particular point where it is clearly visible from point a foot either side you are not going to get very far.

No I am not relying on anything as its quite clear that with the changes to the TSM the authorities can even take the signs away and still enforce the limit! Perhaps you should read them too!

For clarity I am signed for a NASC20 in connection with my visit to this location.

That still does not mean that I will no longer fight tooth and nail to secure improved installations at this location because they are deficient. If the law is an Ass and sanctions changes like those which the revised TSM now allows, it does not mean that I necessarily need to stick my head up mine.

The image you reference shows only one of the obstructions to the clear sightlines to the near side sign - it's taken at the give way T - i.e a point well within 30 metres where it should not be obstructed. To see this sign here I need to look through my passenger side window and I would not be at all surprised to find that to see it from the drivers seat I would need to be looking through my car roof. My problem I know but I dont have that category of vision.

The old TSM is now merely guidance but it also said 'Obstructions to visibility such as vegetation, street furniture, buildings, bends, humps, other topographical features etc., need to be taken into account when determining the terminal point for a speed limit order.' So to compy with this CBC should not be putting other signs and posts up here [The weight limit sign is a later addition.] and should perhaps have positioned the gateway signs a little further down Drovers Way.

Facts are that there are lots of small factors in this location which are contributing to the reason why some drivers are offending at the camera and my current objective is to get the authorities to remedy some of them so that there's better potential for less of us to do so without intent. This lowers the speeds and keeps us all safe and on the road!

So far Central Beds Council are confirming to me that they will resolve existing discrepancies and introduce co related speed and camera signs at the camera location - this will make them like every other camera in the local realm - it should assist other drivers to reduce speeds at the camera, saving points, costs and licences.

I also intend to secure other improvements and for example get them to turn the offside gateway sign so that its visibility is much better than it is today.

Today it's perpendicular [edge on] to the line of approach from Tring and because the TSM says that the minimum clear visibility distance indicated [30 metres] should be provided for both terminal signs and goes on to confirm that such provisions 'must address the needs of drivers in the most disadvantaged lane of approach' it should be fully visible from the B489 Tring nearside lane. Today these signs do not afford the clear views to the full face of the signs for 30 metres as they were supposed to in order to satisfy the old TSM. Tomorrow I believe that they will be revised such that current restricted visibilities are improved! We shall see how successful I am over the coming weeks.

So thread isn't about advice on a live case, but a discussion on signage. Flame Pit material?