FightBack Forums > Combined speed camera and repater signs on restricted roads

andy_foster

Thu, 16 Sep 2004 - 11:32

Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002, direction 11, paragraph 4 states

QUOTE

(4) The sign shown in diagram 670 (except when displayed on a variable message sign in the manner mentioned in regulation 58(7)(B)) shall not be placed along -
(a) a road on which there is provided a system of carriageway lighting furnished by lamps lit by electricity placed not more than 183 metres apart in England and Wales or not more than 185 metres apart in Scotland and which is subject to a speed limit of 30 mph; or

Basically, repeater signs are not allowed on restricted roads (30mph, street lights)
If a restricted road had a repeater sign (diagram 670) incorporated into a speed camera warning sign, would that be a violation of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 S.85(1)or(2), giving rise to a defence under (4)?

Andy

firefly

Thu, 16 Sep 2004 - 12:07

QUOTE (andy_foster)

Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002, direction 11, paragraph 4 states

QUOTE

(4) The sign shown in diagram 670 (except when displayed on a variable message sign in the manner mentioned in regulation 58(7)(B)) shall not be placed along -
(a) a road on which there is provided a system of carriageway lighting furnished by lamps lit by electricity placed not more than 183 metres apart in England and Wales or not more than 185 metres apart in Scotland and which is subject to a speed limit of 30 mph; or

Basically, repeater signs are not allowed on restricted roads (30mph, street lights)
If a restricted road had a repeater sign (diagram 670) incorporated into a speed camera warning sign, would that be a violation of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 S.85(1)or(2), giving rise to a defence under (4)?

Andy

Whilst you would have a legitimate case if the opposite was true (i.e. the road required repeaters, but had none), I think you would do very well to wriggle out of a speeding charge on those grounds. I do not deny there is logic in your argument, but it is (in my opinion) a fatuous argument ultimately.

jeffreyarcher

Thu, 16 Sep 2004 - 13:59

First of all, I do not think that the point is fatuous (sorry, ff

).
That is not to say that I think it would be a valid defence, but it would take to long to explain why.
Because it's probably prescribed anyway as a sign 880, anyway, I won't bother. Should it not be a sign 880, post again and I'll explain it.

firefly

Thu, 16 Sep 2004 - 14:20

QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)

That is not to say that I think it would be a valid defence, but it would take to long to explain why.

Having seen (and listened) to jeffrey's substantial paper trail on the subject, I can heartily concur!

QUOTE

First of all, I do not think that the point is fatuous (sorry, ff)

I am deeply upset.

Rather than fatuous, how about "probably onto a loser, even though there is a certain logic (and statute) in your argument"?

andy_foster

Thu, 16 Sep 2004 - 19:01

QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)

First of all, I do not think that the point is fatuous (sorry, ff

).
That is not to say that I think it would be a valid defence, but it would take to long to explain why.
Because it's probably prescribed anyway as a sign 880, anyway, I won't bother. Should it not be a sign 880, post again and I'll explain it.

That looks like the kiddie.

Thanks for your help.

Clear Skies

Fri, 17 Sep 2004 - 13:32

andy said..

If a restricted road had a repeater sign (diagram 670) incorporated into a speed camera warning sign, would that be a violation of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 S.85(1)or(2), giving rise to a defence under (4)?

unquote..

I seem to recall, about 6 months ago, a new notice being issued, which was a speed cam sign and a mile an hour sign incorperated together, and being confirmed as a legitamate sign.

However, like so much other stuff comes and goes, I have no copy.

rgds
bill