Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Speeding offence - street signs
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Mike Ho
Hi please can you help.

My elderly father got sent a NIP for 46 in a 40 zone which was returned, and now has another letter
saying they are prosecuting him for it.

However, I went with him on the route, and I noticed that the speed camera sign is not easily seen
as a tree branch foliage obscures it.

I have attached a photo. Also is there a minimum size for this sign?


How do I appeal? and would this provide enough evidence of poorly maintained street signage?


Secondly, the other lane has a 40mph limit sign and speed camera sign, However the red colour surrounding the sign
is badly worn away, could this constitute grounds for dismissal of the charge? (I'm not sure which direction he was going on that day)

Thanks

M


TonyS
They don't need a sign for the camera at all I'm afraid.
mrh3369
Speed camera warning signs are not required by law so in afraid that there is no defence from this angle.
The Rookie
As the speed camera sign isn't required for a prosecution, I wouldn't be taking this to court at all with that 'defence'.

46 in a 40 would usually see the offer of an awareness course or a fixed penalty.

If the terminal signs entering the limit are correct and the repeaters substantially compliant I wouldn't be going to court with the signage as a defence either, you'll need to know which way he was going as it's the signs HE should have seen and complied with and no other that matter.
BaggieBoy
Speed camara warning signs are not required, so no defence if they are missing obscured I'm afraid. Invalid limit signage is another matter. Do the NIP wizard so we have some information to work on.
Mike Ho
>Invalid limit signage is another matter

Thanks for the quick reply guys! appreciate it!

I will get a photo with the 40 mph limit sign, which I think is in a bad condition (the red surround is really worn).
would that constitute any defence ?

Cheers

M

Gan
Are you sure you mean "prosecution" as in summons to court ?

That speed easily qualifies for a course or a fixed penalty offer unless he's on 9 points and has already taken a course in the last three years

Mike Ho
Already taken a course. No not summoned to court. 3 points + £100 fine

I've just seen this article:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-42...ing-appeal.html




Jlc
QUOTE (Mike Ho @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 14:43) *
I've just seen this article:-

The article refers to the speed limit sign being covered - not the speed camera warnings.

A 40mph limit will require a terminal sign and repeaters. Depending on what was passed then there may be a defence with the signage - it is likely to be a high risk strategy and the costs of 'failure' are high compared with the fixed penalty offer. You will need to be 100% sure of the signs (or lack of) along with evidence of their state.
The Rookie
You need more tahn just one sign, you need the terminal signs he passed and then how far from there to the 'ping' location and how many repeaters passed, it is unlikley this will be a defence, let us have a Google streetview link and we can 'walk' through the signage.
Chris1207
A thought: If the signs are missing / in such a state as to make them invalid (i.e., effectively not there)... given there's a system of street lighting, wouldn't it then 'default' to a 30 limit ?
Mike Ho
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 15:26) *
You need more tahn just one sign, you need the terminal signs he passed and then how far from there to the 'ping' location and how many repeaters passed, it is unlikley this will be a defence, let us have a Google streetview link and we can 'walk' through the signage.


http://goo.gl/maps/Qf0Dx
Jlc
If one is in an area of street lighting without signs to the contrary then one should assume it's a 30. But it depends on many things - if the proceeding limit was a 50mph (say) and the OP was caught shortly into the 40mph (as legally defined by the TRO) then there could be a case if the terminal sign was defective.

But finding a faded sign isn't an automatic cancellation.
Chris1207
QUOTE (Mike Ho @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 15:40) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 15:26) *
You need more tahn just one sign, you need the terminal signs he passed and then how far from there to the 'ping' location and how many repeaters passed, it is unlikley this will be a defence, let us have a Google streetview link and we can 'walk' through the signage.


http://goo.gl/maps/Qf0Dx


The intial 40 is poorly positioned behind that other sign, but it's there (unsure if you'd consider it obscured, but there is one on the opposite side too), then there's another repeater just before the underpass at the station, then I didn't see any others until well after the next roundabout. Of course, the google images are a year out of date, so that might not be the position today.

Where's the camera ? Didn't spot it. Or was it a mobile patrol / camera ?
Mike Ho
QUOTE (Chris1207 @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 16:00) *
QUOTE (Mike Ho @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 15:40) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 15:26) *
You need more tahn just one sign, you need the terminal signs he passed and then how far from there to the 'ping' location and how many repeaters passed, it is unlikley this will be a defence, let us have a Google streetview link and we can 'walk' through the signage.


http://goo.gl/maps/Qf0Dx


The intial 40 is poorly positioned behind that other sign, but it's there (unsure if you'd consider it obscured, but there is one on the opposite side too), then there's another repeater just before the underpass at the station, then I didn't see any others until well after the next roundabout. Of course, the google images are a year out of date, so that might not be the position today.

Where's the camera ? Didn't spot it. Or was it a mobile patrol / camera ?



It was a mobile camera on the layby

For info, what happens if the terminal sign is in poor condition like this?

http://goo.gl/maps/jcMDj


The Rookie
The left hand sign is badly obscured in that link, it is there however, impossible on GSV given the 'jumps' to access how visable it is.
Chris1207
Ah, so he's come from the opposite direction ? That is a repeater, he's either come straight along in which case he'd have passed other 40 signs, or he's come out of one of the 30 side roads. There does seem to be loads of signs missing though, but IMO that'd then default it to a 30, I can't see where he'd have joined from a 50 or NSL.
Jlc
QUOTE (Mike Ho @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 16:27) *
For info, what happens if the terminal sign is in poor condition like this?

The most roads it's the council's job to ensure the up keep.

Although, the 40 is clearly readable... But if you are trying to say the sign is 'not compliant' (so effectively not there) then the limit, in this instance, would be considered 30.
Mike Ho
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 16:30) *
The left hand sign is badly obscured in that link, it is there however, impossible on GSV given the 'jumps' to access how visable it is.


That's what it looks like in real-life, the red surround is all peeled and patchy.


andy_foster
QUOTE (Chris1207 @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 15:36) *
A thought: If the signs are missing / in such a state as to make them invalid (i.e., effectively not there)... given there's a system of street lighting, wouldn't it then 'default' to a 30 limit ?


No
southpaw82
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 16:55) *
Although, the 40 is clearly readable... But if you are trying to say the sign is 'not compliant' (so effectively not there) then the limit, in this instance, would be considered 30.


Really? Despite there almost certainly being an order under s. 82 RTRA 84 directing that the road is no longer a restricted road?
The Rookie
Indeed, it is either a restricted road (30) or it is not, if it is not then the speed limit needs to be correctly signed. Not withstanding that an absence/defect of signs is not a defence to speeding where there is a system of street lighting even if the road isn't restricted (the law having not kept up with reality), though it would be reasonable a 'special reason not to endorse'.
Jlc
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 17:51) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 19 Sep 2013 - 16:55) *
Although, the 40 is clearly readable... But if you are trying to say the sign is 'not compliant' (so effectively not there) then the limit, in this instance, would be considered 30.


Really? Despite there almost certainly being an order under s. 82 RTRA 84 directing that the road is no longer a restricted road?

Sorry - I didn't phrase it well.

What I meant was that if someone finds themselves on a road with street lighting and there are no signs (or 'non-complaint' ones) to the contrary then one should assume 30mph and this will significantly reduce the chance of being caught 'speeding'. In contrast with seeing a 40mph sign with a faded outside and then proceeding at 50mph...
The Rookie
As maybe as it's irrelevant in law.....doesn't really help the OP.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.