Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 60 in a 'congested' (empty) variable 50 with NSL next
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
wizpip
Hello,

I think that I was flashed this morning (with many others) travelling at about 60 through a variable 50 sign on the M1 near the M25. Several previous signs were 60 and displaying "CONGESTION", but this particular sign was 50, and had a speed camera on it. The sign after it was displaying national speed limit. There was very light traffic on the motorway, certainly nothing to justify any of the congestion signs, or a 50 on the motorway.

It sort of feels like entrapment (being forced to slow for one sign to 50 with a camera because of non-existent congestion where the motorway was clear), are there any rules regarding this?

If I do get a ticket, would this be grounds for appeal?

I have some video evidence on my car cam, I'll post snapshots later.

Thanks all.
The Rookie
Entrapment is being forced or encouraged to speed, so clearly not entrapment at all.

You appeal after being convicted, so that's a long way off.

I see no grounds for contesting it, you admit passing a speed limit sign you had seen and chose to ignore while travelling over the limit, any reason for setting the limit would not be a defence even if you cold prove it was set incorrectly, which I suspect you can't and almost certainly wasn't anyway.
Logician
Perhaps the motorway was clear because varying the limit had succeeded in clearing it, but regardless the issue is simple, you have to obey the limit whether or not you believe it to be justified, and when the limit displayed is reduced from 60 to 50, then the limit is reduced from 60 to 50. The presence or absence of speed camera signs does not affect this. No, you have no grounds whatsoever for appeal.
wizpip
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 09:30) *
I see no grounds for contesting it, you admit passing a speed limit sign you had seen and chose to ignore while travelling over the limit, any reason for setting the limit would not be a defence even if you cold prove it was set incorrectly, which I suspect you can't and almost certainly wasn't anyway.


This is an interesting point. I travelled Southbound on the M1 between Junctions 13 and 5. J13 to J10 was all 60 congestion use hard shoulder, but the traffic was so light that nothing was in the hard shoulder or the outside lane. J10 - J7 was all NSL. Approaching J6 (M25) the signs started to display 60 congestion again, and the final sign before NSL resumed was set to 50 with a camera on. Given that many people behind me seem to have been caught (that flash was going ballistic) it seems reasonable to assume that when people see a NSL sign past a 50 sign which was past a 60 sign because of stated conditions which did not exist (congestion), they will continue on as usual.

I understand that it's my fault and I must accept any penalty given to me, but it feels wrong that I'm being penalised for passing a sign warning about a condition which very clearly did not exist.

You say at the end that you believe it wasn't incorrectly set, why? Why is 60 congestion > 50 congestion (camera) > NSL acceptable on a clear road?
The Rookie
QUOTE (wizpip @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 10:43) *
You say at the end that you believe it wasn't incorrectly set, why? Why is 60 congestion > 50 congestion (camera) > NSL acceptable on a clear road?

The could be reasons for the 50 you are not aware of, for example workmen working on the bridge out of sight, I don't know why the 50 was set, but neither do you, regardless that will almost certainly have been set for a reason, for example there may have been a collision that had just finished clearing and the control not yet informed. All rather acedemic anyway, even if it was et manually by an alcoholic operator who was schizophrenic and high on pot, the limit was still the legal limit in force, the reason 'it was a clear road' is not a defence is obvious, if it wasn't clear you may not know until it's too late, so the limit has logically to be enforced.
wizpip
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 09:48) *
The could be reasons for the 50 you are not aware of, for example workmen working on the bridge out of sight, I don't know why the 50 was set, but neither do you, regardless that will almost certainly have been set for a reason, for example there may have been a collision that had just finished clearing and the control not yet informed. All rather acedemic anyway, even if it was et manually by an alcoholic operator who was schizophrenic and high on pot, the limit was still the legal limit in force, the reason 'it was a clear road' is not a defence is obvious, if it wasn't clear you may not know until it's too late, so the limit has logically to be enforced.


When a sign says 50 and has a matrix sign attached to it that says CONGESTION, I think it's logical to assume that the sign has been set because of congestion. Those signs could also display LANE CLOSED, or WORKFORCE IN ROAD, or OBSTRUCTION, etc etc. If the sign is 50 CONGESTION closely followed by NSL then the sign has very clearly been set incorrectly, especially if many motorists have passed the sign at a speed greater than what is displayed. But, as you rightly point out, we are all in the wrong and there's no such thing as common sense on the motorway anymore.
The Rookie
If you want a discussion on this it's relevant for the flame pit so it would be worth starting (yet another) thread on the topic, as legally its irrelevant to your case.
peterguk
QUOTE (wizpip @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 10:43) *
I'm being penalised for passing a sign warning about a condition which very clearly did not exist?


Much the same as people who say there were no workmen visible.
Logician
QUOTE (wizpip @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 11:15) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 09:48) *
The could be reasons for the 50 you are not aware of, for example workmen working on the bridge out of sight, I don't know why the 50 was set, but neither do you, regardless that will almost certainly have been set for a reason, for example there may have been a collision that had just finished clearing and the control not yet informed. All rather acedemic anyway, even if it was et manually by an alcoholic operator who was schizophrenic and high on pot, the limit was still the legal limit in force, the reason 'it was a clear road' is not a defence is obvious, if it wasn't clear you may not know until it's too late, so the limit has logically to be enforced.
When a sign says 50 and has a matrix sign attached to it that says CONGESTION, I think it's logical to assume that the sign has been set because of congestion. Those signs could also display LANE CLOSED, or WORKFORCE IN ROAD, or OBSTRUCTION, etc etc. If the sign is 50 CONGESTION closely followed by NSL then the sign has very clearly been set incorrectly, especially if many motorists have passed the sign at a speed greater than what is displayed. But, as you rightly point out, we are all in the wrong and there's no such thing as common sense on the motorway anymore.


If the limit has been set because of congestion, and has succeeded in clearing the congestion, or the congestion has cleared for other reasons, then there may be a delay of some sort before the operators respond and clear the signs, or indeed they may know that the clear patch is followed by more congested traffic which is approaching. Where variable limits have been installed on motorways, those who use them regularly say that they have helped to relieve congestion. Be that as it may, there certainly is a place for common sense on the motorway, and common sense should tell you that where there are large signs displaying a speed limit in a red circle, that is the speed limit that will be enforced regardless of your opinion on when or not it is appropriate and the speed of other vehicles. For the avoidance of doubt, this also applies to fixed speed limits.

The Rookie
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 11:24) *
If you want a discussion on this it's relevant for the flame pit so it would be worth starting (yet another) thread on the topic, as legally its irrelevant to your case.


The penalty is for exceeding the speed limit, not for a condition.....
wizpip
QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 10:25) *
Much the same as people who say there were no workmen visible.


Except I have camera evidence that shows four driving lanes, two exit lanes, and a hard shoulder with less traffic than a beach in winter. I'll post it when I get home.

QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 10:28) *
If the limit has been set because of congestion, and has succeeded in clearing the congestion, or the congestion has cleared for other reasons, then there may be a delay of some sort before the operators respond and clear the signs, or indeed they may know that the clear patch is followed by more congested traffic which is approaching. Where variable limits have been installed on motorways, those who use them regularly say that they have helped to relieve congestion. Be that as it may, there certainly is a place for common sense on the motorway, and common sense should tell you that where there are large signs displaying a speed limit in a red circle, that is the speed limit that will be enforced regardless of your opinion on when or not it is appropriate and the speed of other vehicles. For the avoidance of doubt, this also applies to fixed speed limits.


I've been travelling up and down the M1 for the past 5 years, daily, and I can tell you that the hard shoulder running between J10 and J13 is ALWAYS set to ON at 'peak', even if there has been an accident somewhere and there is (sometimes literally) no traffic. 60 Congestion Use Hard Shoulder when you're the only person on the motorway, because some jobsworth has put the system into manual enforced mode, isn't going to make it flow faster. (I have photos of that too).

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 10:34) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 11:24) *
If you want a discussion on this it's relevant for the flame pit so it would be worth starting (yet another) thread on the topic, as legally its irrelevant to your case.


The penalty is for exceeding the speed limit, not for a condition.....


Agreed. All I wanted was advice for what I feel were unfair circumstances on a journey I've clocked up 100,000 miles doing without incident, and I feel like everyone here would love to be a CEO.
peterguk
QUOTE (wizpip @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 11:43) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 10:25) *
Much the same as people who say there were no workmen visible.


Except I have camera evidence that shows four driving lanes, two exit lanes, and a hard shoulder with less traffic than a beach in winter. I'll post it when I get home.



Legally, makes absolutely no difference what there is to see and not see.
Logician
QUOTE (wizpip @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 11:43) *
All I wanted was advice for what I feel were unfair circumstances on a journey I've clocked up 100,000 miles doing without incident, and I feel like everyone here would love to be a CEO.


No, we do not want to be CEOs. We are simply pointing out that there is no possible merit or basis for appeal in your argument that the limit was wrongly set. If you want sympathy for what you feel was unfair, then you are on the wrong site. What we do here is advice on traffic law.

wizpip
QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 11:54) *
No, we do not want to be CEOs. We are simply pointing out that there is no possible merit or basis for appeal in your argument that the limit was wrongly set. If you want sympathy for what you feel was unfair, then you are on the wrong site. What we do here is advice on traffic law.


Actually, I understand that I need to go through the process; but it was more about how do I ultimately go about dealing with what seems to be an unfair system, not just for myself, but for other drivers? Whose attention would I need to bring this to?
The Rookie
Your MP, you are complaining about policy and/or law, so he's the right person.

We (well I) am not at all unsympathetic, but sympathy doesn't win court cases, and it won't be me paying if it all goes badly wrong.

For that speed you'll be offered an awareness course, so half a day of your time and about £100 in course fee, but no points, the decision is a 'no-brainer' for most people versus either the fixed penalty or the total cost if you lose in court. If you are very well off (like premiership footballer), then taking it to court will see the same 3 points and you can have some satisfaction of making yourself a pain in the 'arris, there is also a small chance of a procedural mess up and you getting a win, but for most people the potential costs of losing far outweigh the odds and potential benefit. (think of it like betting £10K to win £100 on odds of about 100:1 against - you just wouldn't!).

Logician
QUOTE (wizpip @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 12:16) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 11:54) *
No, we do not want to be CEOs. We are simply pointing out that there is no possible merit or basis for appeal in your argument that the limit was wrongly set. If you want sympathy for what you feel was unfair, then you are on the wrong site. What we do here is advice on traffic law.
Actually, I understand that I need to go through the process; but it was more about how do I ultimately go about dealing with what seems to be an unfair system, not just for myself, but for other drivers? Whose attention would I need to bring this to?


You could start with the Highways Agency, now re-named Highways England. LINK A reasoned letter would hopefully bring a reasoned response, not just a standard reply. If you could get a trip to one of their control rooms, as I did a couple of years ago, you would get an insight into how they manage a controlled motorway. If you think the law itself is unfair, then the route is through your MP, who will probably forward your letter to the DfT for reply. If that is not satisfactory, s/he might even take up the case, if it might be a popular cause.

Churchmouse
QUOTE (wizpip @ Tue, 2 Jun 2015 - 11:43) *
Agreed. All I wanted was advice for what I feel were unfair circumstances on a journey I've clocked up 100,000 miles doing without incident, and I feel like everyone here would love to be a CEO.

Well, you could always try mumsnet. cool.gif

--Churchmouse
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.