Safe Speed Forums

Your post illustrates that your knowledge of speed limits is not all it should be as it makes no sense.

If I joined a single carriageway road from a side road and there were no speed limit signs I would have 2 choices:
1. Proceed at up to 60 mph if it has no street lights
2. Proceed at up to 30 mph if it has street lighting
This should be done on every occasion until directed otherwise by a speed limit sign.

To assume the limit is 40mph or 50mph is wrong as these limits always need signs ;no signs no 40mph or 50mph speed limit.

If it is a 30mph speed limit in what would normally be 60mph (i.e. no street lighting) then there has to be signs.

What I think we are discussing previously is, in my opinion, whether drivers should be able to drive in excess of speed limits if slightly defective signs are present, i.e. faded red circles etc. The answer is no they should not as there is provision for this in the law, a court would have to decide if the driver had or had not been directed adequately.

In my experience drivers are very poor at reading the road, most, if not all, roads can be read for a speed limit until otherwise directed by a sign.

if you joined this duel carriage way you would find no signs at 4 junctions. However the white lines are painted such that you would know that the limit is 50-70 mph even though it has street lights.

If you were injured by a car exceeding the speed limit you could sue both the driver and the councl as they have failed to inform the driver of the limit. I want to reduce the liabillity to the council as I will pick up the bill.

There's nothing wrong with my knowledge of speed limits. I perhaps should have said "up to 60mph" but I chose 50mph as an example. You have completely failed to understand Anton's points. The limits were not signed correctly at some of the junctions so you would have assumed that the limit was either 30 or 60 when it was 40. If you were doing 60 you could receive a NIP in the post having done nothing wrong (because there were no signs to tell you otherwise).

I can't agree I am afraid.
If there is a street with street lighting and no other signs then the limit would be 30mph until you see a sign otherwise.

[...]

Street Lights; no speed limit signs; not a motorway = 30mph.

This is incorrect; strictly speaking, it is not wholly correct. The streetlamps must be within a certain distance of each other (200 yards) for the limit to be 30; streetlaps alone do not make a 30 limit.

This is incorrect; strictly speaking, it is not wholly correct. The streetlamps must be within a certain distance of each other (200 yards) for the limit to be 30; streetlaps alone do not make a 30 limit.

Dear Mr Anton

Thankyou for your email dated 5th January addressed to Jim Fitzpatrick. It has been passed to me for response.

Local traffic authorities are responsible for setting local speed limits and for ensuring the signing conforms to regulations. Local authorities have a responsibility to ensure speed limits are correctly signed or run the risk of being challenged in the courts. If you feel that your local authority have not given an appropriate response to your concerns, then you could consider contacting the Local Government Ombudsman for their view.

Yours sincerely

Josh Fox
---
Josh Fox
Head of speed management and enforcement policy
Email: joshua.fox@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7944 2633

3 march 2009
Dear Anton,

thank-you for your e-mail to Actionline, which has been passed to me for reply. I must apologise that you feel that you have not had a direct response from Southampton City Council; I believe you have received a reply direct from Julian Hewitt at the Safer Roads Partnership. Southampton City Council is a member of this Partnership and Julian’s reply to your queries, which related to Partnership business, was on behalf of the Partnership’s members. It was, therefore, not considered to be appropriate for Southampton City Council to formulate a separate reply. I hope this clarifies matters for you.

Regards,


Carol Bagshaw

Sustainable Travel Manager

Planning & Sustainability

Southampton City Council

4th April 2009
For the attention of the Chief Executive of Southampton City Council



Please find attached previous correspondence regarding speed limit signing on A33, A35 Millbrook rd and other associated roads.


Four months on and the serious defects in the signing of the 50mph limit are still not corrected, Southampton taxpayers are funding safer roads Hampshire to prosecute motorists who have not committed an offence due to the total lack of speed limit signs laid down in law. Confused motorists are driving at significantly differing speeds increasing the danger on our roads. Southampton tax payers are at increased risks of legal action being brought against the city in the event of a serious accident due to the cities poor signing, or wrongful prosecution.


The responses to my complaint by their actions and inactions show a joined up effort to continue prosecuting people for offences not committed. That strays into very serious legal waters, may be malfalise in public office or perverting the course of justice.

Southampton City is a highways authority and is responsible for signing the road to the law. It also has a legal duty to maintain those signs and remove signs that no longer apply. It may contract that work out but is still responsible.

I formally request an explanation why my complaint which is looking for justice and safety has been circumvented and ignored.


I formally request that you write to the Crown Prosecution Service listing the signing defects that you accept as being true and estimating the timescale they may have existed, and copy me in on that letter


I formally request that you correct all the defects on the 50mph limit on the A33/A35/A3024 and all associated side roads on the western side of the city to comply the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 within 14 days.


Under the freedom of information act I would like to know the amount of money given to safer roads Hampshire in financial years 2007/8, 2008/9 and the proposed sum for 2009/10



Under the freedom of information act I would like to know all the Southampton city representatives to Safer Roads Hampshire and positions held from 2007 to present day.



Under the freedom of information act I request to know the policy and schedule of checking signs and their associated lighting for this site and the rest of the city.





Further to the list of defects in the original complaint there are new defects that need addressing.



Tebourba way, William McCloud way

Only one sign each side

Millbrook Rd/Waterhouse Lane
Faded non reflective 30 sign going in , no 50 signs coming out, turn left arrow on central reservation unlit

M271/Redbridge roundabout. Right hand 50mph sign light not working

A33/A35/A3024 repeater signs. There must be a repeater sign within 350m of any pair of terminal speed limit signs, and then every 450m. If a single sign is used to a lower limit then there must be a repeater sign within 100m. There are no legal repeater signs on Tebourba Way and insufficient on the rest of the site. Most of those that exist are faded, some bagged or painted grey.



The original list

Southampton City Council Highways Authority area

Defect 1
Redbridge Lane/Millbrook Rd
There is only one sign leading in/out of Redbridge Lane there are not two repeaters within 100m.
Therefore there should be two lit terminal signs

Defect 2
Millbrook Rd/ Millbrook Point Road. Speed sign entering Millbrook Point Road is of the back lit design is faded. (In my opinion, beyond reasonable interpretation of red)

Defect 3
Oakley Road (east bound) onto Tebourba way (A35)
Right hand sign missing
Right hand sign was never lit
Left hand sign lit and present but bizarrely has had “roadworks” 50 sign place below it
(since roadworks in September 2008)

Defect 4
Oakley Road (west bound) onto Tebourba way (A35)
Right hand sign missing
Post and sign light present (since road works in September 2008)

Defect 5
Tebourba way (A35) 100m south of Romsey Road
Left hand sign missing at least two years
Powered sign pole exists bit no sign or light
Council have installed new street lights recently and painted the empty pole yet failed to spot the missing sign.

Defect 6
Repeater signs Tebourba way (A35) 200m south of Oakley Road still bagged from roadworks completed in September 2008
Repeater sign 300m south of Oakley Road faded beyond reasonable interpretation of red.

Defect 7

Regents Park Road JCN Millbrook Rd

Signed twice on left hand side, not signed on right

Where exactly does the limit start?

Defect 8

100m past the Roseland’s petrol station on a green sign there is still a greyed out repeater sign on trunk road sign pole.

Defect 9

At the southern end of the M271 the 50 terminal sign is hidden behind the end of motorway sign preventing it from being visible for 50m it is barely visible for 100m/s

As seen in this video clip http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TrJtyAOZI3Q M271 to Ashurst

Defect 10.

Allington Way/Millbrook Rd only one sign and no repeaters within 100m

Defect 11,

Millbrook Rd speed camera east bound just before Parkside Rd (McDonalds) has the camera symbol on one side and the repeater on the other; they must be on the same side of the road.

Southampton & Hants


Defect 12.

From the M271 round the roundabout over the bridge to Totton there are no repeaters or camera signs before the speed camera. No repeater signs for 1800m See clip http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TrJtyAOZI3Q M271 to Ashurst

If there is a lorry in lane 3 of the m271 at the roundabout it is totally possible to reach the speed camera without seeing a single speed limit sign and continue 1.2 miles before the first repeater!

Yours sinceerly Anton
Address Phone: number

Dear Mr Anton


Thank you for your recent e-mail to the Council's Chief Executive, to which I have been asked to respond.



As my colleague Carol Bagshaw explained to you in her e-mail of 3rd March, Southampton is a member of the Safer Roads Partnership along with Hampshire County Council and the Police and it was considered appropriate that the response to your original enquiry, which you sent to many interested parties, should come from the partnership itself. I am sorry if you feel that your concerns were ignored in any way.



I would assure you that the issues you raised with respect to Southampton were investigated and, where appropriate, corrective action was arranged. However, there are some situations relating to signing at junctions where the government's advice allows highway authorities some flexibility over the amount of signing provided, and in these cases the Council’s policies on minimising street clutter may dictate that sometimes less signing is provided than you might wish to see. I have also arranged for the additional items you have mentioned in your latest note to be checked and any appropriate action taken, but I regret that I am unable to indicate a completion date for any outstanding work at this stage.



One reason for this is that a temporary 30 mph limit is due to be introduced on 27 April on a major section of the routes you have highlighted in connection with long-term works being carried out at Millbrook and Redbridge flyovers. Consequently, there will be temporary revised signing arrangements in place in this area for some time to come.



The approach to the Crown Prosecution Service that you have requested would need to come from the Safer Roads Partnership and I have copied this note to them so that they may consider whether or not such an approach would be appropriate.



Your Freedom of Information requests are being dealt with under separate procedures and you should be hearing from my colleagues in the near future in that respect.



Regards, Roger Mortimer



Principal Officer Traffic Management

Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:30 PM

Subject: FW: A33/A35/A3024 speed limit signing



Dear Mr Anton


Thank you for your recent e-mail to the Council's Chief Executive, to which I have been asked to respond.

As my colleague Carol Bagshaw explained to you in her e-mail of 3rd March, Southampton is a member of the Safer Roads Partnership along with Hampshire County Council and the Police and it was considered appropriate that the response to your original enquiry, which you sent to many interested parties, should come from the partnership itself. I am sorry if you feel that your concerns were ignored in any way.

I would assure you that the issues you raised with respect to Southampton were investigated and, where appropriate, corrective action was arranged. However, there are some situations relating to signing at junctions where the government's advice allows highway authorities some flexibility over the amount of signing provided, and in these cases the Council’s policies on minimising street clutter may dictate that sometimes less signing is provided than you might wish to see. I have also arranged for the additional items you have mentioned in your latest note to be checked and any appropriate action taken, but I regret that I am unable to indicate a completion date for any outstanding work at this stage.

One reason for this is that a temporary 30 mph limit is due to be introduced on 27 April on a major section of the routes you have highlighted in connection with long-term works being carried out at Millbrook and Redbridge flyovers. Consequently, there will be temporary revised signing arrangements in place in this area for some time to come.

The approach to the Crown Prosecution Service that you have requested would need to come from the Safer Roads Partnership and I have copied this note to them so that they may consider whether or not such an approach would be appropriate.

Your Freedom of Information requests are being dealt with under separate procedures and you should be hearing from my colleagues in the near future in that respect.

From: Anton
Sent: 21 April 2009 12:33
To: Mortimer, Roger
Cc: Mears, Paul; Veal, Vanessa; Hii, HC; Bagshaw, Carol
Subject: Re: A33/A35/A3024 speed limit signing

Thankyou,

May I remind you that tsrgd 2002 is law and traffic signs manual is guidance on how to impliment that law. I sent the original list of defects four months ago to action line and to the councilors, I sent a reminder to action line, I said in my email to the Chief Exec that my complaint was being circumvented. . You seam just as unwilling to rectify problems. You have not rectified a single defect to my knowledge. Any flexibillity in TSM is for cases where a sign can't be installed such as over a culvert or where a sign would conflict with another sign.

Quote:I would assure you that the issues you raised with respect to Southampton were investigated and, where appropriate, corrective action was arranged. This is a lie!

So far you have been unable to erect a sign on a powered post that exists, remove a plastic bag, or erect a single repeater sign. All I have is press releases saying that the city will ask the camera partnership how to sign a speed limit ?! And your e-mail. And emails telling me that the city have replied in full to my complaint dated jan 6th. Whilst you emails are polite, I feel every point I make is deliberatly being mis-interprited. If I was a utillity signing a road in the city you would expect the signing to be correct at all times, not in 10 days time or a few months.

It is quite simple . Either you are willing to comply with law made by our elected MP's (tsrgd) or you are not.

Anton

Dear Mr Seaton

Thanks for your note. There was no dishonesty in my previous replies and you may wish to consider withdrawing your suggestion of that and apologising for it. I am happy to assist you on these matters but only while appropriate standards of courtesy and respect are maintained.

Regards, Roger Mortimer

from Anton
To Rodger Mortimer
When it comes to standards and courtesy I would like honest answers. Respect needs to be earned. I feel that it is myself that deserves some apologies.
Quote:I would assure you that the issues you raised with respect to Southampton were investigated and, where appropriate, corrective action was arranged.

I attach photos taken today that prove that the defects have not been rectified. The only change I found was a replacement lit sign at Pointout road.
Why should I apologise?