Safe Speed Forums

Hang on a minute! I smell council incompetence, here!:roll:

Two years ago due to a court ruling in the case of DieselMoment, they became aware -or should have become aware- that the speed limit restrictions on that road were illegal and could not, therefore, be enforced.

After two years of waiting for the council to put this right, local residents get sick of being ignored by their council, so decide to shame the council into putting up some real speed restriction signs.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

At the same time though would you find a stretch of badly signed 30 limit and break it on purpose?

I wouldn't go out of my way to hunt down an incorrectly-signed limit just so I can break it. no. But if I were to encounter one which, on balance of probabilities suggested that the limit actually was 30, then I'd treat it like any other 30 limit - respect it if it's in an area where 30 is a limit worth respecting, treat it with somewhat less respect (in the absence of cameras) if it's on a stretch of road which really shouldn't have been saddled with such a low limit.

OTOH, if I were to encounter one which made me genuinely think that the limit now in force was still the previous higher limit I'd just been driving through (e.g. if the only evidence of the 30 limit was a solitary sign that looked as if it'd been put up decades ago and then forgotten about, or a short patch of repeater-less streetlit road where the repeaters on the previous stretch were showing signs of disrepair and the lack of repeaters on this stretch could then simply be because they'd fallen off/been vandalised rather than because they weren't supposed to be there in the first place), then I'd put my scamera-senses up a notch or two whilst continuing on at my previous pace until I was given sufficient evidence to indicate clearly what the limit actually was.

_________________
Chris

The problem is that many council officers expect people to be psychic.

"You should KNOW that the speed limit is xx!"

How? And what if I am not local, and don't know the area?

"Well, there are street lights!"

Yes, but some roads have speed limits that are not 30 and have street lights.

"You are being picky, now! You are just looking for an opportunity to drive at dangerous, illegal speeds!"

No, all I want is for YOU to use signs that comply with the law that accurately tell me and other road users what the legal speed limit of the road is.

"But that would cost money!"

Are you trying to tell me that you are deliberately failing to comply with the law to save money?

" "

I'll take that as a yes, then...

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Just deliberately failing to comply with the law to MAKE money. Them moaning about "technicalities" when they have TEAMS of people in town and county halls PAID good salaries to do things right.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Surely not!!! Why, such a thing is inconceivable!

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

No I don't see that at all. If you are prosecuted for breaking the speed limit and you were breaking the speed limit, but the police brought the wrong type of speeding offence against you (I don't know how these things work as I've never been prosecuted for speeding), then you are still morally in the wrong.



So the speed limit was 30 because of the type of road or whatever, and then it failed to become a 30 because a speed limit indicating 30 was put up? If that is the case then, yes, LEGALLY you are in the clear but morally certainly not!

And I thought that the point of this whole site was about doing the right thing rather than the legal thing?

Erm, has nobody else thought of the most obvious illegality of these signs?


PLANNING PERMISSION!


All street furniture has to be approved for siting by the Highways Department. A neighbour of ours nearly got done by our Borough Council for being caught putting up laminated posters on local lamp-posts asking for news of her missing cat. The fact that they were laminated and thus rigid made them 'solid fixtures' that required permission from the Borough Highways Engineer to site.

Oh and, hjeg2:- The Law is always open to interpretation and testing. If it wasn't, being a barrister would be a bit of a dull fricking job now, wouldn't it.

BTW, as to you not having been caught speeding, my mum has an answer for this - put a zip-strip through the bottom of the basket on your handlebars to stop it flipping up at around the 29mph mark!

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

'Technicality' and 'loophole' are just words used by those who have not done their job correctly. The reason people are acquitted on the basis of these shortcomings is to protect us all from the dangers of sloppy law enforcement.

Speed-camera proponents cannot bellow 'the law is the law' when discussing speed selection, and then oppose this viewpoint with the next breath when it acquits those who they feel should not have been.

Good points, Robin.

And I would take it one stage further.

One would presume that if the authorities (council and police) believe that a road should be reduced from -say- to that they would have to have a good reason for this.

Further more that if they were sure of their grounds that they would make certain that the public were made fully aware of this reduced speed limit. That they had gone through all the correct procedures, legally, and that all of the road markings, speed signs and repeater speed signs were properly installed and legal.

Now, if they can't be bothered to do this, then what does that tell us?

That they do not, themselves, really take the new reduced speed limit all that seriously. And if they, the authorities, do not take the new reduced speed limit seriously, why should they expect other people to take them seriously?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

The law is not about morals, a moral argument wil always fail if not backed-up by law. Lets put a simple scenario up: A man is driving in a single carriageway NSL (60mph). He reaches a road junction, no change of limit posted (IE: 30/40/50 etc)(on both sides of the road). He turns left into another single carriageway and carries-on at his up-to-sixty speed. No road lights. After a half mile he sees a posted sign repeater (40), so he slows to 40. He had already been caught on camera at 55. He did not know the speed limit was 40, because he had come out of a 60 into the 40 but there were no signs to tell him the limit, the 40 repeater was his first indication. Wrong in law ?
He was prosecuted for speeding and was found not guity because the signage was incorrect. Naturally, the police and SCP were aghast. In spite of their knowing of the problem. In your world, a moral wrong justifying a guilty verdict. Courts only operate on law, morals are a people-thing.
The same [sort] of case happened on a dc near work, when road works meant a 40 limit operated BUT this was not posted on a slip road used by traffic joining the dc. Consequently, all the prosecutions obtained by the speed camera van, parked IN the roadworks and obscuring the 40 sign on that carriageway were invalid. All those appealed were revoked....NOTE: ONLY those appealed.



The whole point of courts is doing the LEGAL thing, and leaving morals to those mentally equipped and interested. Law changes slowly, morals change where and when you are.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Well, der.



Not at all!!! Read what I write!



But I'm not arguing the point of courts! Read my posts!

MGBGT, you've completely and utterly missed the point of my posts. I'm not talking about the legal side but the MORAL side.



What, what and what again?!

Firstly, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on the other thread. Secondly, using the word "bellow" above is just your way of putting down your opponents. There is no reason to think that speed-camera proponents are doing any more bellowing than the anti-speed-camera proponents.

Thirdly, you are confused. I am not opposing this viewpoint. I am just looking at the moral side of what dieselmoment has said and about him, in my opinion, having a miserable attitude.

Morals? Yes there IS a moral dimension to this.

The authorities have a legal AND a moral duty to ensure that all signage and road markings are correct and legal.

So that it does not have to be left up to well meaning busybodies to put up their own, also illegal, signs in an attempt to shame the council into doing the right thing.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

So, at the time you pretty much know you're "breaking the law", at least that's your intention.

Later on, after you get caught, you find one of the signs was misplaced or obscured, and this technically invalidates the entire stretch, you still, in your mind, broke the law, the intention was there.

Amoral IMO.

The thing is weepej, speeding is a strict liability offence, so intention is irrelevant. No matter how confused the motorist may be by signing inconsistencies, they cannot be breaking the law if the law is absent or incorrect.

I'm sorry - I was trying to inject a small amount of humour into the situation. Obviously this has been missed. I can post details of a website where the instructions and diagrams necessary for smiling can be downloaded in .pdf form...

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

I assume the large paragraph in your post was for me?



I didn't say it did.



But the thing is, why are you bothered about them being illegal if all they're doing is reinforcing the true situation?



Those that placed them aren't irresponsible at all - all they want is for people to slow down. Assuming that this road already had a 30 limit then I don't see what the moral complaint is.



What has the above got to do with anything?



Never heard of them.



Oh ha ha. The point is that I didn't understand what the above meant; perhaps it has something to do with me not being a cyclist. Oh, sorry, you (incorrectly) assumed that I was because I support the use of speed cameras.

Hjeg2, if you haven't heard of them, you could always try Google... I did.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/