Safe Speed Forums

Ok, I was doing 41. No problems. I even saw the camera van. Except that I thought it was a 40 zone, not a 30. You come into town and the signage clearly says 30 as you come in, fine. There are then residential areas to the left where the 30 sign again appears as you enter those roads. The industrial estate to the right has no signage as you enter it, and nor has the next road, half a mile on, that I turn into. I truly thought it was 40. At the top of this road is the other main road into the town that has lots of residential houses on, and that's 40 too for half a mile. There is clear signage saying 30 from that direction, but not my direction.

Has anyone got any experience of my chances in Court?

Hi,

It appears that in this country "a system of street lighting" carries more weight than a standardised and recognisable design of sign.
Street lights = 30 restriction unless otherwise signed. It's a most stupid law.

_________________
Andrew.

Thankyou for your comments mate. Do you think this one is worth taking to Court then? I don't think there are streetlights (but will check).

Are there actually places in the UK where there are no 30 signs on entry to the 30 limit area which is in force because of street lights?

Bob - I am reliably informed (by South Oxon Highways dept. when I was fighting my own case) that a "system of street lighting" has to include at least three street lamps at intervals not exceeding 200 yards. Can you post a Google Images satellite picture for us?


No, there shouldn't be. There's a road near me that's like this. It used to be 40 and has street lighting, so repeater signs were necessary. If joining this road part way along, the only visible change after the speed limit was changed to 30 was the removal of the repeater signs. But the section of road still has to have terminal signs. The trouble is that they're just as you come off a roundabout, and because I would be concentrating on the traffic around me, I didn't notice that the signs had changed. Only after a year or two did I realise the speed limit had changed when it was pointed out to me by a friend.

People still do 40 though. And why not - it's perfectly safe.

Until you have a crash.

There's nothing inherently safe about going 40mph, or 30mph for that matter.

Or 20 or 10 or 3, or 500 at 30,000 feet.

Thanks mate. But I don't think there are street lights there.

Can anyone tell me if I have a chance?

Yes, if you can confirm the absence of street lights. I won my own case on this issue. PM me if you need further details, but before you can take it forward, you'll need pictures of ALL speed limit signage for this 30 limit. Have the police indicated under which section of 1984 RTRA you are being charged? Oh yeah, you really need to get to grips with the1984 Road Traffic Regulations Act It's not as daunting as it seems. The section of most interest to you will be Part VI - Speed Limits. Print off this section NOW, and go through it. Pay particular attention to S81(1) (exceeding 30 on a restricted road), which is the section they'll use if you were speeding on a road which supposedly has street lamps. If, however, you're being prosecuted on the basis of a road with speed limit signs, S84 will be used. Now look to S85(2)(b) which states that it is basically the council's responsibility to "to erect and maintain traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions" to motorists. If the signs are defective, hidden, or not there at all, then your defence would be S85(4) - "Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road,] , but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above."

I think you're wrong. I drove at speeds much higher than 40 yesterday, and it didn't cause me to crash.

But last year, I did indeed have a collision with a pedestrian which could have resulted in serious injury - to me - and I was only doing 12-15mph at the time. I was on my bicycle in Rose Kiln Lane, Reading - a well known retail park area. I was riding along a shared pavement/cycleway with nothing else in sight. Suddenly, a pedestrian bloke of about 35 ran out from the side having come out of a tyre/exhaust fitting place, and stopped right in front of me, facing away from me. I've no idea why he did this. I called out, hoping he'd jump out of the way, because for me to have swerved to avoid would have caused me to come off the bike. He turned but just panicked - stood there going "oh, oh, oh!". It was impossible to avoid the collision that followed, and I was thrown off and cartwheeled around to the right, landing on my right side. As I was about to land, I was convinced I was about to break my right arm, which would have been some considerable nuisance.

The cause of this crash was not speed, but like so many others was caused by human error, in this case by a pedestrian who ran out because (as he later explained) he didn't expect to have a bike bearing down on him. I pointed out the signs indicating that we were on a shared pavement/cycleway, but he had no answer to that.

The sooner people realise that it's NOT always the motorists' fault, and that pedestrians and all other road uses have their part to play in familiarising themselves with the hazards they're likely to face and the precautions that they must take, the sooner we might start to see the fall in casualties that the govt claims is already happening.

Isn' t that the point that Safe Speed has being trying to get across!?? Buy focusing in speed limits road safety has suffered?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Yes. There's one near where I work. Also there must be many others where one of the signs isn't there, has fallen down or where one is illumintaed but the other is not.

Unfortunately it does seem that street lights trump official recognisable signs.

And yes, it's more complicated than "street lamps", there must be at least three, they must be spaced no further than 283 metres apart (185 in Scotland), they must comply to a British standard, and in Scotland it's even more complicated.

_________________
Andrew.

Ok, I've checked and there ARE street lights there. But there are also street lights further on in the 40 zone. This is only one small 30 sign on this road, nothing at the entrance to the road at all excpet a small black and white speed camera sign.

Do I have a case?

Also, what is the terminal sign issue please?

At the start of a speed limit there must be two larger terminal speed limit signs. The only exceptions to that are the entry to a motorway or a side street with a lower limit where 1 sign within 20m will suffice IF there is a repeater sign within 100m in each direction on the faster road. (section 8&9 of the road traffic act)

the law also states that if the speed limit is not correctly signed you should not be found guilty.

The signs must be in good condition as the colour and size of the circle and digits and the reflective material are set down in TRSGD. If the road is a "principle road" and there is a streetlight within (50m?) then the terminal signs must be lit.

Broadly speaking a principle road is an "A" road, but your local highways authority would be the ones to ask for road status.


Is it worth fighting, If you have a case and do all your homework you can win. It will cost you a lot of time and effort.

See this web page http://web.mac.com/rmbscarb/iWeb/rmbcon ... Q%27s.html and the list of photos needed.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

There are street lights on the road, but there are in the 40 bit too.

As I came into the town there is a 30 sign. There are then more 30 signs to the left at junctions to residential areas. The right hand turning I took to the industrial estate has no speed limit sign, neither has the next turning that I was clocked on, until half way down it there is a small 30 sign), just before where the van was. Probably a good half mile to mile away from the first 30 sign.

Any thoughts?

I have to fill in the form today or tomorrow, I've run out of time. But if I take the points then find that it's illegal, I can presumably then fight it later?

But there's nothing less safe about 40mph now than there was before the limit was reduced. Yet you would have been happy for people to go at 40mph in the right conditions before the limit was reduced, whereas you believe that anyone who now goes at 40mph should be automatically punished. Why, when the risk level is exactly the same? Why attach so much importance to a sign? Why start automatically punishing people for something that was deemed acceptably safe before (for decades and decades)? Why, when absolutely nothing has changed?

And incidentally, are there any examples of speed limit reductions which you don't think should have taken place? Or is it a case of "A speed limit can never be too low"?

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

I believe you can only do that if you take it to court.

Also that'll buy you some time.

From what I've read (I haven't done the court thing yet) you can plead guilty by post, and can change from "not guilty" to "guilty" at any time.

_________________
Andrew.

Plead not guilty.

You can change your mind later and provided you do so before attending court, and provided you tell them why you believed NG before changing to G you will almost certainly not incur extra cost over and above the FP anyway.

Also have a look at pepipoo.

You can even change your plea upon arrival at court. The court usher offered me that choice when I arrived at court to contest my own case.

Guys, can I have a definitive here? There is some contadictory comments above.

I was caught in a 30 zone that I thought was 40. Signage was dismal to non-existent but there arte lots of streetlights. I didn't realise that street lights meant 30 zone, surely that cannot convict me?

Per Anton or Diesel's comments above, I've looked at the link provided (trhanks) for the RTA relevent bit, and it does seem to say that street lights mean restrictive area, ie 30. Bit surely signage comes into it? I was two roads after the last 30 sign on an industrial estate.

Am I on a hiding to nothing?