Safe Speed Forums

Oh dear GreenShed, you seem to have been caught out in either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the precedent you have quoted as supporting your standpoint. There are several fairly major points in the High Court decision which both differentiate that case from this and support the assertions made by the OP in this case. Would you care to expound on why you think that case is relevant to the case at hand?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

We think we know - but I've asked it bluntly -
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=21866
If he refuses to answer , perhaps we should ask for his posting rights to be withdrawn .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

For now let's disregard Robin's question - let's be clear that his question does need answering.

Let's say you are right GS:

So, returning to my original, twice posed, question to you:

Yes or no?
(don't repeat the Tu quoque fallacy like you did earlier)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I have checked out this question of legal speed limit signs with a motoring solicitor, and she told me that both signs have to be present and visible. Also, No Entry signs also require a pair of them to indicate the restriction.

When did the High Court make a ruling that signs don't need to comply fully with the Law for a speed limit to be enforceable? I have never heard of this. In what case was this in relation to?No High Court judge can set aside the law of the land. The law is made by Parliament, and they are the only ones who can change it.

The HC Judge didn't set the law aside, the Judge interpreted the law, that's what they are for.
If you are convicted when there is one sign and you claim a defence because there should be 2, a judge can interpret the law to decide if you have had adequate guidance at the time you committed your offence; if you have then in several cases the Judge has decided that defendants have had adequate guidance to a speed limit and that the absence of one sign at the start of the limit when 2 were required does not change the level of guidance that is required for the driver to know what the speed limit was.
If you pass a gateway double sign for a 30 mph speed limit and 7 miles down the road are detected doing 40mph when the signs indicating 30mph are street lamps; is it reasonable that you are let off the offence because one sign is missing? Well the High Court think not. Your solicitor can give it a run but when you get hit with your solicitor's costs and those of the crown because your solicitor's advice flies in the face of case law; rest assured your solicitor will be laughing all the way to the bank and you will have a bad taste in your mouth at being led against the case law the solicitor has given bad advice on. That's why some defence solicitors have fleets of Bentleys.
Go to court and say, there was a sign missing 7 miles down the road, the speed limit isn't valid and see if you get away with it again, a properly prosecuted case will mean you are unlikely to do so.

Hi Greenshed. I think I am starting to suspect you are a Prosecution Service solicitor from the way you talk. Are you? I have just read the recent High Court ruling you refer to . It's dated 10th February this year!!! How could you know of such a case only 2 weeks ago unless you are someone on the "inside"?

When I referred to signs I wasn't talking of street lamps. They obviously do mean 30mph.

Also I doubt if defence solicitors are laughing when their client gets convicted, just because they make money. Any solicitor wants to win as many cases as possible, or what reputation is he going to have???

In my case, my letters were evidently scrutinzed by someone in the Ticket Office. Presumably a fairly senior officer. He/she evidently felt satisfied that I had a case, that's why they didn't pursue it!!

Not a solicitor, no, just interested greatly in the subject.

I think solicitors pocketing £10's thousands from gullible rich folk do have a little snigger up their sleeve but may be concerned when they start loosing more regularly thereby threatening their gravy train.
Your letter will have been looked at by a non-legally trained person more than likely. it is possible to be rejected by CPS but not likely in the circumstances you describe.

No, there do not have to be two signs in some cases.
When turning FROM a NSL d/c onto a lower-limited s/c there only has to be ONE sign, on the left-hand side.
This well described in the ABD Signing Requirements for Speed Limits

_________________
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

Perhaps the ABD should rename their web page "Signing GUIDELINES for Speed Limits" as it would seem that these laws can be ignored if it is decided that some nebulous concept of "reasonable guidance" as to the limit applies.

It seems very like the authorities said to themselves "We are incompetent and can't put up signs compliant with the law so we will get the rules interpreted so that we don't have to."

If you think this is reasonable commonsense then you must also support the reasonable defence to exceeding the limit that it was perfectly safe in the circumstances.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

GS is remarkably selective with what he responds to, isn't he!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Given that GS thinks we are misguided, unimportant and ineffective as a campaign, I can't understand why he wastes his time posting on here at all.

Of course, people unsure of their faith are sometimes the most active evangelists in order to reinforce their beliefs.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Is it faith, or is it for assurance of an interest which is conflicted?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Another group who constantly reinforce their own beliefs are called "fanatics".

These are defined as persons marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm for a cause.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Steve. Why do you keep referring to exceeding the speed limit as a "technical infringement". Exceeding the speed limit is a clear breach of statute law. It is no more "technical" than any other breach of statute such as cycling on a pavement.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

As it's defined by exceeding an arbitrary numerical value, "technical offence" is a very apt description.

The law is to serve the general public, not itself.
"Breaking the law" usually implies a widely recognised negative behaviour - needlessly posing risk or being anti-social.

In this case, the letter of the law has been distanced from the spirit of the law. For example, exceeding 70mph on a clear motorway does not present needless risk, nor is it antisocial. In fact, most users want it set higher, hence exceeding it is not generally viewed as bad behaviour, yet that law remains - the limit is set for the sake of the limit, on the basis of the 'one size fits all (conditions)' fallacy.
That's why I now refer to this offence as a mere infringement of a technicality. I'm probably wrong - in law, but morally I believe I am right.

I've not yet made up my mind regarding pavement cycling. I reckon some would also view that as an infringement, if done in the appropriate circumstances (I do it when I believe the common good is being served, or if I'm going at pedestrian pace).



Greenshed, don't go thinking this gets you off the questions posed to you.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Greenshed, if you think that's what the case you cited says then I suggest you read it again with a grown-up present.

Also consider answering my queries of your standpoint, to repeatedly ignore them smacks of an inability to do so without reversing your position.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

This concept only exists in Greenshed's head, if you read the caselaw to which he refers in his justification of this standpoint you will see that it indicates something else altogether.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Were we not talking about being convicted if all signs were not defective?

The court decisions are summarised here with the questions in black and the jugement in red:
6. He posed 6 questions for the consideration of this court.
i. Was I correct in finding that the prosecution must establish a zone or envelope of lawful signage in order to enforce the speed limit in that area. Yes in the sense described in paragraph 28 above.
Para 28 reads: 28. I would add two matters as comments on the matter rather than as part of my judgment. First, the use of the term envelope or zone in this connexion has proved unhelpful. It is quite clear that the appellant was using it in quite a different sense to that used by the District Judge in his Case and in the decisions he had made in previous cases. If it is clear that it is being used in the sense set out in the answer to the first question below then it may be a convenient shorthand. However it is not found in the RTRA nor, so far as we were told, in the Directions made under it. Second, nothing in this judgment is designed to relieve local traffic authorities of their duty to provide adequate traffic signs compliant with the TSGR&D in areas covered by an Order. It became clear during the hearing that there were roads within the area covered by this Order which were inadequately signed and upon which speeding motorists would almost certainly have been able to escape conviction under section 85(4).
ii. Was I correct in finding that provided the signage was adequate, minor breaches of the regulations did not impact on the legality and enforceability of the speed limit. Yes.

iii. Was I correct in finding that the Titchfield roundabout ended one envelope on the A27 to the South East and started a new one to the North West where the Appellant was speeding. This was a conclusion open to the District Judge on the facts of the case.

iv. Was I correct in finding the breaches of the signage at the junctions of Titchfield Hill and Southampton Hill where these roads join the A27 to be immaterial to enforceability of the 40 mph speed limit. Yes.

v. Was I correct in disregarding any failures of signage at Prelate Way, Primate Road, The Hurdles, Hook Lane and Warsash Road as immaterial to the enforceability of the 40 mph speed limit on the A27. Yes.

vi. In all the above circumstances was I correct in finding that the speed limit was enforceable and that the appellant was rightly convicted of speeding. Yes.

This seems to me to be a judge saying that if the signs are not all correct, although they should be, that the signs not being correct are NOT a bar to convictionand that the appellant in this case was correctly convicted by the District Judge when the signs were shown by the appellant to be deficient. Also, the signs and deficiencies of them may or may not be material to the conviction for speeding in a speeding case rather than any deficiency rendering a conviction impossible. Or am I not reading that?

In the OP's case if this principle was used then that too would have resulted and indeed should have resulted in a conviction, hence he was lucky.

You obviously haven't taken my advice and read the whole thing again. I can see how you mistakenly believe that some of the words in the judgement agree with your assertions, but I really would suggest that you take another look at it in its entirety, and get someone to explain it to you, before you continue showing yourself up.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.