Safe Speed Forums

Which the judge said played no part in the accident. But you, who know nothing more about the case than a report on the Internet, know better.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

You would think the BBC could get the spelling correct wouldn't you?

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

And?

Failure to maintain their vehicle properly suggests that the driver's error of judgement wasn't a one off.

Sorry, but I have put too much effort in to this thread to see it decend into a slanging match.

Highly trained people have sat in a camera van staring at the same sites as me and not bothered to do thier homework. So have council officers. Safety camera partners have sat drinking coffee and had policy meetings, No one has asked the question "are the roads marked up right". To move the speed limit but leave the road disguised as a faster road could even be entrapment!!!

The facts are that the lines at too many sites are wrong. It is for the courts to decide whether the Statutory instruments such as tsrgd are important enough to validate or invalidate a speed limit. Remember that all that has to be proved is reasonable doubt.

I wanted to know how common it is. It is common. I have done my homework. Lets see what marks it gets.
Please dont post any more on this tread folks unless it is on topic, Thanks.

_________________
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

Except it isn't "disguised" as a faster road. The markings convey no legal meaning.



Its not how "important" the legislation is - its what it says.

The TSRGD does not state that markings to diags 1004, 1004.1, 1005, 1005.1 convey any legal requirement.



I don't think there is any doubt.

The relevant diagrams are not subject to direction 7, nor do they convey any legal requirement defined in the regulations. Its like saying you should get off a spedeing ticket because you passed a sign spelling "Ring Road" with two capital Rs eg utter rubbish.



What part of "diag 1005 conveys no legal requirement" don't people understand?

Chapter 5 of The Traffic Signs Manual states
"Legal
2.5 Care should be taken to ensure that markings are used only in the manner prescribed in the Regulations, and that no non-prescribed marking is used unless it has been authorised in writing. Failure to do so may leave an authority open to litigation, or make a traffic regulation order unenforceable."

The authors of chapter 5 Legal Section seem to have more than a reasonable doubt.

Fatboytim

PS apologies anton I started trying to defend you and ended up defending myself.

Thats general guidance. Doesn't deal with specific issues - merely its a state-the-obvious disclaimer.

For instance, using triple blips wouldn't render a no right turn unenforcable - so why should a marking which conveys no legal meaning render a separate legal order unenforcable?

And then theres also the coloured surfacing issue......

Again, what part of diagram 1005 conveys no legal requirement are people having trouble with?

ndp
in reply to your points, please read 1.6 Chptr 5, and prescribed colurs white, yellow and black 23.17 & 23.18 Chptr 5
I not going to type them out for you.
I suggest you read the whole document as a lay magistrate receiving it as evidence, if the highway code can be used to show correct road practice surely Chapter 5 would be considered, it may then appear the authority have breached a statutory duty and misled the driver=reasonable doubt= anton takes a bow.
fatboytim

Except Chapter 5 (and indeed all of the traffic signs manual) is guidance, and is not legally binding. At all.

How is para 1.6 relevant, given that diag 1005 conveys no legal requirement?

How are paras 23.17 & 23.18 relevant to anything discussed in the thread?

And what part of "diag 1005 conveys no legal requirement" don't people understand?

look at this picture

It is a 40 limit, the road markings are 50 and you have countdown signs to a 50 limit. I have never seen these signs before. My colleage made a mistake here and got a ticket for 49 in a 40.

He is the wrong person to make an appeal.

_________________
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

So it's a count-down to an increase in speed limit? Utterly illogical and very misleading. I'll bet that that Truvelo makes a fortune!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

also note that a blue countdown marker is used outside of a motorway enviroment. (should it be green count down?)
and the circle is black with a yellow background on the 50 sign.
I am officialy colour blind and this is easily misread at a distance.



they should have used Sign 189

_________________
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

Can I say that the signage in the photos is totally bonkers and I am not surprised drivers are confused?

Ultimately the only signs that really matter are your type but it is too easy to miss the them in a busy traffic situation.

BTW has anyone ever come across the situation where the speed written on the road in white paint is different to the posted limit?

I doubt even that... I've never seen a count-down to, or advance warning of, an increase in the speed limit. It just seems utterly illogical.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I guess the idea of the countdown is "you can go faster in a little while so just be patient and stick to 40". Which is, in a way, a good idea. Badly implemented.

Count downs to a speed limit are always to tell you that you will have to slow down thus infering that the limit by the camera is *higher* than 50!

I'd say that was bordering on entraptment...?

_________________
Andrew.

_________________
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

Hmmm, well as far as the signs go that does seem a load of rubbish. Those signs aren't prescribed, and the DfT won't authorise them any more (they simply don't work). It crap, and I agree in this instance that the signing is not up to scratch, and indeed misleading and convictions should be quashed for that reason.

That however has nothing to do with the markings.

Have you reported it to the highway authority?



If by "sign 189" you mean diag 7290, then thats wrong. Diag 7290 is only for temporary speed limits.

I would suggest that in some circumstances a presently unprescribed variant of diag 818.3 ("Low bridge 2 miles ahead") would be of benefit on the approach to limit reductions - however, I would suggest that restraint would be necessary with these signs.

I only took the photos Thursday!!!

_________________
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

After a rather agressive reply to a FOI request I do believe the signs have been removed

Yipee

oh by the way the terminal sign at the start of this limit is wrong, only one of them is lit.
I believe the white lines are still wrong

_________________
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