Safe Speed Forums

Yesterday on an excursion through North and East Yorkshire I came to some roadworks on the B1257 east of Malton. Within an NSL, there were signs that purported to indicate a 30 mph limit, followed by a temporary traffic light section with signs indicating a 10 mph limit (yes, TEN). The signs were on rectangular white boards propped on the road, the limit signs looked like the real thing but were smaller and with MPH in large letters printed under the red circle.
Sticking to the 30 mph limit wasn't difficult but sticking to a 10 mph limit after the traffic light changed to green was a ridiculous idea, especially as no workforce was around to be protected. So I didn't and proceeded at 25-30 mph.
What is the legal status of such signs? I'd certainly like to hear from the BiB as I think one could be charged with some other offence like obstruction for holding everyone else up at the posted 10 mph.
I've come across similar 10 mph signs in the past on the A5 (of all roads) near Nuneaton.

Such signs have no legal status whatsoever. You cannot be convicted for exceeding the 10mph 'speed limit'.

Traffic signs are defined in a specific document, and if the sign isn't in there (it isn't) then it has no force in law. If a speed limit isn't properly signed then it cannot be enforced.

Backing boards may be grey or yellow with no border. A white backing board is invalid.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Paul, while we are on this subject, can I say that I am not too happy with "advance warning" signs which show a speed limit with a distance, say "200 yds" on a panel below. Because the authorities have used the legally-defined speed limit sign as part of the advance warning sign could it not be argued in court that the limit applies from there?
There's no mention of this type of sign in my Highway Code (Seventh Impression 2001).

You're talking about this sign:



It's on page 78 of my previous Highway Code (Fifth edition 2000).

It's also a properly specified sign, but of course it does not make or 'unmake' a speed limit. It's just an advanced warning.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I agree with Paul

BUT

be aware that, in the event of an accident occurring if you ignore the recommendation, it is standard court practice to take a very dim view of things unless you can prove (balance of probabilites) that ignoring the signs did not contribute to the accident.

Similar comments apply to signs in supermarket car parks.

I can see it on page 78 under Road Works Signs. In the cases I'm thinking of the sign is not warning of Road Works and the distance warning is like those in the Lane Closure signs to the left. A case of mix and match, perhaps?

What if the sign said all pedestrians must cross the road on their hands and knees. If a pedestrian ignored the sign, and got hit by a drunk driver, your position is the pedestrian would be responsible for the accident?

I thought I had found a site where I could have a sensible dialogue.

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted

Umm, I think what Zamazara was alluding to was to ask, what if the sign is wholly unreasonable? A 10mph sign may have been erected by some navvy (no offence to navvies BTW) who thought it a good idea to get everyone to drive really, but unecessarily, slowly.

Rigpig - your "no offence to navvies" has given me the biggest laugh I've had on this forum.

Courts (obviously) only get involved when a charge of some kind has been made against a driver.
If you ignore a recommended limit and hit something or face a charge of without due care (or similar) the offence will be considered to be aggravated (i.e. made worse) by the fact that you exceeded the recommended limit. Assuming of course they can prove you were exceeding the limit.

You can negate that by proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the excess speed did not contribute.

In other words, a perfect opportunity for a driver to set his or her own limit having due regard to ALL the circumstances at the time.

It would be rather legally questionable (although this never happens in practice) if the advance warning sign was for a higher speed limit ahead.

_________________
"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

I can see why my comment might have sounded ridiculous, but A Cyclist did specify that the 10mph limit was unreasonable for the conditions and I was just trying to think of another unreasonable instruction to give to people.

10mph is practically never going to be a sensible limit, except perhaps in very bad fog. The stopping distance at that speed must be less than a car length.

I havnt seen fog like that for years. On ICE though, it may well be more appropriate.

Maybe the 10MPH signs were intended for the construction vehicles, and NOT the general public?

How come we dont have a slipping on a banana skin/ice emoticon when we need one, yet we have three flaming GATSOs ?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

When I wanted to update the smilies I though I'd find a 'smiley pack' somewhere on the net, download it and install it in an hour or so. But the reality was very different - it took about 12 hours in the first session and then had to be revisited about 4 or 5 times over the next week. I'm far from satisfied, but that's life I guess.

If anyone wants a specific smiley added, please let me know.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Personally, I have never seen a case concerning these signs when used on a road, although I am aware that they do crop up now and again.

I have seen an instance concerning a supermarket car park.
A driver hit a small child (bruising only, no long term effects) who had run away from his mother.
The police accident investigator put his speed at 15 - 17 mph as measured from the skid marks. Well under the 30 -35 mph alleged by an independent witness.
Tests carried out by the officer showed that, had the driver obeyed the recommended 5 mph limit he would have stopped well short of the child.

Oh, I do so love that argument
It's one of the mainstay arguments of the 'speed kills' brigade, and has taken most people in - including police accident investigators, evidently.

It's one of those arguments which appears to make perfect sense - until you think hard about it, and then realise that the logic behind it is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

Had he obeyed the 5mph limit the collision would certainly not have occurred - but not because of the shorter stopping distance at the lower speed.
The collision would not have occurred for the simple reason that he would not yet have been anywhere near the spot where the child ran out at the time at which he ran out. He would not even have needed to brake at all.
Conversely, had he been going faster (25-30mph) then he would have been well past the spot where the child ran out at the time at which
he ran out, so nothing would have happened.
Alternatively, had he been travelling at 5mph, but had entered the parking lot earlier in time than he had, he might then have been much closer to the spot at the time the child ran out, so might still have hit him, perhaps even at 5mph if it was too close for him to get his foot onto the brake.
And that may very well have been higher than the impact speed that actually occurred.

As an aside, how is any driver supposed to know when they're doing 5mph when most speedos don't even register until 10mph or above?

The fatal flaw in the argument is that they take the starting point as that when the driver first realises the need to take action. And then they just hypotheticate a different speed based on the same starting point, and come up with a completely nonsensical conclusion.
The laws of physics dictate that you cannot change the speed of an object without also changing its position at a given time - but that's precisely what that argument attempts to do.

That driver was, quite simply, in the wrong place at the wrong time, although it may be that he could have been more aware of the potential hazard than he was.

Perhaps he was watching his speedo.

Cheers
Peter

IMHO: further to Paul's information regarding "specified signs" I believe that a speed limit sign, along with other instructions would have to be circular to be an "order". - Is this always the case?

_________________
Bill

All great journeys begin with a single step

Pete317,

I can't get involved with the safe speed argument. As I have said in another thread, as a magistrate I uphold the law as it is, and not as I or others might like it to be.

I post here to try to clear up misunderstandings about the judicial system.

The point I was trying to make is that this particular driver was doing 15 -17 mph in a very busy supermarket car park. With drivers reversing out of parking places and parents trying to cope with trolleys and pre school children that was much too fast.
The fact that he chose to drive well in excess of the recommended limit left him with no room for excuse when he hit the child. It also gave the CPS another stick to hit him with.

There is no problem with ignoring that sort of sign unless something goes wrong.

fisherman can you tell us the outcome of this particular case ? Its sounds like he was prosecuted for something and as you say the CPS 'wanted to hit him with a stick' or two.

Personally I would disagree with the precison of 16 +/- 1 mile/h give by the police accident investigating officer. At such a low speed all wheels would not lock up simultaneously and skid distance would be very short ...about 1.7-2m in a modern car in dry tarmac conditions.

5 mile/h is simply an inappropriate limit anywhere for the reaons given by others - minumum car speed and accuracy of speedometer//precision of readout.