Safe Speed Forums

Hi all

Ok I've fought this one on my own so far, just been in court today and the prosecution are continuing this case to trial, so I thought I'd get a second opinion...

Driving to work back in May, I drove through a village I don't normally go through which has the following terminal signs upon entry:-


Officer with hand-held radar gun clocks me at 40mph, which was what I believed the limit was (think it was reduced to 30mph in 2005). No crazy braking or anything - I haven't denied travelling at 40mph.

I've been pleading not guilty to this on the basis of:-

- Terminal signs obscured contrary to Section 85 of the Road Traffic Act
- Inadequate street lighting system - again Section 85 of RTA
- Terminal signs do not comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General directions 2002 due to yellow background

Based on the picture and details above, am I heading in the right direction - or am I misguided/using outdated information?

I intend to go out and measure distance between the few street lights that exist (bolted to telephone poles?!?), as I'm pretty sure they are more than 183 meters apart.

Am I heading in the right direction?

Thanks in advance.

Paul

I would say that the SLOW marker in the road (which is easier to see) would draw your attention to the possibility of a potential hazard ahead.
At least the sign is clean - unlike the ones here - many of which are GREEN!

What is the sign like on the other side of the road?

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

Yes, good question.

From the picture I would say it is entirely obvious there is a speed limit sign there so you may not have a strong case even if the other one is similar.

_________________
"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

A case was won in crown court because one sign was obscured.
It is now case law.
The police officer will have to make a statement in court that all the signs were there and in good order. The signs must properly advise you of the speed limit. That sign is non compliant. (unless you tied that branch down with fishing thread)

You MUST find out the case law, it was about 4 months ago.

_________________
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

Admittedly, the sign on the other side of the road is not obstructed by foliage like this one - although oncoming traffic did obscure it at the time.

Nope - I didn't "tamper" with the bushes

Do you know where I can find test case examples to present in court?

Ok, before anyone calls me lazy - I've searched the forum and found a number of similar cases...

Do printouts of similar cases reported on BBC, Telegraph, etc, web sites stand in court as evidence - or is there a special place where I can get actual court account of the resolution? Or should I just quote the test cases by date, respondent, risiding court - and let the prosecution sort it out?

By the way, I'm representing myself...

So it would be a case of keeping one eye on the speedo, another eye on the street lights to count them, a fourth eye on the signs ON the road, and a fifth eye looking for signs hidden by bushes.

And as you pass the hidden sign try to read what it says and if you do, suddenly de-celerate! Yep. sounds perfectly reasonable.

As the sign was obscured did the police officer report it to the council for rectification?

Has the sign been made legal yet?

The slow on the road is indicative... of the fact that they want drivers to "slow". But to what speed? 30? 40? After all if a road changes from to 40 mph, then you would be expected to slow to 40.

Has there been a previous problem with that sign being obscured? If so, then why is it allowed to become obscured? Or why is there not a "repeater" sign painted on the road with the "slow" sign?

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

Yeah very much so

The sign is still illegal, a written statement from the police officer read out in court yesterday basically said "any photographic evidence from the defendent could not be trusted". Also stated that he checked the signs and they were visible. I've never met the man before that day, so quite how he could assume I'm a lier is beyond me...

Its a reduction from national speed limit to 30mph - although it used to be 40mph, trying to find out when the restriction was amended.

I don't want to fight dirty, but are yellow backed signs legal? The Traffic Signs Regulations and General directions 2002 states it is not, although I believe it was amended in 2004. This test case from 2006 reports otherwise:-
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/A58-speed-offences-may-be.1545038.jp

I believe that yellow backed signs are non complient in non-street lit areas.
If the area is street lit AND is a "principle road" the terminal signs must be lit with thier own specific lights.

_________________
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

I need to check whether the street lighting system is compliant, as stated before - there are a number of phosphorus lamps bolted to telephone poles, sporadically placed. The signs do not have any lighting, and I'm sure they are 200+ meters before the first "street lamp".

Its a non-principal road (I don't think it even has a B number). It is the road through Sherington, Buckinghamshire. This was posted by someone in November 2005:-
http://www.rural.co.uk/yabbse/index.php?topic=1846.msg11339

Ask the police officer to provide evidence that your photographs are not to be trusted?

Ask him to obtain his own photographs and to present them to the court to prove what he has said in evidence.

Ask the prosecutor to cite case law to prove that the street lights, the lighting of the sign and the sign itself are fully compliant with the law.

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

Thanks for your advice - I will try to get my point across and not get too nervous in court! I guess the best way is to prepare, and take printouts of everything...

Trial date has been set for 20th November, I'll keep you posted

What a waste of taxpayers money, would be better spent by the council making signs obvious.

you say the NIP was in May, when was the photo taken, it might be argued that the foliage had grown considerably, they would probably also argue that the drivers view ie. towards the centre of the road offered a clearer view of the sign, although this might not satisfy the terminal signs visibility distance under TRSGD

So as it is a fairly narrow unclassified road they would be calling for drivers to drive partially on the other side of the road!?

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

It was a roadside stop on the 17th May with a hand-held device, I went back and took pictures the following day. I don't think they would have grown too much in that time

To be honest, it is a pretty wide road - don't know if that works in my favour or not...

Looking at pic - one sign is obscured -- but is there another on the other side ?? . Isn't it a requirement of signing that two signs (excepts exist ) must be visible, or erected.Just my 2p worth,if its any use.

_________________
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

As you are probably aware, the status of the streetlights are crucial.
Not everything that looks like a streetlight is a streetlight. IIRC, the height of the lamp is one factor.
Richard Bentley ( www.getjustice.co.uk ) is an expert on signage and lighting issues, although he doesn't work for free.

If there is no system of streetlighting (as per the relevant section), defective speed limit signage is an statutory defence, unless the principle of de minimis can be applied (basically, the defect is so small as to not be considered to be a material defect).

If there is such a system of streetlighting, defective speed limit signage (no matter how bad) does not constitute a statutory defence, leaving only special reasons not to endorse if you were misled as to the speed limit (Burgess v West).

Does this mean a speed limit is unenforceable where the terminal signs are unlit due to a lighting defect (blown bulb etc) even when the streetlighting layout and all other factors are correct?

Just interested because the road I use daily seems to have defective road sign lights. Was flashed recently, waiting to see if I get a NIP

Beanie,

Your case bears striking parallels to my own case, in which I was photographed by a "safety camera van" in August 2006. The road had a 30mph limit, reduced from 40mph in Sept. 1999. Then, as in your case, the speed limit signs were badly obscured by foliage. There was no system of street lighting, even though the police evidence presented in court falsely claimed that there was.

Some councils/police forces are still misusing the 1984 RTRA legislation in cases involving roads which have been reduced from 40 to 30, and which do NOT have a system of street lighting. What section of the RTRA have the police used to charge you? This is very important. It is also worth knowing that for a system of street lighting to be recognised as such for the purpose of denoting a 30mph speed limit, there must be at least THREE such lamps at intervals not exceeding 200 yds. (The 183m metric equivalent is used in Scotland, but England and Wales still use yards)

On the advice of my solicitor, I sent photographs of EVERY speed limit sign along the 1.1 mile section of the 30mph limit to the police when returning the information requested in the NIP. The police response was to decline to comment to my photographs, and to announce their intention to "continue the prosecution".

As for what happened between then and my Court appearance, I'll discuss it with you privately. But I can tell you that I went to Court, pleaded not guilty, and won the case.

As for the police "not believing" your pictures or any other evidence, that will be decided by the magistrates or even the prosecutor. When I pointed out the error in the police evidence, which stated that street lighting was present even though there wasn't any, the prosecutor readily conceded this upon a cursory glance of my pictures, copies of which had been sent in by the police.

In my view, based upon my one appearance in a magistrates' court, if you present your case reasonably and honestly, there's no reason for them not to believe you. So your photograph of the obscured speed limit sign, and your claim that the sign on the opposite side of the road was obscured by oncoming traffic, may well be accepted. Be prepared for the chief magistrate to ask you direct questions while looking you in the eye on that one.

I don't agree with what some others have said on this board, that the Court will press for a conviction whatever your evidence. It's just that there's a right way and a wrong way of presenting it. I was fortunate in having hit all the right notes.

Check your PMs for my phone number and get in touch.

Statement from police officer:-

I am Police Constable **** Joe Bloggs of the Thames Valley Police and am currently staioned on the Roads Policing Department at Milton Keynes. I have been a traffic officer for the past 15 years and am currently employed as the Road Safety Constable for the Milton Keynes Police area. I am an advanced car driver and Intruct and operate the Laser LTI 20.20 TSM Ultralyte 100 speed detection device.

I have been requested to provide a further statement with regard to my dealings with a Mr Beanie on the 17th May 2007 with particular regard to a defence statement made by him. I understand that Mr Beanie has suggested that there were no street lighting present and that the 30 mph terminal signs at the entrance to the village were not visible. He also provided the court with a number of photographs purporting to show this.

On Thursday 17th May 2007 I conducted a speed check on the High Street, Sherington between 7:45 and 9:10 Am. During this check I was alone and in full uniform. I had taken up a position opposite the stone built bus shelter in the centre of the village and was checking vehicles travelling towards me from the Olney direction. Before beginning any enforcement in a location such as this I check certain things, these are done as a matter of course at every rural village location. The first check is to make sure that the terminal signs at the entrance to the village were present and clearly visible. There have to be two signs present one on each side of the road. I can confirm that this was done prior to the check and that they were, present, clean and visible and not obstructed in any way. The second check is to make sure that all repeater signs are also present, clean and visible. These signs are only required when a road is not restricted, in other words when there is no system of street lighting up to 183 meters apart. The High Street Sherington is a restricted road and has such a system of street lights running along the offside of the road when driving down the High Street from the direction of Olney. There are further checks carried out before enforcement takes place and these are accounted for in my previous statement.

In regard to the Photographs supplied to the court, which I have not had the opportunity to view I cannot make therefore direct comment on them. I would add however that photographs can be taken from many different angles and with varying lenses and can be made to distort a motorist's true view. I would go further and state that they can also be taken at different times of the year and what the view was on the day in question may be entirely different two weeks later. This is especially true when it is vegitation and tree foliage that has caused the obstruction. During the summer months it is quite common for me to have to trim branches and leaves from in front of signs and repeaters before commencing enforcement. I would again state however that this was not the case when I checked the signs on the 17th May 2007.

Signed and dated 2nd November 2007