Safe Speed Forums

Last year I was driving along a dual carriageway in Greater Manchester with national speed limit. I turned off onto a single carriageway and was bombing along at 30 odd mph when some way down the road was a mobile camera unit. Under 2 weeks later I got an NIP,saying my recorded speed was 37 mph and inviting me to plead guilty.

Next day I went back to this road and parked up and had a good look at the posted speed limit signs I had passed the previous day. There was a 30mph sign on the nearside, but the sign on the o/side was completely obscured by a bush, which had overgrown. So I got my camera out and took some photos. I filled in the NIP to admit I was the driver but sent in some of the photos of the offending bush along with a covering letter, explaining the speed limit was null and void.

A week later the Gormless Manchester Police wrote back saying they were aware of the obscured sign and had told the Council to cut it back, but they had not done it yet. The tone was, we do know about the bush, so it's ok, we know about it, pay up.

I considered this little missive and I wrote back, saying:Dear Officer, you inform me that the Police are aware of the overgrown bush hiding the speed limit sign, and matters are in hand to cut it back. Really? Well I am very glad to hear it! Because until you do get it cut back, this speeding ticket is null and void and I am not paying!And if you want to push this further then I am going to a lawyer, and my MP, and the press and TV. Your PR department will then have their work cut out fending off enquiries from the media as to why you are trying to prosecute someone you know has not committed an offence.Because under the 1984 Road Traffic Act, TWO speed limit signs have to be present and VISIBLE, when a speed limit is posted.One on either side of the carriageway. And it doesn't matter what the reason is that one of the signs is missing or hidden. If it's not there, then it's not THERE!
If it's not there, it's not enforceable.

The GMP quietly dropped the matter. I never heard anymore about it!
There are important issues here. First, the camera officer should have checked the legality of the signs before setting up his camera. He obviously didn't; or doesn't know the Law.Second, the disgraceful way they wrote back and tried to con me into thinking this was ok.And more importantly is this: how many other drivers went along that road, got a ticket and paid up, because they didn't know the law about the signage? maybe lots. Those are miscarriages of justice, thanks to the Gormless Manchester Police. Those people have pleaded guilty to an offence which they have not committed in Law.And of course GMP won't bother to track them down and offer a refund. They don't have time and resources for that. Funny though, they do have time and resources to trace people when they want money out of them!

So don't let yourself be walked over. Stand up for your rights. I am the sort of person the authorities don't like. I ask unpleasant questions, demand answers, won't be fobbed off. I check, I verify, I want answers! If we all did this the State would never be able to get away with rolling out their speed cameras, ID cards, DNA databases, bin taxes, and foreign wars. They want a compliant populace who just watch wall to wall telly and go out and get drunk. So long as we don't ask nasty questions. Fight back, demand answers, make a nuisance of yourself. Make the authorities work for their salaries and gold plated pension pots.

This is my style. Hope you like it?

I applaud your sentiments of fighting a technical infringement with technical infringement. Don’t let anyone take that away from you.
However, I suspect you might have gotten lucky in this case.

Were there regular streetlamps (within 200 yards of each other) in the area you were caught?
Were you caught beyond (say) 400 yards of the limit change sign(s)?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then it is arguable to say that you don’t have a legal case.

If the road in question has a system of street lighting, with no speed limit repeater signs, the limit is usually 30mph. The Traffic Authority is not permitted to place 30mph repeater signs on these roads. The system of street lighting in an area should be sufficient evidence of 30mph limit. [direct.gov.uk]
Also, Highway Code rule 124.

Folks should consider this before opting to fight such a case on such a basis.

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

I don't think I was lucky. Tha road in question is not built up or has street lamps when it comes off the dual carriageway, but gradually changes to built up further down. That is why presumably the signs were in place at the start of the road, though they could have put them further down.

Weren't there any repeater signs? There would have to be if there were no streetlamps, otherwise drivers could be forgiven for thinking they were in an NSL zone......

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

You should live in Southampton. Anton (on here) spent ages proving that signage on a local camera favourite D/C was totally flawed but this made little impact on the authorities and they still went on sending out the NIPs.

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

You can't have 30 mph repeaters. To be a normal 30 with the start roundels you don't have repeaters. A NSL 30 limit does not have nsl repeaters but has street lamps within the required distance apart. A nsl limit with nsl repeaters is 60mph (or lower for other vehicle classes) . If you have lampposts close together and repeaters it is a 60 *unless* there has been some traffic order placed but I don't think there are many of those.

Basically if you can't see any speed limit signs then it's probably a 30.... not very clear. It would be much easier if 30s had 30 mph repeaters to make sure people knew what the limit was if exceeding it is so inherently dangerous

You probably got off with it beacause the camera partnership operator did not comply with his guidelines,ie he did not check that the speed limit signs were present and free from obstruction. So,if court requested the prosecution couldnt prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they had complied with there side of the legal process.
Stephen

I think that's now an extinct species with the exception of the A555 which has no side turnings

_________________
"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 mean not like this? (tricky to find one in streetlamp-saturated London. I've cycled past there a few times, there's a nice pub around the corner)

I'm under the impression you can have them where there are no lamp posts (at least none closer than 200 yards).
What happens in rural type 30 zones that don't have streetlamps?

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

I was under the impression that according to signing rules you don't have 30mph repeaters. In NSL zones with no lamp posts there are nsl repeater signs on their own poles. Usually there will be lamp posts at junctions so that is one place you can put them.

Hopefully our resident signage expert will be along in a bit to put us both right

I can think of tonnes of places with repeaters!

They are placed wherever there are not enough street lights. Now that we are seeing more and more limits outside traditional built up areas, these must only become more common.

And from memory of other posts - the repeaters need some form of ilumination -otherwise the limit is null and void - confirm please .

_________________
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

I hope you don't mean iluminated by streetlamps

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

That would make them really null & void . Thought - how many independant lit repeaters not lit would nullify a 30 limit in an unlit zone ?

_________________
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

Thanks to whoever called me the resident signage expert! I don't think repeaters are necessary just because a speed limit is posted. It depends on the length of the road. Repeaters are to remind drivers on a long stretch of road.

Also Stephen is no doubt right that the partnership had not fulfilled their obligations. And it's a valid point that many drivers might have pleaded guilty to something that wasn't an offence at that location. Someone might have lost his licence or even job!

I think I agree with Steve, if the limit is 30mph, and any system of street lighting does not conform to the requirements for a default 30, then repeaters are required at the same interval. I do not believe these need to be lit, though the initial signs do.

I do not believe that repeaters nullify the need for compliant terminal signage.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You have got away with this on a lucky break that the camera office have decided not to prosecute because perhaps their operator didn't check the sign in accordance with their procedure. Failing to check the sign or follow their procedure doesn't make the prosecution non-viable.
You were driving, you say, at 30mph in a 30mph speed limit; the speed you were detected at was 37mph, you were guided by the signs (lamp posts) that the speed limit was 30mph so the signs have provided adequate guidance, that is all they have to provide.
You would have to show in court that the obscuration of ONE of the gateway signs has caused you to believe that this single carriageway road, with street lamps, is some speed limit other than a 30mph speed limit.
You also have to ask yourself; why does there have to be 2 signs? It is so you can see ONE of them and unless I am mistaken you did or were able to.
As I and others have said, lucky.

Being a strict liability offence, Greenshed, it does not matter what the accused believed, if the signage does not conform with the statutory instrument then there is no offence.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You are sadly mistaken, the signs merely have to provide adequate guidance. You need to check your case law on this matter, the High Court has decided strict adherence to signing requirements does not invalidate a speed limit. The world according to RobinXe and anton no longer holds water in this respect.

So in essence, penalties are being issued for technical infringements even though the basis for that reaction itself infringes technicalities?

"Do as I say and not as I do" and all that!

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