Safe Speed Forums

I have now taken the time to read the judgement in full, something which GS clearly hasn't!

His lack of understanding certainly shows up in big bold writing that he has nothing to do with speed enforcement, or the law surrounding said enforcement.

This thread is most interesting. I've not read the judgement myself yet, but am fascinated by the alternative interpretations.

Keep it coming, folks - but a very gentle reminder to keep to the points, not the makers thereof.

It's said (taking liberties with a cerial ad) "It's all about the Money ,Honey".What makes his posting ,and the attitude of his employers more & more suspect is that on other fora genuine law enforcers are having to be very carefull not to bring their organisations into disrepute,whilst he carries on with no fear of attrition . On this forum ,we're finding old faithfuls deciding that the level of invective is persuading them to give up , and this forum is at risk of losing valuable sources of road safety education ,due to the actions of a few idiots like this one .
He is one very large advert for the disadvantages of enforcement over education - as this countries road safety record bears witness .

_________________
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

You mean this bit:

_________________
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

I have read the relevant link about speed limit sign requirements, but it seems to be totally confusing and contradictory. It's certainly a minefield!!!!

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsm ... apter3.pdf

Section 14 page 105 - page 129. Of the above link give the details of how speed signs should be set out.

Page 112 gives you the details of leaving a National Speed Limit road onto a road with a lower speed limit.

In the case that was cited, I understand the judgement to be that. The signs must meet all the criteria as set out, but if you have gone through several sections/envelopes of road were there was signage even questionable signage, it is reasonable to assume that you would see and act on the speed limit?

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=19152

I too got several letters form the cops saying pay up and saying that the technical details did not matter, but I got the technical details form the Traffic Signs Manuals, and fought my case and got my money back.

Carefull -that's how accidents happen - never ASS U ME .If the SCP can say that all drivers should be driving to the set speed limits ( as advertised as per traffic regs) ,then if the regs are not met ,by missing signage ,then the regs have not been complied with ,the traffic order has not been fulfilled ,and the limit is unenforceable .Least that's my take on what has been previously posteed ,here and elsewhere - see you've posted again ,confirning what I've suggested .

_________________
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 believe the term "envelope" has not been clearly defined in law; as I understand it it can mean one of two things.

The first meaning, and one which was discarded by the judge in the most recently cited case, is to envelop an entire region consisting of a particular limit and, as such, to invalidate the limit throughout that area if the signage at any location within the envelope is deficient.

The second, and probably more apt, meaning is to define the area of the limit that any given driver has passed through up to the point of enforcement, thus consisting of terminal signs and, if required, repeaters. Thus, if any aspect of this envelope is deficient, the limit is not valid for this driver in this case. Hence there is no validity in the claim that someone had driven past conformal signing for x distance (x not being defined within statute, nor being within the remit of the courts to define) and as such had received "adequate guidance", since adequate guidance is defined by statute, and incorporates every aspect of the signage that they should have passed to that point.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

More to the point, when he exited the main road and turned into the side road, the single sign was all that was legally necessary.
I assume that the non-visible sign was on the nearside, which invalidated the sign but not the speed limit.
What everyone tends to forget is that the law in this country is decided by judges and that a precedent can overrule the written law...
I can live with a decision that passing an illegal sign does not invalidate the limit, as long as the driver passed other indicators after the initial illegal sign...such as repeaters/lamposts/etc...

_________________
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

This is exactly right and is what the case law I indicated says. You have grasped the principle but RobinXE has failed to do so preferring his own version.

I am not for one minute suggesting that the case law absolves the need for highways authorities to provide correct signs, the case law says they should also; what I am saying and what the judges have said is that if the signs are incorrect it does not necessarily invalidate the speed limit or provide a bar to conviction. That's the thing about the law, it has to be interpreted when the literal meaning doesn't fit the situation. RobinXe is, IMHO suggesting that the literal interpretation is the only interpretation; that is not correct and IMHO the OP has been lucky to have his case dropped in the circumstances described.

As a general comment not aimed at any specific poster, different interpretations usually depend on what the person making the comment wants to prove. We see the same thing in court when precedents are used in the course of a trial. The circumstances are rarely, if ever, the same as those of the original case which produced the precedent. We often see the same precedent used by both sides to boost their case, with each quoting a section which suits their purpose.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

No GreenSHeD it is you who have failed to grasp what the cited case actually says, which leads me to conclude that you STILL have not read and/or understood the judgement in full and/or the case of the OP!! The arrogance and ineptitude seemingly knows no bounds!!

Read the judgement again, and notice that the comments in that case make it clear that all the signage the driver passed was required to be in accordance with the prescribed minimum for a conviction to stand, it is the deficient signing that he DID NOT PASS to the point of enforcement that was irrelevant IN THIS CASE.

In the case of the OP he DID pass deficient signing in that limit before the point of enforcement, and as such was not 'lucky' that the SCP/CPS did not proceed in his case, as that was the only lawful option available to them. As I said before, he might well be considered lucky that the signage was deficient.

Rope given, hanging yourself complete, will we get an admission that you failed to read/understand the judgement in full, or are you planning to obnoxiously continue to tell us that black is white?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.