Old signs 'illegal'

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
sotonsteve
Member
Posts: 6079
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 21:01

Post by sotonsteve »

jcpren wrote:
The 30 mph limit applies to all traffic on all roads in England and Wales (only Class C and unclassified roads in Scotland) with street lighting unless signs show otherwise,

which makes it sound that 30mph exists as a NSL, rather than orders having to be passed for all built-up areas individually to make them 30mph.
Am I right in thinking that A and B roads in Scotland need repeaters for any kind of speed limit on lit roads? Or does Scotland go for the 40mph urban speed limit?

I suppose you could call the urban 30mph speed limit an Urban National Speed Limit (UNSL).
User avatar
jcpren
Member
Posts: 4388
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 17:33
Location: Glasgow

Post by jcpren »

sotonsteve wrote:Am I right in thinking that A and B roads in Scotland need repeaters for any kind of speed limit on lit roads? Or does Scotland go for the 40mph urban speed limit?
From that Highway Code site, it sounds as if A and B roads in Scotland would default to 60mph or 70mph NSL depending on whether they were single- or dual-carriageway, regardless of lighting. It's all a bit confusing, if you ask me, and far more complicated than I thought.
John
boing_uk
Account deactivated at user request
Posts: 5366
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 16:01

Post by boing_uk »

jcpren wrote:But there is a paragraph on the page I linked to that states:

The 30 mph limit applies to all traffic on all roads in England and Wales (only Class C and unclassified roads in Scotland) with street lighting unless signs show otherwise,

which makes it sound that 30mph exists as a NSL, rather than orders having to be passed for all built-up areas individually to make them 30mph.

I'm not trying to be awkward, as I'm sure you're right from what we all see in practice, but I'm just trying to untangle what the legal reality actually is.

Is it the case, then, that for cars in England and Wales:

* Pre-set speed limits of 60mph and 70mph exist. These are referred to as National Speed Limits and may be signed by the NSL sign.

* Another pre-set limit of 30mph exists. It is not called the National Speed Limit, and cannot be signed using the NSL sign. No repeaters are required in sufficiently well-lit areas.

* If a sufficiently well-lit road has NSL repeaters, then it takes the default 60/70mph NSL depending on whether it is a single or dual carriageway, but if it has no repeaters, it takes the "other" default speed limit of 30mph.

:?:
The NSLisnt known as a national speed limit sign. Its a derestriction sign, meaning that all speed limits below the national speed limit for that road are rescinded.

Street lighting automatically makes a road a restricted road - i.e. 30mph and that lighting does not have to be over the road itself. It could be footway lighting adjacent the carriageway but within the highway boundary.

As Peter rightly said, if no other signs are present at the start of the street lighting, one could not be prosecuted. However technically it is a bit of a grey area as the opposing argument is that the street lighting columns are the signs.

But as I said before and which Bryn clarified, I dont think that the old font speed limit signs were rescinded in any of the previous Trafic Signs Regulations therefore the sign is probably still valid. I will have to have a nitpick through the 1994 and 2002 regs etc when I find time at the office, to see which signs should've been removed by now or not.

The point which I think has been mislead is that if the sign was a new sign in that old font, it would be unenforcable, unless authorised by DfT. However as its an existing sign, regardless of its font type, if it was applicable at the time it was installed and has not been revoked by any subsequent S.I. the sign shall convey the same meaning as a sign erected in the newer font.
C83
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 15:56

Post by C83 »

jcpren wrote:
sotonsteve wrote:Am I right in thinking that A and B roads in Scotland need repeaters for any kind of speed limit on lit roads? Or does Scotland go for the 40mph urban speed limit?
From that Highway Code site, it sounds as if A and B roads in Scotland would default to 60mph or 70mph NSL depending on whether they were single- or dual-carriageway, regardless of lighting. It's all a bit confusing, if you ask me, and far more complicated than I thought.
When I think about it, quite a lot of classified roads in scottish towns have numerical speed limit signs on them. However, I can't think of many in the centre of Edinburgh, and you have a good selection of classified roads in there. (though your vehicle may be banned from most of them so the speed limit isn't a major issue)
User avatar
Glen
Social Media Admin
Posts: 5426
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 02:16
Location: Inbhir Pheofharain
Contact:

Post by Glen »

jcpren wrote:
sotonsteve wrote:Am I right in thinking that A and B roads in Scotland need repeaters for any kind of speed limit on lit roads? Or does Scotland go for the 40mph urban speed limit?
From that Highway Code site, it sounds as if A and B roads in Scotland would default to 60mph or 70mph NSL depending on whether they were single- or dual-carriageway, regardless of lighting.
That's how I would interpret that too. ie streetlights on an A or B road only mean 30mph with terminal signs.

But in practice the signing seems to be exactly the same as England -- lit NSL roads still have NSL repeaters even though it appears they don't need them.
And it's not like there are 30 repeaters on lit A/B roads so you still have to assume it's 30 unless you see repeaters stating otherwise.
User avatar
rusty
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 13:20
Location: Exeter

Post by rusty »

Hey, I should have tried this dodge on the A30: "sorry officer, I confused the '4' in "40" with a letter 'A'!"

Well, people do it on number plates, don't they?
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
User avatar
flyingscot
Member
Posts: 3837
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 17:24
Location: Paisley

Post by flyingscot »

PeterA5145 wrote:At present, if signs don't conform to the regulations, they're not valid. Which seems fair enough to me. It is NOT "getting off on a technicality" - either the signs are correct, or they aren't, it's totally black and white.

If the law was changed to introduce a concept of "reasonable interpretation" or whatever, then that really would be a field day for lawyers.
However it has to be said that there are some very sad people who mange to get off speeding fines because a border is 10mm too small etc. Did they actually know that and did that actually affect the message- absolutely not. As for reasonable interpretation if it was changed I think the lawyers would struggle more in my view and this case would have stood.

This is a bad case of someone escaping a fine, then using the publicity to batter cameras, and partnerships as he is an 'innocent law abiding person being screwed' as that is a populist view.

After all if he was unsure of the limit surely the best course of action is to slow down to check- not carry on regardless. Interesting the font is similar to 'New Johnston' which is the font used by TfL on London Bus destinations due to the fact it is especially readable. Misreading a 3 for a 5 seems unlikely. In Scotland perhaps you could use the 'going too fast to duly comprehend road signs and instructions' rule that is invoked when mistakes happen in cases. I remember the A92 144mph man got off then got jailed IIRC on a seconary condition! After all that sign is clear enough when looking at it so perhaps if he was going slower.......
To come second is to be the first of the losers.
User avatar
Dadge
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 17:13
Location: Birmingham, England
Contact:

Post by Dadge »

PeterA5145 wrote:At present, if signs don't conform to the regulations, they're not valid. Which seems fair enough to me. It is NOT "getting off on a technicality" - either the signs are correct, or they aren't, it's totally black and white.
I agree with this entirely. If the law says they're not valid, they're not valid. If you think the law should be changed (which it probably should be), stop whining and tell your MP. Either that, or get your local councillors to plug the loopholes by making sure the signs are correct.
DavidBrown
Member
Posts: 8398
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 00:35

Post by DavidBrown »

I have a picture of the road in question.

Image

I'm sorry, but if anyone seriously thinks that this road is a 50 or a 60 limit, they deserve to lose their licence for good.
User avatar
sotonsteve
Member
Posts: 6079
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 21:01

Post by sotonsteve »

How could they make that mistake?

Even the most developed NSL roads aren't that developed! It looks very built up.
boing_uk
Account deactivated at user request
Posts: 5366
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 16:01

Post by boing_uk »

The only thing I will say about that road is the over-use of the central hazard marking.

But its plainly obvious that its likely to be a 30mph limit - and even if it was de-restricted, to travel at 60mph would be dangerous, or at the very least, careless driving and an inappropriate use of speed.
User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

DavidBrown wrote:I'm sorry, but if anyone seriously thinks that this road is a 50 or a 60 limit, they deserve to lose their licence for good.
But the point is not that he genuinely believed the speed limit was different to what it actually was, but that he had a valid defence because the signs were incorrect and therefore the limit was unenforceable.

It is fundamental to the administration of justice that:

(a) accused people should not be required to incriminate themselves, and
(b) the authorities must follow correct procedures

If, for example, the police break into your house without a warrant and ransack it, any evidence of criminal activity they find would be inadmissible in court.

There are lots of potential grey areas in speed limit signing and many locations where a missing 30 sign would be far more ambiguous than the one referred to. As I said in an earlier post, if the law was changed to introduce a concept of "reasonable interpretation" it would be a field day for lawyers.

In your driving career so far, have you ever exceeded a speed limit, even by 1 mph? And if so, did you immediately drive to the nearest police station to turn yourself in? If not, why not?
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
boing_uk
Account deactivated at user request
Posts: 5366
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 16:01

Post by boing_uk »

PeterA5145 wrote:that he had a valid defence because the signs were incorrect and therefore the limit was unenforceable.
Im still not sure that the old-style font has been revoked for existing speed limit signs and that while not conforming to current standards, their meaning shall apply as if they complied with the new standards until such time the sign is replaced, or that allowance is revoked by a subsequent statutory instrument.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Post by Bryn666 »

I'm not aware that pre-worboys speed limit signs are illegal either. This driver really didn't have a defence, he was just being a grade-A prick.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

boing_uk wrote:
PeterA5145 wrote:that he had a valid defence because the signs were incorrect and therefore the limit was unenforceable.
Im still not sure that the old-style font has been revoked for existing speed limit signs and that while not conforming to current standards, their meaning shall apply as if they complied with the new standards until such time the sign is replaced, or that allowance is revoked by a subsequent statutory instrument.
Indeed, that's my understanding too. But for whatever reason the powers that be dropped this particular case.
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
M1J46_A63_A6120
Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 16:39
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Post by M1J46_A63_A6120 »

PeterA5145 wrote:If, for example, the police break into your house without a warrant and ransack it, any evidence of criminal activity they find would be inadmissible in court.
What if it was 25 Cromwell Street - are you saying the police couldn't charge someone for mega-serious crimes if paperwork and procedure weren't correctly followed?
User avatar
M1J46_A63_A6120
Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 16:39
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Post by M1J46_A63_A6120 »

a228_mb wrote:Clearly the main problem is in urban areas but tbh its a matter of common sense. You should drive accordingly. Image For example here although the limit is 60, it would be inappropriate to do so. If you insist ondoing 60 through here, you may not be speeding but you should be done for dangerous driving.
I guess this is the thing about a speed limit being an absolute maximum, not a prescriptive/advisory speed. Very interesting though!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Post by Bryn666 »

The road there isn't as built up as it looks - there is about 300 yards or so that has houses either side.

It's on the A6 west of Bolton.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
boing_uk
Account deactivated at user request
Posts: 5366
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 16:01

Post by boing_uk »

Still, thats a fantastic bit of traffic management/engineering.

Its called restraint or "we must do something? whyyyyy?"
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14803
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Post by nowster »

Here's one from a complete set of old-style 30 signs backed with NSLs, seen here

Image
How anyone could confuse this with a 50, I don't know. The Irish Republic used this font on their speed limit signs pre-metrification.
Post Reply