"Rogue" 50mph sign results in 600+ drivers being fined

[Fenlander]

We had a local set of restrictions where a 40 was put in place on an NSL for a while before they fixed the road. I was told by a traffic officer that the 40 was unenforceable as the paperwork wasn’t done properly for it so they’d been told to patrol it but not issue any tickets. It was there for a few months before they fixed half of the road (but not the other half). The signs were then removed.

[AndyB]

I'll just add that on the last couple of schemes I've been on where average speed camaeras were deployed for the construction period, although the length of the works overall were several kilometres, only the first 600 - 800m of the sections in each direction were covered by live cameras. I imagine the same is true here as Andy has noted several times earlier.
If the errant sign is outside of the enforcement length, all signs are correct on the approach to, and within, the enforcement length, then there can be no argument against that vehicles have broken the limit in the enforcement length. The remaining question is whether a loophole exists in that there is an incorrectly placed sign outside the enforcement length that should cause the cancellation of prosecutions - the Police say on legal advice it does not affect their ability to prosecution. I think the courts will rule on this one with possible previous precedent i.e. does the speed limit signing on an order have to be fully compliant within the length identified within the order if the the prosecution only relies on a small portion of the length covered by the order?

I would imagine that any incorrectly placed signs before the last active camera would invalidate it. If the terminal 40 sign was double banked, then any question of adequate notice would fall apart because you can’t blame lorries for not being able to see the central reservation, but I’m pretty sure someone somewhere on this forum has said that single banking of both temporary and permanent speed restrictions is now approved, which makes me think that the onus would be on the driver to establish that they could not reasonably have been expected to see a verge-mounted sign on that stretch of road.

The thing about it is that if they go to court and fail, the district judge is, all other things being equal, likely to impose a higher fine than the default £100, and there will be court costs and victim surcharge to pay, even if the judge doesn’t impose additional penalty points. The risk is high.

[jnty]

The thing about it is that if they go to court and fail, the district judge is, all other things being equal, likely to impose a higher fine than the default £100, and there will be court costs and victim surcharge to pay, even if the judge doesn’t impose additional penalty points. The risk is high.

Indeed - as I observed earlier in the thread, it's quite bold to go into a court tacitly accepting evidence that you definitely exceeded the signed limit. Although with 600+ people involved, I suppose at least one of them might be bloody minded and deep pocketed enough to try.

As a layman, I'd be worried that I'd get off on the original charge but open myself up to an alternative one, but perhaps that's not a realistic risk.

[FosseWay]

I'll just add that on the last couple of schemes I've been on where average speed camaeras were deployed for the construction period, although the length of the works overall were several kilometres, only the first 600 - 800m of the sections in each direction were covered by live cameras. I imagine the same is true here as Andy has noted several times earlier.
If the errant sign is outside of the enforcement length, all signs are correct on the approach to, and within, the enforcement length, then there can be no argument against that vehicles have broken the limit in the enforcement length. The remaining question is whether a loophole exists in that there is an incorrectly placed sign outside the enforcement length that should cause the cancellation of prosecutions - the Police say on legal advice it does not affect their ability to prosecution. I think the courts will rule on this one with possible previous precedent i.e. does the speed limit signing on an order have to be fully compliant within the length identified within the order if the the prosecution only relies on a small portion of the length covered by the order?

I would imagine that any incorrectly placed signs before the last active camera would invalidate it. If the terminal 40 sign was double banked, then any question of adequate notice would fall apart because you can’t blame lorries for not being able to see the central reservation, but I’m pretty sure someone somewhere on this forum has said that single banking of both temporary and permanent speed restrictions is now approved, which makes me think that the onus would be on the driver to establish that they could not reasonably have been expected to see a verge-mounted sign on that stretch of road.

The thing about it is that if they go to court and fail, the district judge is, all other things being equal, likely to impose a higher fine than the default £100, and there will be court costs and victim surcharge to pay, even if the judge doesn’t impose additional penalty points. The risk is high.

I've never had a speeding ticket from an average speed control zone, so I don't know exactly what the police tell you about the offence. But I imagine that they can only prosecute for behaviour they know beyond reasonable doubt was illegal, i.e. where it was measured. So you will be told that over the stretch X to Y your average speed was A mph, which is B mph more than the posted limit. X--Y will be the locations of the two (or more) cameras used to calculate the average, but can't reasonably include stretches of road where no measurement was taken. If the rogue 50 sign was outside the area between two active average speed cameras, the drivers haven't got a leg to stand on.

HOWEVER...

That's not the important thing here. If drivers see an erroneous 50 sign and accelerate to 50, then either they are putting road workers or other users at unacceptable risk, or the risk isn't actually notably increased, in which case the limit is wrong. The authority in charge should have the book thrown at them either way.

[jnty]

That's not the important thing here. If drivers see an erroneous 50 sign and accelerate to 50, then either they are putting road workers or other users at unacceptable risk, or the risk isn't actually notably increased, in which case the limit is wrong. The authority in charge should have the book thrown at them either way.

I agree in principle, although the authority denies responsibility for the sign being there (validly or otherwise). However, following the 50mph sign to the letter would not resulted in a breach of the 40mph limit serious enough to result in enforcement action. Therefore, it stands to some kind of reason that if the sign would lead to driver behaviour which wasn't deemed seriously dangerous then the act of putting the sign there in the first place as a one-off accident (if that's what happened) isn't really that serious either.

[FosseWay]

That's not the important thing here. If drivers see an erroneous 50 sign and accelerate to 50, then either they are putting road workers or other users at unacceptable risk, or the risk isn't actually notably increased, in which case the limit is wrong. The authority in charge should have the book thrown at them either way.

I agree in principle, although the authority denies responsibility for the sign being there (validly or otherwise). However, following the 50mph sign to the letter would not resulted in a breach of the 40mph limit serious enough to result in enforcement action. Therefore, it stands to some kind of reason that if the sign would lead to driver behaviour which wasn't deemed seriously dangerous then the act of putting the sign there in the first place as a one-off accident (if that's what happened) isn't really that serious either.

Unless the authority can show that the sign was deliberately put there by a third party as a prank, subversion or sabotage, then it can't deny responsibility - the buck stops with it. The same is true of defects on my car: if someone deliberately tampers with my brakes, then I possibly have a get-out, but if, say, I damage my tyre on a pothole or something else that isn't anything to do with me, then have a catastrophic blowout that causes an accident, I'm responsible.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning that doing 50 to the letter wouldn't have resulted in enforcement action. Enforcement starts at 40 + 10% + 2 = 46, or?

[Bryn666]

We're back to my original comments that a 40 limit on a road designed to motorway standards is never going to be adhered to no matter how many signs you erect, lawful or otherwise, even if the carriageway keeps flooding.

It's just another symptom of decades of mismanagement of publicly funded assets.

[orudge]

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning that doing 50 to the letter wouldn't have resulted in enforcement action. Enforcement starts at 40 + 10% + 2 = 46, or?

I think the point was that the location of the cameras, and the distance between the first camera, the rogue 50mph sign, then the next 40mph sign, then the second camera, was such that the distance of the "50 zone" would have had insufficient impact on the average speed measurement as a whole to cause it to trigger a ticket. For instance, if there was a total of 0.75 miles of 40mph, and 0.25 miles of 50mph, the average speed should still not be above 42.5mph. I don't know what the actual figures are, of course, but that seems to be the view the police are taking.

[FosseWay]

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning that doing 50 to the letter wouldn't have resulted in enforcement action. Enforcement starts at 40 + 10% + 2 = 46, or?

I think the point was that the location of the cameras, and the distance between the first camera, the rogue 50mph sign, then the next 40mph sign, then the second camera, was such that the distance of the "50 zone" would have had insufficient impact on the average speed measurement as a whole to cause it to trigger a ticket. For instance, if there was a total of 0.75 miles of 40mph, and 0.25 miles of 50mph, the average speed should still not be above 42.5mph. I don't know what the actual figures are, of course, but that seems to be the view the police are taking.

Oh, I see. Thanks!

[Bomag]

That's not the important thing here. If drivers see an erroneous 50 sign and accelerate to 50, then either they are putting road workers or other users at unacceptable risk, or the risk isn't actually notably increased, in which case the limit is wrong. The authority in charge should have the book thrown at them either way.

For the avoidance of the design of TTM in relation to road worker safety has to be designed to the permanent limit (see TSM Chapter 8). If you want a speed limit to make it 'safe' for workers its not safe enough. About 20 years ago contractors were putting 40 mph limits on motorways and reducing the safety zones to 0.5m; not good. As mentioned there is a requirement to check / inspect TTM and record that signing is still compliant and enforceable; it should have take no longer than 24hrs to spot and remove the '50' roundel.

From a photo they seem to have part obscured Dia 880.1 sign leaving it in a non-lawfull state, ho hum.

[RichardA35]

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning that doing 50 to the letter wouldn't have resulted in enforcement action. Enforcement starts at 40 + 10% + 2 = 46, or?

I think the point was that the location of the cameras, and the distance between the first camera, the rogue 50mph sign, then the next 40mph sign, then the second camera, was such that the distance of the "50 zone" would have had insufficient impact on the average speed measurement as a whole to cause it to trigger a ticket. For instance, if there was a total of 0.75 miles of 40mph, and 0.25 miles of 50mph, the average speed should still not be above 42.5mph. I don't know what the actual figures are, of course, but that seems to be the view the police are taking.

Oh, I see. Thanks!

As stated by Andy, the enforcement will likely be over a section far shorter than the entire section subject to the speed limit and not include the rogue sign, hence there will be no effect and no need to average.

[qwertyK]

A20 drivers will not have penalties waived - Met

"The force contends that if a motorist was to have travelled through the section signed as 40mph at the maximum permitted speed of 40mph, then sped up to 50mph after seeing the now-removed 50mph sign, their average speed of the section covered by cameras would not have resulted in them being issued with a speeding ticket."

So this goes along with what we had intuited - that those caught can't have been complying with the signs anyway.

Is the implication about the 50mph sign that they think it could have been someone trying to make their own speeding ticket unenforceable by putting up a rogue sign? A bold allegation concerning a bold act!

That could be one motivation for the third party. I also think it could be some kind of anti ULEZ activist attempting to subvert TfL. They're very active in southeast London.

[qwertyK]

That's not the important thing here. If drivers see an erroneous 50 sign and accelerate to 50, then either they are putting road workers or other users at unacceptable risk, or the risk isn't actually notably increased, in which case the limit is wrong. The authority in charge should have the book thrown at them either way.

I agree in principle, although the authority denies responsibility for the sign being there (validly or otherwise). However, following the 50mph sign to the letter would not resulted in a breach of the 40mph limit serious enough to result in enforcement action. Therefore, it stands to some kind of reason that if the sign would lead to driver behaviour which wasn't deemed seriously dangerous then the act of putting the sign there in the first place as a one-off accident (if that's what happened) isn't really that serious either.

Unless the authority can show that the sign was deliberately put there by a third party as a prank, subversion or sabotage, then it can't deny responsibility - the buck stops with it. The same is true of defects on my car: if someone deliberately tampers with my brakes, then I possibly have a get-out, but if, say, I damage my tyre on a pothole or something else that isn't anything to do with me, then have a catastrophic blowout that causes an accident, I'm responsible.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning that doing 50 to the letter wouldn't have resulted in enforcement action. Enforcement starts at 40 + 10% + 2 = 46, or?

It doesn't matter who put it there, the sign is there and motorists are not expected to query as to whether it was a genuine sign or a hoax one.

[AndyB]

On the other hand, as we’ve discussed, its placement means it is not actually relevant.