A57(M) speed limit to be reduced to 30 mph

[Bryn666]

There's also the minor amusement that the entry slips at Upper Brook St have ordinary start of motorway signs with the 30s placed at the give way lines.

This means technically the Upper Brook St loop is 70. This was also the case when the mainline was 50, though.

[nowster]

There's also the minor amusement that the entry slips at Upper Brook St have ordinary start of motorway signs with the 30s placed at the give way lines.

And when Google passed in November last year, the non-loop entry had no speed limit posted, but two no vehicles signs instead: https://maps.app.goo.gl/unLQskgGa8Cqyk4R8

[AndyB]

Either the "system of street lighting" rule applies to motorways, or it doesn't. If it does apply, then street lighting on a motorway would imply a 30 limit, just like it does elsewhere, with the result that 30mph repeaters cannot be placed on a motorway. That's what you said earlier. But you're now saying that it does not apply (I agree), in which case the presence of street lighting on a motorway does not imply a 30 limit, which means the limit is not apparent to road users from their surroundings alone. It therefore follows that the new limit on the A57(M) is not apparent to the motorist unless repeaters are in place, and without them there must be a question mark over whether or not the 30 limit is enforceable.

The restricted road rule (system of street lighting = 30mph) does not apply to motorways.

The rule about repeaters being forbidden on a 30mph road with a system of street lighting does apply to motorways.

They are two different things. The first is in section 82(3) of RTRA, the second in Schedule 10, Part 4, General Direction 2 of TSRGD.

I would suggest though that an important part of "one's surroundings alone" is street furniture such as a terminal 30 sign.

[Bomag]

I doubt a challenge would succeed.

TSM recommends that no motorway has a temporary speed limit less than 40. Statute law doesn’t have such a provision for either temporary or permanent limits, so it’s in order to make the necessary legislation, and it wouldn’t be difficult to find examples where TTROs have had limits of 30mph on a 50mph motorway.

Signage is a more complicated issue. The 30mph limit on any road cannot have repeaters if there is a system of street lighting, so there’s a clear argument that the 30mph repeaters should be removed (however, see VSL roads where AMIs and other signage show 30 to remind drivers that the usual speed limit for the road does not apply, street lights or not!)

However, as long as the repeaters are present, can you really argue that section 85 of RTRA hasn’t been complied with and there is insufficient notice?

In the end, I expect that TSRGD will simply have to be amended to state that 30 signs are not permitted on restricted roads (which excludes all special roads) if a system of street lighting is in place. The other possibility is our old friend dia.880.

Given that you have indicated that you are not a traffic signs practitioner your are quite happy to make pronouncements about traffic signs law. The TSRGD was drafted very specially, this included the impact on repeaters on motorways. It doesn't matter if there are TTROs where there have been 30mph limits on motorways, they are only enforceable if adequately signed - there is no way they can be adequately signed using fixed plate signs. This was deliberate.

Also VMSL via AMI/MS4 is not relevant - each sign is a terminal sign not a repeater. A 30 mph repeater in this case is not lawful and is not a traffic sign - its an unlawful obstruction.

[AndyB]

With all due respect, if you travel under six gantries indicating 30mph, how can you say that the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth is a terminal sign?

[RichardA35]

...Also VMSL via AMI/MS4 is not relevant - each sign is a terminal sign not a repeater. A 30 mph repeater in this case is not lawful and is not a traffic sign - its an unlawful obstruction.

With all due respect, if you travel under six gantries indicating 30mph, how can you say that the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth is a terminal sign?

Approaching this with a mindset that 30mph repeaters on a motorway are unlawful, then the status that those signs take on is "terminal signs".
As an admitted layperson and dabbler, it is slightly counterintuitive that a "repeated" sign isn't a "repeater" but I'm happy that the term "repeater" has a specific meaning and cannot be used in this context.

[Bomag]

With all due respect, if you travel under six gantries indicating 30mph, how can you say that the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth is a terminal sign?

Already covered in TSM.

U2.10.24. Since the spacing of the signals, particularly for Options Two and Three, will probably
not be within the values identified in Table 2.1, the relevant order or Statutory Instrument must
enable each signal to be considered as a terminal sign.

It's as though the authors of TSRGD and TSM have been aware of this issue and not felt the need to accommodate mandatory (and enforceable) 30mph limits on motorways using fixed plate signs.

[JammyDodge]

There's also the minor amusement that the entry slips at Upper Brook St have ordinary start of motorway signs with the 30s placed at the give way lines.

This means technically the Upper Brook St loop is 70. This was also the case when the mainline was 50, though.

The on slip to Central Motorway from Great North in Newcastle has a similar situation I think, there is about 25-30m between the start of motorway and the 50 signs.

[domcoop]

Section 82 Road Traffic Regulation Act:-
* Says that a "restricted road" is one with streetlights.
* Says that the highway authority can also "direct" that a road without streetlights can be a restricted road.
* Says that a Special Road is not a restricted road on or after the date on which the road is declared to be open for use. (section 82(3)).

There is no derogation from section 82(3), so nothing the council can do can make the road a "restricted road" for so long as it is a motorway. Ever.

The significance of this - and it is significant - is that the speed limit is defined by section 84 (whereas if it was a "restricted road" is would be section 81)

Section 84 RTRA:-
* Says the authority can decide the speed limit. [so far so good]
* Says that the speed limit must be signed [OK?...]
* Says the signs must comply with the regulations - so whether you think they're guidance, codes of practice, or anything else is irrelevant - primary legislation says the highways authority is legally obliged to comply
* BUT ... says it doesn't apply to a special road either! (section 84(4))

Section 17 RTRA:-
* Says the Government can decide speed limits for special roads, either generally across the board, or specifically for individual roads.

Section 85 RTRA (quoted above in other posts):-
* Says there is a duty on highway authorities to sign speed limits - and again they must comply with the national standards in TRSGD
* Say that is doesn't apply to special roads where the speed limits are the national across the board limits (see section 17)
* But if it's a special road and there is a specific limit provided by regulations that is lower than the default maximum or higher than the default minimum, then it must be signed under this section (that is section 85(6))
* Where there is no streetlighting, you can't be convicted of speeding unless there are compliant signs (if it is a road covered by this section, which default speed special roads are not) (section 85(4))
* Where the road is restricted, you can be convicted of speeding if you go above the limit unless proper signs provide a different limit (section 85(5)).

===

Put it altogether and what have you got?

It's a special road. So it can't be restricted, which means section 84 doesn't apply and section 85 only applies if there is a specially provided lower limit, which must be provided for by national regulations (Section 17) not local Traffic Regulation Orders.

If there are such regulations, section 85(6) kicks in and says section 85 applies.
It isn't a restricted road, so section 85(5) - in plain terms repeaters and terminal signs - does not apply.
There is streetlighting, so section 85(4) - in plain terms no conviction for speeding without compliant signs - does not apply.

There is a duty to ensure there are compliant signs, but if there aren't (because, for example, there is no standard for a 30MPH motorway) it doesn't matter because you can still be convicted of speeding.

By a long, and convoluted process (and I started writing this out expecting to prove the council had got this wrong, by the way!) it seems like the council have actually got this right. Bizarrely.

There's probably nothing to stop them putting repeaters in, and if I were the highways department I would, but you are guilty of speeding if you exceed the speed whether or not they exist.

[nowster]

The question, then, is whether a local TRO trumps primary legislation which defines the speed limit for that road.

[domcoop]

The question, then, is whether a local TRO trumps primary legislation which defines the speed limit for that road.

I'd say no. They did the temporary one under section 14 which specifically allows it only on a temporary basis pending completion of works. I did a quick search for the order making it permanent and could not find anything. It should be a DfT order along the lines of the A55 70MPH order, but I didn't find anything in the London Gazette.

[AndyB]

The question, then, is whether a local TRO trumps primary legislation which defines the speed limit for that road.

I'd say no. They did the temporary one under section 14 which specifically allows it only on a temporary basis pending completion of works. I did a quick search for the order making it permanent and could not find anything. It should be a DfT order along the lines of the A55 70MPH order, but I didn't find anything in the London Gazette.

You can't do a temporary speed limit under section 14. They're under section 88.

Actually, your conclusion was incorrect. I had missed section 84(4), which means that if Manchester has made a Speed Limit Order under section 84, it's invalid, and as you pointed out, they don't have the authority to make Regulations.

[domcoop]

The question, then, is whether a local TRO trumps primary legislation which defines the speed limit for that road.

I'd say no. They did the temporary one under section 14 which specifically allows it only on a temporary basis pending completion of works. I did a quick search for the order making it permanent and could not find anything. It should be a DfT order along the lines of the A55 70MPH order, but I didn't find anything in the London Gazette.

You can't do a temporary speed limit under section 14. They're under section 88.

Actually, your conclusion was incorrect. I had missed section 84(4), which means that if Manchester has made a Speed Limit Order under section 84, it's invalid, and as you pointed out, they don't have the authority to make Regulations.

This link says they did use section 14 RTRA.

I've got home now and done a bigger search, it can't find anything at all anywhere setting permanent speed limits, including the City Council site, local advertisements in newspapers, BBC reports and legislation.gov.uk. Literally nothing turns up. Have they just done this off their own bat without following the rules?

[Bryn666]

I'd say no. They did the temporary one under section 14 which specifically allows it only on a temporary basis pending completion of works. I did a quick search for the order making it permanent and could not find anything. It should be a DfT order along the lines of the A55 70MPH order, but I didn't find anything in the London Gazette.

You can't do a temporary speed limit under section 14. They're under section 88.

Actually, your conclusion was incorrect. I had missed section 84(4), which means that if Manchester has made a Speed Limit Order under section 84, it's invalid, and as you pointed out, they don't have the authority to make Regulations.

This link says they did use section 14 RTRA.

I've got home now and done a bigger search, it can't find anything at all anywhere setting permanent speed limits, including the City Council site, local advertisements in newspapers, BBC reports and legislation.gov.uk. Literally nothing turns up. Have they just done this off their own bat without following the rules?

Given the track record of the authority in question I would NOT be surprised in the least. The original temporary speed limit appeared at 9pm on a Sunday evening having been announced in the press as an emergency measure because of "barrier damage" (which had been present for years), and then later changed to "because of collisions" (presumably linked to the erection of all the giant advert screens), before now being made permanent because I suspect all the trendy flats thrown up alongside the motorway need a quiet road next to them.

MCC have form for doing things incorrectly. The shambles of their LTN implementation in Levenshulme springs to mind as well.

[AndyB]

Well, I've just emailed Manchester City Council to point out that the original TTRO was unlawful because any justification under section 14(1) ended once barrier works were complete, and they had no power to impose a temporary or permanent speed limit under sections 88 and 84.

Next step: the Chief Constable.

You may gather I've no issue with being proven to be wrong.

[AndyB]

Incidentally, what I've learned from this:

• Road authorities can impose a limit by order (section 14(1) RTRA) for street cleaning or for as long as road works are required or are actually taking place
• Road authorities can impose a limit by notice in an emergency (section 14(2)) if road works are required or are actually taking place
• Road authorities have no other authority to impose a temporary or permanent speed limit on any special road, including a motorway (sections 84(4) and 88(6))

Incidentally, I think that a properly made amendment to the Motorway Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations could probably disapply TSRGD Schedule 10 Part 4 Direction 2 to the A57(M).

[nowster]

Local authorities get things wrong all the time.

I've just alerted my local authority that they've recently allocated a Boulter Close when there's already Boulters Close within half a mile, both just off the same main road.

[Chris Bertram]

Well, I've just emailed Manchester City Council to point out that the original TTRO was unlawful because any justification under section 14(1) ended once barrier works were complete, and they had no power to impose a temporary or permanent speed limit under sections 88 and 84.

Next step: the Chief Constable.

You may gather I've no issue with being proven to be wrong.

Me neither. I'm rarely in Manchester and last used Mancunian Way probably over 35 years ago. But speed limits need to be applied within the letter of the law. If drivers are to be expected to comply with speed limits, they'd better be lawful in the first place (similar considerations apply to other areas of road traffic law).

[nowster]

https://twitter.com/ManCityCouncil/stat ... 0821759018

Following a series of fatal accidents on the Mancunian Way, a 30mph speed limit was put in place to increase safety. We now wish to make this limit permanent, and are seeking your views in a consultation that's live until 17 December. Read more - https://orlo.uk/GWaEz

[Bryn666]

https://twitter.com/ManCityCouncil/stat ... 0821759018

Following a series of fatal accidents on the Mancunian Way, a 30mph speed limit was put in place to increase safety. We now wish to make this limit permanent, and are seeking your views in a consultation that's live until 17 December. Read more - https://orlo.uk/GWaEz

They change the reason for it every time - they're now citing the weaving between junctions.

The real mockery of MCC speed limit policy is that they're doing this, which nobody asked for, whilst Wilbraham Road remains 40 despite being built up and single carriageway. The mind boggles.