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

[Bryn666]

I'd just take the few seconds extra for the distance and it'll be fine - 1.5 miles at 40mph is hardly something to die in a ditch for.

Not handing the public highway over to cowboys on the other hand is worth fighting over. There are far too many incompetent chancers playing traffic engineers lately. This is another entry in a very blotted copybook from MCC.

[Steven]

I'd just take the few seconds extra for the distance and it'll be fine - 1.5 miles at 40mph is hardly something to die in a ditch for.

Not handing the public highway over to cowboys on the other hand is worth fighting over. There are far too many incompetent chancers playing traffic engineers lately. This is another entry in a very blotted copybook from MCC.

Whilst I get the point - it's less than a minute extra end-to-end so hardly a hill worth dying on, there is a reasonable expectation that if the road user is expected to behave in a law-abiding manner, then so should the maintaining authority.

[Bomag]

TSM is only guidance. There’s nothing in law to stop an authority ignoring the guidance and imposing a temporary 30mph limit which then has to be signed.

Repeaters for a permanent 30, even on a motorway, could presumably be done under special authorisation as no authorised sign exists which can repeat the restriction

TSM defines what is enforceable under RTRA 1984 Section 85. Its not one of those wiggly things, repeaters are prohibited.

TSM doesn’t actually define what is enforceable under RTRA.

As with all guidance, it sets out requirements that, if you comply with them, should mean that you have given adequate notice for the purposes of Section 85, although there is a rider on the guidance that there is no guarantee.

With guidance such as TSM, the local authority is at liberty to comply with Section 85 in its own way. It’s a good deal less strong than an Approved Code of Practice where they could have to explain why they didn’t comply with the approved process.

You might feel that this is teaching granny to suck eggs, and I apologise in advance, but the difference between legislation, ACOPs and guidance and the obligations which come with each level is a subject Safety Representatives have coming out of our ears because it’s one of the first things we learn when we do our Health and Safety Rep training.

The prohibition on 30 repeaters is actually in the General Directions of TSRGD.

RTRA 1984 Section 85

'(1) For the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on any road, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, [in the case of a road for which he is the traffic authority, to] erect and maintain . . . traffic signs in such positions as maybe requisite for that purpose.
(2) [In the case of any other road, it is the duty of the ... traffic authority—]
(a) to erect and maintain . . . traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Secretary of State for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above, and'

While a direction can, and is included in an S.I., it does not need to be.

TSM Chapter 8 has
U2.9.1. The requirements for the setting and signing of mandatory temporary speed limits are included in Part 1: Design, Section D3.7. The requirements in that section as well as those identified here indicate what is considered adequate guidance in Section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. If these requirements are not met then it is unlikely that it would be possible to successfully enforce the reduced speed limit.

This also applies to permanent situations but is needed for clarity for temporary situations.

Therefore it is misleading to say TSM does not define what is enforceable. While it is for a Judge to decide if the application of a specific limit is enforceable, it is the TSM which is the benchmark on what is required.

While before TSRGD 2016 what was lawful and what was enforceable was closely aligned in Great Britain this is not now so. TSRGD 2016 prescribes signs in some stations which are neither safe, nor enforceable. TSM is used to enable 'designer' liability under CDM Regs e.g. Reg 9, to be met. This is why there was an interim Chapter 8 update (2016) to cover DfT/HE author liability as well as designer's liability. Other Chapters could wait as unlike Chapter 8 they are not a code of practice.

As practitioners' need to be reminded (often) the difference between a ACOP and COP is only the legislation you will be prosecuted under if something goes wrong.

The requirement for repeaters was in the GD even before TSRGD 2016, which is why it never applied to the Highways Agency and does to Highways England/National Highways.

While TSM does contain guidance you can always tell somebody is not a sufficiently competent signing or TTM practitioner by the use of 'TSM is only guidance'. I would not expect all members of Sabre to be already aware of this, only those professing to be relevant practitioners .

[Bomag]

I'd just take the few seconds extra for the distance and it'll be fine - 1.5 miles at 40mph is hardly something to die in a ditch for.

Not handing the public highway over to cowboys on the other hand is worth fighting over. There are far too many incompetent chancers playing traffic engineers lately. This is another entry in a very blotted copybook from MCC.

Whilst I get the point - it's less than a minute extra end-to-end so hardly a hill worth dying on, there is a reasonable expectation that if the road user is expected to behave in a law-abiding manner, then so should the maintaining authority.

Applying a speed limit lower than the design speed of the road increases fatigue inmost drivers and for longer lengths increases the likelihood of poor behaviors such as lane positioning, headways and greater variation in speed. Too many speed limits (perm and temp) are to avoid maintaining the road in a safe and effective way (I ignore political issue such as being seen to be serious on safety). While not the primary aim, the drafting of TSRGD 2016 along with TSM, was designed to facilitate the easier application of 'good' limits e.g. speed limit repeater spacings, while attempting to limit putting in less competent options - in this case a motorway with a permanent 30 mph limits.

[AndyB]

TSM defines what is enforceable under RTRA 1984 Section 85. Its not one of those wiggly things, repeaters are prohibited.

TSM doesn’t actually define what is enforceable under RTRA.

As with all guidance, it sets out requirements that, if you comply with them, should mean that you have given adequate notice for the purposes of Section 85, although there is a rider on the guidance that there is no guarantee.

With guidance such as TSM, the local authority is at liberty to comply with Section 85 in its own way. It’s a good deal less strong than an Approved Code of Practice where they could have to explain why they didn’t comply with the approved process.

You might feel that this is teaching granny to suck eggs, and I apologise in advance, but the difference between legislation, ACOPs and guidance and the obligations which come with each level is a subject Safety Representatives have coming out of our ears because it’s one of the first things we learn when we do our Health and Safety Rep training.

The prohibition on 30 repeaters is actually in the General Directions of TSRGD.

RTRA 1984 Section 85

'(1) For the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on any road, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, [in the case of a road for which he is the traffic authority, to] erect and maintain . . . traffic signs in such positions as maybe requisite for that purpose.
(2) [In the case of any other road, it is the duty of the ... traffic authority—]
(a) to erect and maintain . . . traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Secretary of State for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above, and'

While a direction can, and is included in an S.I., it does not need to be.

TSM Chapter 8 has
U2.9.1. The requirements for the setting and signing of mandatory temporary speed limits are included in Part 1: Design, Section D3.7. The requirements in that section as well as those identified here indicate what is considered adequate guidance in Section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. If these requirements are not met then it is unlikely that it would be possible to successfully enforce the reduced speed limit.

This also applies to permanent situations but is needed for clarity for temporary situations.

Therefore it is misleading to say TSM does not define what is enforceable. While it is for a Judge to decide if the application of a specific limit is enforceable, it is the TSM which is the benchmark on what is required.

While before TSRGD 2016 what was lawful and what was enforceable was closely aligned in Great Britain this is not now so. TSRGD 2016 prescribes signs in some stations which are neither safe, nor enforceable. TSM is used to enable 'designer' liability under CDM Regs e.g. Reg 9, to be met. This is why there was an interim Chapter 8 update (2016) to cover DfT/HE author liability as well as designer's liability. Other Chapters could wait as unlike Chapter 8 they are not a code of practice.

As practitioners' need to be reminded (often) the difference between a ACOP and COP is only the legislation you will be prosecuted under if something goes wrong.

The requirement for repeaters was in the GD even before TSRGD 2016, which is why it never applied to the Highways Agency and does to Highways England/National Highways.

While TSM does contain guidance you can always tell somebody is not a sufficiently competent signing or TTM practitioner by the use of 'TSM is only guidance'. I would not expect all members of Sabre to be already aware of this, only those professing to be relevant practitioners .

TSM Chapter 8 is not a COP. It is guidance, and it self-identifies as guidance. I may not be a TTM practitioner, but I am an accredited Health and Safety Representative under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations (NI) 1977 which directly parallel the equivalent regulations in GB, fully trained for that purpose and holding the relevant credits, and for that reason I am specifically qualified to comment on the differences between ACOPs and Guidance.

As with all guidance that is not an ACOP (for Government publication purposes, there is only legislation, an Approved Code of Practice or Guidance), it is not binding. The relevant authority is at liberty to do something else using lawfully authorised signs that will achieve the same end at the risk of having to have it tested in court, and it is also required to risk assess whether complying with the letter of the guidance is sufficient.

Even the statement you cite makes it clear that TSM does not define what is enforceable. Your quotation states that if you don’t comply with TSM it’s unlikely to be enforceable, which reduces it (correctly) to strongly worded guidance.

[Bomag]

TSM doesn’t actually define what is enforceable under RTRA.

As with all guidance, it sets out requirements that, if you comply with them, should mean that you have given adequate notice for the purposes of Section 85, although there is a rider on the guidance that there is no guarantee.

With guidance such as TSM, the local authority is at liberty to comply with Section 85 in its own way. It’s a good deal less strong than an Approved Code of Practice where they could have to explain why they didn’t comply with the approved process.

You might feel that this is teaching granny to suck eggs, and I apologise in advance, but the difference between legislation, ACOPs and guidance and the obligations which come with each level is a subject Safety Representatives have coming out of our ears because it’s one of the first things we learn when we do our Health and Safety Rep training.

The prohibition on 30 repeaters is actually in the General Directions of TSRGD.

RTRA 1984 Section 85

'(1) For the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on any road, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, [in the case of a road for which he is the traffic authority, to] erect and maintain . . . traffic signs in such positions as maybe requisite for that purpose.
(2) [In the case of any other road, it is the duty of the ... traffic authority—]
(a) to erect and maintain . . . traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Secretary of State for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above, and'

While a direction can, and is included in an S.I., it does not need to be.

TSM Chapter 8 has
U2.9.1. The requirements for the setting and signing of mandatory temporary speed limits are included in Part 1: Design, Section D3.7. The requirements in that section as well as those identified here indicate what is considered adequate guidance in Section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. If these requirements are not met then it is unlikely that it would be possible to successfully enforce the reduced speed limit.

This also applies to permanent situations but is needed for clarity for temporary situations.

Therefore it is misleading to say TSM does not define what is enforceable. While it is for a Judge to decide if the application of a specific limit is enforceable, it is the TSM which is the benchmark on what is required.

While before TSRGD 2016 what was lawful and what was enforceable was closely aligned in Great Britain this is not now so. TSRGD 2016 prescribes signs in some stations which are neither safe, nor enforceable. TSM is used to enable 'designer' liability under CDM Regs e.g. Reg 9, to be met. This is why there was an interim Chapter 8 update (2016) to cover DfT/HE author liability as well as designer's liability. Other Chapters could wait as unlike Chapter 8 they are not a code of practice.

As practitioners' need to be reminded (often) the difference between a ACOP and COP is only the legislation you will be prosecuted under if something goes wrong.

The requirement for repeaters was in the GD even before TSRGD 2016, which is why it never applied to the Highways Agency and does to Highways England/National Highways.

While TSM does contain guidance you can always tell somebody is not a sufficiently competent signing or TTM practitioner by the use of 'TSM is only guidance'. I would not expect all members of Sabre to be already aware of this, only those professing to be relevant practitioners .

TSM Chapter 8 is not a COP. It is guidance, and it self-identifies as guidance. I may not be a TTM practitioner, but I am an accredited Health and Safety Representative under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations (NI) 1977 which directly parallel the equivalent regulations in GB, fully trained for that purpose and holding the relevant credits, and for that reason I am specifically qualified to comment on the differences between ACOPs and Guidance.

As with all guidance that is not an ACOP (for Government publication purposes, there is only legislation, an Approved Code of Practice or Guidance), it is not binding. The relevant authority is at liberty to do something else using lawfully authorised signs that will achieve the same end at the risk of having to have it tested in court, and it is also required to risk assess whether complying with the letter of the guidance is sufficient.

Even the statement you cite makes it clear that TSM does not define what is enforceable. Your quotation states that if you don’t comply with TSM it’s unlikely to be enforceable, which reduces it (correctly) to strongly worded guidance.

Chapter 8 and its predecessors are a code of practice, it includes 'how' as well as 'what'. It is also defines what is 'reasonably practicable' .

U1.8.1. The Traffic Signs Manual is applicable in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and
Wales. This Chapter sets out a code of practice to enable the legal requirements to be met in
a wide variety of circumstances...

U1.8.7. The contents of this document may be considered as representing what is reasonably practicable for the enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Health and
Safety at Work (NI) Order 2005, and associated regulations.

The difference between a ACOP e.g. red book and a COP (Chapter 8 in GB) is that any action against the ACOP will be done under that legislation e.g. NRSWA. A injury may be subject to prosecution against the relevant H&S legislation for the location, Chapter 8 is the benchmark for what signing and guarding is reasonably practicable. I too am a safety rep, to the GB Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977; in no way would the qualification for this status be any relevance to being a traffic signs or TTM practitioner. I notice you reference the NI SRSC regs, in which case I would expect that you would know that in NI Chapter 8 is an effective ACOP as it is mandated, where relevant, in Article 31 of the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

To a certain point, in respect of repeaters, a LHA may do anything they want. They many to argue the toss in front of a Judge. The problem for the LHA is that both legislation and TSM was drafted, for something like this, to enable to PBI to point out it's crap, it's not fair and was intended to be unenforceable.

Going back to a previous comment if the LHA really think a 30 mph is required for safety then they should revoke the regulations making it a motorway as I did to the A102(M) and A2(M) in 1999.

Its a pity Conecicker is apparently on holiday, he as a copy of most documents going back to the 50's. Some of those were a bit more direct in this area.

[Steven]

Going back to a previous comment if the LHA really think a 30 mph is required for safety then they should revoke the regulations making it a motorway as I did to the A102(M) and A2(M) in 1999.

Sorry, the what??

[Bomag]

Going back to a previous comment if the LHA really think a 30 mph is required for safety then they should revoke the regulations making it a motorway as I did to the A102(M) and A2(M) in 1999.

Sorry, the what??

Last time I checked the list of LHA 'motorways' the restrictions on the A57(M) looked to be applied by a traffic order, not the 1983 Motorway regs. This was similar to the Blackwell tunnel approaches which had TROs from 1981. Revoking the TROs and renaming the road the A57 (Roads 355 form?) would enable the LHA to make it a restricted roads and therefore have a 30 mph limit.

[Steven]

Going back to a previous comment if the LHA really think a 30 mph is required for safety then they should revoke the regulations making it a motorway as I did to the A102(M) and A2(M) in 1999.

Sorry, the what??

Last time I checked the list of LHA 'motorways' the restrictions on the A57(M) looked to be applied by a traffic order, not the 1983 Motorway regs. This was similar to the Blackwell tunnel approaches which had TROs from 1981. Revoking the TROs and renaming the road the A57 (Roads 355 form?) would enable the LHA to make it a restricted roads and therefore have a 30 mph limit.

Yes, the London motorways were different in that they weren't Special Roads, but "Motorways by GLC Order". The A57(M) (and A635(M)) is however, a Special Road - and if the desire was to remove motorway status from it so that a 30mph limit could be applied, then simply adding Class IV traffic would do the job.

However, that's not the bit I was questioning. What on earth is the A2(M) that supposedly existed in 1999? Whilst that number has been allocated twice, it's never been actually used on the ground as far as I know.

[KeithW]

Yes, the London motorways were different in that they weren't Special Roads, but "Motorways by GLC Order". The A57(M) (and A635(M)) is however, a Special Road - and if the desire was to remove motorway status from it so that a 30mph limit could be applied, then simply adding Class IV traffic would do the job.

However, that's not the bit I was questioning. What on earth is the A2(M) that supposedly existed in 1999? Whilst that number has been allocated twice, it's never been actually used on the ground as far as I know.

As I recall when the Medway Towns bypass was being planned the number allocated was the A2(M) but that was in 1959 not 1999. As I recall it ended up being renumbered. I know as a simple fact that in 1973 when I first drove it it the Medway Towns Bypass was the M2. The A102, Blackwall Tunnel Southern approach was the A102(M) before responsibility passed to the GLC.

[Bomag]

Sorry, the what??

Last time I checked the list of LHA 'motorways' the restrictions on the A57(M) looked to be applied by a traffic order, not the 1983 Motorway regs. This was similar to the Blackwell tunnel approaches which had TROs from 1981. Revoking the TROs and renaming the road the A57 (Roads 355 form?) would enable the LHA to make it a restricted roads and therefore have a 30 mph limit.

However, that's not the bit I was questioning. What on earth is the A2(M) that supposedly existed in 1999? Whilst that number has been allocated twice, it's never been actually used on the ground as far as I know.

The A2 mainline where it met end on with the A102 was to the north of the Dia 1042 (currently Dia 1041 NB) nosing for the slip roads at the A2/A102/A207 interchange. Therefore the first, or last, 100m of the Rochester Way Relief road had A2 chainages and was within the Diagram 2901 (or Dia 2931 for SB), it was effectively the A2(M). This was a right royal pain in the arse and we went out of our way to avoid any reference in TTROs we did for LPRS. However compared to the work further north with the Dome works it was a fairly minor issue. From google streetview TfL has made an even bigger pigs ear of the south facing slips. They may have fixed the chianage issue when they altered the nosing. There was apparently a similar, but smaller error at the A106/A102, but that had gone by mid 1999.

[frediculous_biggs]

However, that's not the bit I was questioning. What on earth is the A2(M) that supposedly existed in 1999? Whilst that number has been allocated twice, it's never been actually used on the ground as far as I know.

The A2 mainline where it met end on with the A102 was to the north of the Dia 1042 (currently Dia 1041 NB) nosing for the slip roads at the A2/A102/A207 interchange. Therefore the first, or last, 100m of the Rochester Way Relief road had A2 chainages and was within the Diagram 2901 (or Dia 2931 for SB), it was effectively the A2(M). This was a right royal pain in the arse and we went out of our way to avoid any reference in TTROs we did for LPRS. However compared to the work further north with the Dome works it was a fairly minor issue. From google streetview TfL has made an even bigger pigs ear of the south facing slips. They may have fixed the chianage issue when they altered the nosing. There was apparently a similar, but smaller error at the A106/A102, but that had gone by mid 1999.

Ah yeah, this clearly says A2: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4743137 ... &entry=ttu

Whereas this one says A102(M): https://www.google.com/maps/@51.474658, ... &entry=ttu

[TomJ]

GMP have been promoting that they've been out enforcing the 30mph limit.

From what I've read, this limit seems to be a legal grey area. What are the chances that this could be challenged successfully in court (granted, probably at a higher cost than just paying the fine and accepting the points).

Apparently it was due to "complaints"... I'd certainly like to know who was complaining about being slightly above 30mph being too fast!

[Chris Bertram]

GMP have been promoting that they've been out enforcing the 30mph limit.

From what I've read, this limit seems to be a legal grey area. What are the chances that this could be challenged successfully in court (granted, probably at a higher cost than just paying the fine and accepting the points).

Apparently it was due to "complaints"... I'd certainly like to know who was complaining about being slightly above 30mph being too fast!

Get Nick "Mr Loophole" Freeman on the case. That should sort it out.

[AndyB]

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.

[Chris5156]

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.

But repeaters are NOT present on the A57(M).

In any case - the street lighting = 30 rule does not apply to motorways; if it did every lit NSL motorway would need NSL repeaters and that is clearly and evidently not the case. It follows that street lights do not indicate a 30 limit on a motorway, therefore lighting and no repeaters means NSL not 30.

[Steven]

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.

But repeaters are NOT present on the A57(M).

In any case - the street lighting = 30 rule does not apply to motorways; if it did every lit NSL motorway would need NSL repeaters and that is clearly and evidently not the case. It follows that street lights do not indicate a 30 limit on a motorway, therefore lighting and no repeaters means NSL not 30.

And that's without considering the potential impact of Schedule 2 to The Motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974...

[Chris5156]

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.

But repeaters are NOT present on the A57(M).

In any case - the street lighting = 30 rule does not apply to motorways; if it did every lit NSL motorway would need NSL repeaters and that is clearly and evidently not the case. It follows that street lights do not indicate a 30 limit on a motorway, therefore lighting and no repeaters means NSL not 30.

And that's without considering the potential impact of Schedule 2 to The Motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974...

Indeed so!

I suspect this boils down to a specific set of circumstances that has yet to be tested in case law.

[AndyB]

In any case - the street lighting = 30 rule does not apply to motorways; if it did every lit NSL motorway would need NSL repeaters and that is clearly and evidently not the case. It follows that street lights do not indicate a 30 limit on a motorway, therefore lighting and no repeaters means NSL not 30.

No, I’ve already said that special roads (including motorways) are not restricted roads, which does mean that the default speed limit is 70mph unless a lower speed limit is posted.

And that's without considering the potential impact of Schedule 2 to The Motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974...

Implicit repeal as long as the Order specifies Section 84 .

Interesting point though. The TTRO referenced Section 14 of RTRA, which I think is incorrect. It should be section 88 for a temporary speed limit - section 14 is for road closures and vehicle type restrictions.

[Chris5156]

In any case - the street lighting = 30 rule does not apply to motorways; if it did every lit NSL motorway would need NSL repeaters and that is clearly and evidently not the case. It follows that street lights do not indicate a 30 limit on a motorway, therefore lighting and no repeaters means NSL not 30.

No, I’ve already said that special roads (including motorways) are not restricted roads, which does mean that the default speed limit is 70mph unless a lower speed limit is posted.

I agree - but the following line in your earlier post (which was written under the assumption that 30mph repeaters are currently installed on the A57(M)) seems to contradict that, which is why I mentioned it:

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

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.