need help with regrads to a speeding fine information

[baby_emi]

i got a speeding ticket today and i was always beleived it was a 40mph zone but police say 30mph but no signs for the whole of that road. At the same time they have given methe ticket however ive just noticed it says to a mr emma .......... is their anything i can do about incorrect status name as i am a miss

[lamma]

the titular error is irrelevant, sorry. check it really is a 30 limit.

[patdavies]

Providing that it has terminal signs at the start and finish, a 30 mph limit does not require (in fact. is specifically forbidden to have) repeater signs as long as there is a system of road lighting at intervals of less than 165 metres.

 

If you can prove that there are no terminal signs, then you can fight the ticket.

 

To do so, you will have to take positive action to reject the COFP that you currently have.

 

I would go back and look carefully for signage and street lights before attempting to contest.

[Startkey&Clutch]

i got a speeding ticket today and i was always beleived it was a 40mph zone but police say 30mph but no signs for the whole of that road.

 

If there really are no signs, and there are street lights, then its a 30.

[patdavies]

If there really are no signs, and there are street lights, then its a 30.

 

Only if there are terminal signs.

[Startkey&Clutch]

It's a 30 unless signs say otherwise. If the speed limit changed there would be signage to that effect, then when it finished a sign would change it back to 30 which is what I'm assuming you mean. The impression I got from the o.p was that they simply believed a different speed limit to be in place, people often believe this to be the case when the road is not built up for example.

[patdavies]

If the speed limit changed there would be signage to that effect, then when it finished a sign would change it back to 30 which is what I'm assuming you mean.

 

Yes, they are called terminal signs.

 

Regardless of street lighting, without terminal signs, there is no limit on a road.

[pin1onu]

Yes, they are called terminal signs.

 

Regardless of street lighting, without terminal signs, there is no limit on a road.

To back Pat up I recall that a few years back there was a case involving a policeman who got off his speeding charge because the stretch of road he was on did not have terminal signs.

[Startkey&Clutch]

So without a terminal sign then, I could go as fast as I like?

 

Sounds like an excuse to go out with my set of spanners and remove some signs.

 

I remember the case of someone getting off because of no terminal signs and am not disagreeing about that, but to say there is 'no limit' is not correct, there is always a limit. Without a terminal sign, the speed limit has not changed from the last posted sign, but a limit would still be in force. So if that person had been on a single carriageway with a national speed limit, it would be national until a terminal sign said otherwise, and if that sign was missing, you could argue about the limit.

But my point is that if you were on a 30, then you are still on a 30 until something says otherwise. So the o.p. claim that there were no signs says to me that it was still a 30, if it had been a 40 as they thought, then there would have been a sign to that effect.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Startkey&Clutch

[patdavies]

So without a terminal sign then, I could go as fast as I like?

 

In theory - but there always other offences (Careless driving; dangerous driving, etc.)

 

Sounds like an excuse to go out with my set of spanners and remove some signs.

Yup, until you're caught - and you'll find that spanners won't be sufficient usually

 

Without a terminal sign, the speed limit has not changed from the last posted sign, but a limit would still be in force. So if that person had been on a single carriageway with a national speed limit, it would be national until a terminal sign said otherwise, and if that sign was missing, you could argue about the limit.

Nope, because repeaters would be required. on the street lights

 

 

But my point is that if you were on a 30, then you are still on a 30 until something says otherwise. So the o.p. claim that there were no signs says to me that it was still a 30, if it had been a 40 as they thought, then there would have been a sign to that effect.

I understand your point, but the speed limit must be indicated by either having street lights (30 mph only) or repeaters.

 

We still haven't been told by the OP about either terminal signs or street lights

[Startkey&Clutch]

In theory - but there always other offences (Careless driving; dangerous driving, etc.)

 

I dont buy into the ' no limit', if there were no signs, its 30, otherwise you could turn off any road and 'believe' its any speed.

 

Yup, until you're caught - and you'll find that spanners won't be sufficient usually

 

Maybe if I was going fast enough, they wouldnt catch me ha har.

 

 

 

I understand your point, but the speed limit must be indicated by either having street lights (30 mph only) or repeaters.

 

From the Dft website

 

"

30mph Speed Limit

The 30mph speed limit is

predominately used in urban areas

(and more recently in many villages)

and usually is indicated by the

presence of a system of streetlights.

The presence of street lights is the

way we recognise this speed limit and

it is the reason why you do not see,

apart from where the limit starts,

30mph speed limit signs. Some

believe this to be an odd way of

indicating a speed limit, but really it is

simple. If there are streetlights and no

signs to the contrary a 30mph speed

limit is in force."

 

The 'usually' suggests not always, but it goes on to say repeaters would be needed.

 

We still haven't been told by the OP about either terminal signs or street lights

 

My Money is on the latter,

That they were already on a 30, turned onto another road with no terminal signs because it is still a 30.

.. Edited June 26, 2009 by Startkey&Clutch

[patdavies]

I dont buy into the ' no limit', if there were no signs, its 30, otherwise you could turn off any road and 'believe' its any speed.

 

Whether you buy into it or not is irrelevant, The fact is that if a speed limit is not correctly signed then there is no enforceable limit.

 

30mph Speed Limit

The 30mph speed limit is predominately used in urban areas (and more recently in many villages) and usually is indicated by the presence of a system of streetlights.

The presence of street lights is the way we recognise this speed limit and

it is the reason why you do not see, apart from where the limit starts,

30mph speed limit signs. Some believe this to be an odd way of

indicating a speed limit, but really it is simple. If there are streetlights and no signs to the contrary a 30mph speed limit is in force.

 

Note the bit in red. As I have consistently stated no terminal signs = no enforceable 30 mph limit regardless of street lights.

[Startkey&Clutch]

Whether you buy into it or not is irrelevant, The fact is that if a speed limit is not correctly signed then there is no enforceable limit.

 

I agree but no enforceable limit is not 'no limit'.

 

Note the bit in red. As I have consistently stated no terminal signs = no enforceable 30 mph limit regardless of street lights.

[/left]

 

I dont disagree with any of that, but if the o.p came off a 30 limit into a new road which was still a 30, what would the terminal signs say?

[patdavies]

I dont disagree with any of that, but if the o.p came off a 30 limit into a new road which was still a 30, what would the terminal signs say?

 

If no limit can be enforced due to incorrect signage, then what is the limit?

[Startkey&Clutch]

What signage is there in a 30 limit?

[patdavies]

What signage is there in a 30 limit?

 

For a 30 mph limit to be enforceable there must be:

 

1) Terminal signs at the beginning and end, and

2) either a system of street light at intervals of not less than 165 meters or repeater signs at regular intervals.

 

If either of these elements is missing, the limit is unenforceable.

 

And before you ask, the lights do not have to be lit, except where there is a separate requirement for the terminal signs to be illuminated.

[Startkey&Clutch]

But what do the terminal signs say if you have turned from a 30 into a 30?

There would be NO terminal signs because NOTHING has changed, which appears to be the o.p problem.

 

You could not turn off a 30mph road, claim that there were no terminal signs, boot it expect to get away with it now could you?

There would be NO terminal signs because its still a 30!

 

You are correct that if you came from a higher speed limit into a 30 and the sign was missing, there would be grounds to contest a ticket, but you appear to miss this point completly when its the other way around. Nothing you say will change that fact.

[patdavies]

But what do the terminal signs say if you have turned from a 30 into a 30?

There would be NO terminal signs because NOTHING has changed, which appears to be the o.p problem.

 

You are correct in what you say. Except that the OP has not confirmed this one way or another; so I fail to see how "this appears to be the OP's problem".

 

You could not turn off a 30mph road, claim that there were no terminal signs, boot it expect to get away with it now could you?

There would be NO terminal signs because its still a 30!

No you couldn't get away with it, and I have never argued this point.

 

Although the OP is silent, you have assumed that he has entered the particular road from another road within the same 30 mph zone and further assumed that street lights are present.

 

You are correct that if you came from a higher speed limit into a 30 and the sign was missing, there would be grounds to contest a ticket, but you appear to miss this point completly when its the other way around. Nothing you say will change that fact.

Any change in speed limit requires terminal signs.

 

I grow tired of having to correct your continuing assumptions about this particular offence, of which none of us other than the OP has all the facts.

 

You seem to have decided for yourself what has happened here and will brook no other opinion.

 

The point I am trying to make is that without knowing whether or not there were street lights and without knowing that the road forms part of a larger 30 mph area, we cannot assume that both these facts are true. In which case, my point about the requirement for terminal signs remains valid; as does my point about street light or repeaters. At no point have I stated that every road requires a terminal sign only that there must be terminal signs at the start and end of the speed limit - a point with which you seem to take umbrage.

 

And to take issue with your point. If you turn off a road properly subject to a 30 mph limit (road A) onto another road and no terminal sign is present (road B) then the speed limit on road B is 30 mph, providing that road B has either street lights or repeaters.

Edited June 27, 2009 by patdavies

[Startkey&Clutch]

You are correct in what you say. Except that the OP has not confirmed this one way or another; so I fail to see how "this appears to be the OP's problem".

 

In my oppinion, it is the o.p problem, people think speed limits are higher in my experience. Unfortunatly for you pat, an oppinion is NEVER wrong.

 

No you couldn't get away with it, and I have never argued this point.

 

Thats not how your previous posts read. what was it you said? "no limit".

You said earlier "Note the bit in red. As I have consistently stated no terminal signs = no enforceable 30 mph limit regardless of street lights."

 

Terminal from what exactly?

 

Although the OP is silent, you have assumed that he has entered the particular road from another road within the same 30 mph zone and further assumed that street lights are present.

 

And have you have assumed that they have turned from a higher speed limit and street light are not present. I do not have they facts about the road in question an neither do you, so I havent assumed anything about it, but my point is valid.

 

Any change in speed limit requires terminal signs.

 

Correct!

But if the limit hasnt changed they wouldnt be required so there wouldnt be any!

Why am I NOT allowed to assume they turned from a 30 to a 30 but you are allowed to assume they turned into a 30 from a higher limit?

 

I grow tired of having to correct your continuing assumptions about this particular offence, of which none of us other than the OP has all the facts.

 

So if you dont have all the facts, how can you correct an assumption with another assumption?

If you dont have all the facts then you are also assuming things, whats your problem?

I have said all along that if the limit had not changed, there would be no terminal signs and I believe this to be the case with the o.p, you seem to think that as there were no terminal signs its a free for all.

If you grow tired of it then stop pontificating.

 

You seem to have decided for yourself what has happened here and will brook no other opinion.

 

Pot, kettle, black.

I havent decided anything as I dont have all the facts, but as I previously stated (perhaps I should have don it in red!) I havent disagreed with a lot of what you have said, if you came from a 40 into a 30 with no terminal signs there would be a defence. I suggested that if you went from 30 to 30 there would be no terminal as nothing has changed.

It is you who will not accept that oppinion.

Are people not allowed to have an oppinion which differs from yours then?

 

The point I am trying to make is that without knowing whether or not there were street lights and without knowing that the road forms part of a larger 30 mph area, we cannot assume that both these facts are true. In which case, my point about the requirement for terminal signs remains valid; as does my point about street light or repeaters. At no point have I stated that every road requires a terminal sign only that there must be terminal signs at the start and end of the speed limit - a point with which you seem to take umbrage.

 

??? At what point have I disagreed with any of that? I havent taken umbrage with anything. We dont know one way or another the o.p circumstances as they havent replied, you assume one way, me another.

 

And to take issue with your point. If you turn off a road properly subject to a 30 mph limit (road A) onto another road and no terminal sign is present (road B) then the speed limit on road B is 30 mph, providing that road B has either street lights or repeaters.

 

So you just want to take issue with everything then.

If you grow tired of 'correcting' me then stop.

Basically what I have said is correct, you are just being pedantic.

 

.. Edited June 28, 2009 by Startkey&Clutch