DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19841--------------------------------------------------
Re: Oh my God. I've just got another! speed "A20
Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road"
DIR By: Donostio
Date: April 17, 2024, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Properly signed.
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 19844--------------------------------------------------
Re: Oh my God. I've just got another! speed "A20
Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road"
DIR By: Donostio
Date: April 17, 2024, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bizarrely low. Especially for a road that has been 70mph for
YEARS. If you are in the right hand lane with a van (let alone a
truck or a couple of lorries) on your left you are not going to
see that. [attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 19858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Oh my God. I've just got another! speed "A20
Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road"
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: April 17, 2024, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Donostio link ---
>
> Bizarrely low. Especially for a road that has been 70mph for
YEARS. If you are in the right hand lane with a van (let alone a
truck or a couple of lorries) on your left you are not going to
see that. [attachimg=1]
>
--- End Quote ---
Maybe not.
But the sign in your image is one of many repeaters on the
stretch and the one shown is about 500 yards from its end (which
is just past the BP/McDonalds service area in the distance). At
the two points of entry to it (at the beginning of the Crittals
Corner flyover and on the slip road from the roundabout) there
are pairs of larger "terminal" 40 signs. As well as that, before
each of those there are large "easel" style notices warning
drivers of the new limit.
#Post#: 19859--------------------------------------------------
Re: Oh my God. I've just got another! speed "A20
Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road"
DIR By: Donostio
Date: April 17, 2024, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The first picture is 'the point on entry'
#Post#: 19902--------------------------------------------------
Re: Oh my God. I've just got another! speed "A20
Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road"
DIR By: Donostio
Date: April 18, 2024, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NewJudge link ---
>
> [quote author=Donostio link=topic=1594.msg19795#msg19795
date=1713289206]
> BBC News - Driver avoids six-month ban over 'inadequate' sign
>
HTML https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68818174
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Quite why the Magistrates went against their guidance (which
suggests they should have imposed points for all four offences
thus making him liable to a “totting up” ban) is unknown, but
was not (or at least should not have been) because of inadequate
signage. [/quote]
The magistrates showed leniency due to the signage being the
bare minimum in law. You are confusing your *view of the
situation* with *facts* and what happened in a courtroom where
you were not present. The magistrate had a different view to
yours - based on the evidence they heard.
--- Quote ---
>
> There was no evidence to support that principally because the
signage is clear and compliant. I know because I drive that
stretch quite often. Not only is the required signage quite
clear but there are also notices warning drivers of the new
limit which have been in place since the limit was imposed last
autumn.
>
--- End Quote ---
The signage could be much clearer. It only meets the minimum in
law: 30cm, unlit, low level and on one side of the road. Indeed
it is also not a legal requirement that speed cameras are bright
yellow and not hidden in trees. Most are, this one is not. It
is an extraordinary (and new) speed limit, so it would ideally
have extraordinary signage - or at least signage as good as that
in similar situations. That was the evidence that was heard.
Indeed the defendant pleaded guilty (because the signage is the
bare minimum required in law). The mitigation included the fact
that the signage could be much clearer than it is and can be
missed - especially for an extraordinary new limit.
I did not see other notices where I joined the section, and I
would not have seen the advance warning notices in Autumn.
Unlike yourself I am an infrequent user of that road. Even so, I
have used it a great number of times in the past at 70 miles per
hour.
You're adamant the signage is sufficient and perfectly visible
to all and you surmise (in fact you assert) the magistrate has
not decided otherwise. So perhaps, if that is so, you should
surmise why so very many motorists are falling foul of this
change in the speed limit. Could it be that regular users of
this road, mostly people who live in the area, are more prone to
poor eyesight, are less observant, or less law abiding? Perhaps,
since so many people have attracted multiple tickets for the
first time here, we need to surmise that something awful entered
the water supply in the last six months that has affected their
eyesight.
#Post#: 19914--------------------------------------------------
Re: Oh my God. I've just got another! speed "A20
Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road"
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: April 18, 2024, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> It only meets the minimum in law: 30cm, unlit, low level and
on one side of the road...
--- End Quote ---
That is incorrect. There are twin “40” roundels, one each side
of the carriageway on each of the two entries to the stretch.
Whilst I haven’t measured them, I would guess they are larger
than 30cm. Here’s GSV images of the two locations. The first is
on the slip road from the Crittals corner roundabout; the second
is on the main eastbound carriageway towards the end of the
flyover. These images were taken before the new limit was
imposed, and NSL roundels are visible. These have been replaced
with “40” roundels of the same size and, as far as I can see,
using the same mounting posts.
HTML https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.41266,0.115838,114.32h,0.99p,1z,zTU951oZ-0g818wgJzsekQ
HTML https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.412276,0.117029,90h,5p,0z,ZachmDzHGp3x0nHPGrg8bg
These are perfectly clear and, as far as I can tell, comply with
the usual signage which conveys the limit, not just to the
barest minimum, but perfectly adequately. They are no different
to any other “terminal” signs seen elsewhere. There is street
lighting in both these locations (they are virtually adjacent to
each other) so no illumination of the signs is necessary.
Neither of these images seem to concur with the photo you posted
at 4:08pm yesterday, which you assert is at the the point of
entry. That looks to be taken much further east, before the brow
of the hill before the road begins its descent towards Swanley
half a mile or so into the stretch, probably about here:
HTML https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.41071,0.125029,113.33h,-0.57p,0z,SZTXO_gWXQxeTS_s3QIyaA
The other picture you posted is at the first countdown marker to
the service area, so almost at the end of the stretch.
--- Quote ---
> So perhaps, if that is so, you should surmise why so very many
motorists are falling foul of this change in the speed limit.
--- End Quote ---
I’ve absolutely no idea. What I can say is that even with all
the recent publicity (including on national television) drivers
are still hammering along well in excess of 40mph, some I would
suggest at up to 70mph. I cannot explain this other than to
think they are regular users who simply have not noticed the
reduced limit. But it is certainly not because of deficient
signage.
--- Quote ---
> The magistrates showed leniency due to the signage being the
bare minimum in law. You are confusing your *view of the
situation* with *facts* and what happened in a courtroom where
you were not present.
--- End Quote ---
No, I was not in the courtroom, but I have a reliable
acquaintance who was. That’s how I found out about Mr Foster’s
ten points because, as far as I am aware, no other source has
reported it, preferring instead to emphasise that he was "only "
banned for 28 days instead of six months. Mr Foster’s solicitor
did not plead for leniency on the basis of deficient signage; he
asked for an alternative approach to twelve points and a totting
up ban, bearing in mind that the offences all occurred in the
same place within about a week, and all having been committed
before he got notification of the first. It is that plea which
the Magistrates reacted to. He accepted that his client must
have suffered a lack of observation. Unfortunately Mr Foster and
his family painted a slightly different picture of the
proceedings when he was interviewed for TV as he left court.
No publicity would have been given to this issue had it not been
for the “rogue” 50 sign which appeared for a short period after
Christmas. The Facebook group which had been formed to discuss
it firstly rounded firmly on this as a reason for the high
number of transgressions. This was dismissed by the police
because the rogue sign, being sited almost at the end of the
stretch, played little or no part in the transgressions. It
seems the attention is now centred on “inadequate” signage.
We’re straying way too far into “Flame Pit” territory here and I
fear the moderator’s sword may descend on us, so I’ll leave it
there.
#Post#: 19920--------------------------------------------------
Re: Oh my God. I've just got another! speed "A20
Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road"
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: April 18, 2024, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, a rogue 50mph sign towards the end of a restricted
stretch of road cannot possibly have contributed to an increased
number of motorists caught speeding, as motorists are physically
incapable of recalling having seen such a sign on previous
journeys and assuming the limit to be that which the sign
purported to indicate.
This causes me a great deal of difficulty as I live in a large
town, with mostly 30mph restricted roads with a compliant system
of street lighting. When I start a journey from home, I have to
guess how far I need to drive without seeing a "regularly spaced
repeater" (as the requirement for maximum spacing was replaced
with the requirement for the spacing to be regular, which
doesn't mean regular) in order to determine that the speed limit
is in fact 30mph. Unless it's a motorway. It doesn't look like a
motorway, but judging the speed limit of a road from how it
looks isn't as easy as it used to be when urban dual
carriageways were invariably 40mph.
#Post#: 19921--------------------------------------------------
Re: Oh my God. I've just got another! speed "A20
Eastbound, West of Sandy Lane to East of Cookham Road"
DIR By: Donostio
Date: April 18, 2024, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ha! No ill will. We do have different views on it though.
I spoke with the solicitor involved in the Forster case for 37
minutes this morning, regarding the evidence that was heard and
the mitigation accepted by the magistrate. More out of curiosity
than need. Since my licence isn’t on the line I’m still best to
just plead guilty, take the points and £100 fine, and not go to
court.
He had a slightly different view/recollection of it than your
associate...
Others with more at stake may want to challenge the charges.
Like the poor sods that have unwittingly got 5-10 tickets in two
weeks and are facing a ban! There are at least four more cases
coming up in court soon. It will be interesting to see how they
go. To court is unlikely to be that sympathetic but a few wins
may force the hand of the Met / TfL to install better signage.
Though since the limit is supposed to go back to 70mph within 12
months that is unlikely, and they also will not want to cast
doubt on the previous convictions by changing the signage now.
So it will probably remain a case by case fix, with legal costs.
For example, if you were driving at night, in rain, with traffic
and lorries on your left you may have a reasonable case that the
signs (while meeting the minimum in law) were not adequate for
you to see them.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page