20 MPH Area

anewman

tomstickland wrote: »

Now I brake, crawl over bump at 4mph, then accelerate up to speed. Repeat about 8 times.

I go over the bumps 20mph or 30mph if that's the limit, but that's probably why the rubber bush at the bottom of my rear shock absorber is knackered.

scbk

I really really hate speed bumps, try going over them in a van + trailer, I care for my load and some of them are really bad and you have to crawl over in first gear.
The speed cushions aren't as bad, atleast you can avoid them but you sometimes have to get a bit close to parked cars

scbk

Also I know I've said this before but the laws regarding speed limits are different in Scotland. Street lighting doesn't mean it's a 30, and they have to put special roads (motorways) are signed with 70 rather than NSL

Inactive

anewman wrote: »

I go over the bumps 20mph or 30mph if that's the limit, but that's probably why the rubber bush at the bottom of my rear shock absorber is knackered.

You will wreck your car if you continue to do that,;) I never drive over them at much more than walking pace.

anewman

Is it just suspension that's prone to damage going fast over the bumps?

Come to think of it it's probably also why my track rod ends and steering rack were worn.

Inactive

anewman wrote: »

Is it just suspension that's prone to damage going fast over the bumps?

Mainly yes, but also tyres can be damaged.

Trust me, your car will last a lot longer if you drive more slowly over speed humps.

headpin

Wig wrote: »

..................

Conclusion
Nothing that I have read, indicates that correctly signed 20 limits or 20 zones are unenforceable.

There is a slight inconsistency in 85(5) because the same can be said of a "20 zone". However 85(5) is only referring to a sect 81 offence of exceeding 30mph, and if you were in a 20 zone you would see TCFs every 100m
And if you had TCFs every 100m you might find it difficult to exceed 20mph. Assuming you did exceed 20 and got caught and prosecuted, you could defend yourself on the grounds that it is established in legislation that "evidence of the absence of repeater signs is evidence that the road is 30mph". How far you get is for the courts to decide.

Firstly I'm not too clear on what is being said about whther or not repeaters are required in 20 mph zones and or limit area?

Also in your conclusion you say that:

Nothing that I have read, indicates that correctly signed 20 limits or 20 zones are unenforceable.

But then go on to say that:

Assuming you did exceed 20 and got caught and prosecuted, you could defend yourself on the grounds that it is established in legislation that "evidence of the absence of repeater signs is evidence that the road is 30mph". .

These two statements appear to contradict themselves. Is it enforceable or is it not. If it's for the court to decide then the grey is a bit of a mess!!

Wig

headpin wrote: »

Firstly I'm not too clear on what is being said about whther or not repeaters are required in 20 mph zones and or limit area?

A 20 Zone has a '20' inside a red circle with the word ZONE written underneath. This sign must be on both sides of the road on all roads that feed the area - except possibly single carriageways of less than 5m width which only require one sign. Inside the zone there must be a TCF every 100m, with a few exceptions eg cul-de-sacs, and the distance from the entrance point to the first TCF can be no more than 50m unless the gateway itself is a TCF. If these condtions are not met it would be unenforceable, Repeater signs in a correctly laid out 20 zone are not required.

A "20 Limit" area must have normal 20 signs (on all entrance roads) like the 30, 40 signs with a red circle (sign 670) without 'ZONE' underneath. Within this area there must be regular repeaters. If there are not it would be unenforceable and revert to a 30 limit.

Also in your conclusion you say that:

Nothing that I have read, indicates that correctly signed 20 limits or 20 zones are unenforceable.

Yes.

But then go on to say that:

Assuming you did exceed 20 and got caught and prosecuted, you could defend yourself on the grounds that it is established in legislation that "evidence of the absence of repeater signs is evidence that the road is 30mph". .

These two statements appear to contradict themselves. Is it enforceable or is it not. If it's for the court to decide then the grey is a bit of a mess!!

It is enforceable until 'case law' says otherwise, 'case law' is when you go before the beak, get found guilty and appeal to the High Court. If you win in the HC it is unenforceable from then on and retrospectively. If you lose in the HC it is enforceable and always has been.

HTH

Markyt

anewman wrote: »

Is it just suspension that's prone to damage going fast over the bumps?

No - it also breaks patients on their way to A&E in ambulances.

anewman

Markyt wrote: »

No - it also breaks patients on their way to A&E in ambulances.

Have to agree. I clearly remember being in what I would describe as extreme pain in a car with cholecystitis (gall bladder stones) being driven to the doctors and the slightest bump wasn't pleasant.