driver awareness course

neilmcl

Muscle750 wrote: »

If it wasn't a 250 mile round trip I'd be there tomorrow to see if there are two signs one either side of the road stating 30 mph if there aren't I'm of the belief after speaking to a friend at the highways agency they are on dodgy ground

Tell me the road and I'll have a look for you.

Joe_Horner

Iceweasel wrote: »

Perhaps a generalization but ......

I wouldn't take a day off work.

The fuel wouldn't be £70 - surely? - my fuel cost would be around 25 litres.

I was thinking of a young person perhaps having further penalties in the future, or applying for a job where driving was part of it.

Also for most young persons insurance premiums are pretty high so even a 10% increase might be a substantial sum.

Anyhow - be that as it may - I would go for the course - as going to court benefits only the legal system and those who work within it.

Inch_High wrote: »

Are you sure?

What if there are no lampposts or they are more than 200 metres apart?

Repeater signs are ONLY to be used where the limit is different from the one you should expect according to the street lighting. That means that:

On an unlit road, a stretch of 30, 40 or 50mph limit (if there are any unlit 30s left) should have repeaters.

On a lit road (with suitable lights closer than 200 yards apart) any 40, 50 or 60mph stretches should have repeaters.

There is no maximum distance between the repeaters, the law simply says they must be "regular". They must not be used in other circumstances, although I've always struggled to think of a situation where having them (when they shouldn't be there) would be a valid excuse for speeding.

Buellguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Repeater signs are ONLY to be used where the limit is different from the one you should expect according to the street lighting. That means that:

On an unlit road, a stretch of 30, 40 or 50mph limit (if there are any unlit 30s left) should have repeaters.

On a lit road (with suitable lights closer than 200 yards apart) any 40, 50 or 60mph stretches should have repeaters.

There is no maximum distance between the repeaters, the law simply says they must be "regular". They must not be used in other circumstances, although I've always struggled to think of a situation where having them (when they shouldn't be there) would be a valid excuse for speeding.

Not knocking anything you say, but just to throw a hand grenade into the works. I know all about the things with street lights, BUT, do the lights have to work i.e. if they are turned off (as many councils now seem to be doing) do they then have to have the repeaters in? (like I say, I don't know, maybe one for the real legal eagles on here)

Joe_Horner

Buellguy wrote: »

Not knocking anything you say, but just to throw a hand grenade into the works. I know all about the things with street lights, BUT, do the lights have to work i.e. if they are turned off (as many councils now seem to be doing) do they then have to have the repeaters in? (like I say, I don't know, maybe one for the real legal eagles on here)

Interesting point.

I've got a feeling I've seen case law somewhere saying that individual defective streetlights can still constitute "a system of carriageway lighting", but if they're all intentionally extinguished that could be a different matter - probably one that would need a new case to settle.

Aretnap

Joe_Horner wrote: »

There is no maximum distance between the repeaters, the law simply says they must be "regular".

There are some maximum distances set out in the Traffic Signs Manual (page 117), but it's guidance rather than law. In practice I imagine a court would take those as its starting point if you were to complain that the repeaters weren't regular enough.

Iceweasel

Inch_High wrote: »

So you just post what you consider to be fact and correct others when you don't in fact know the first thing about signage.

You my friend are priceless and the reason why people shouldn't rely on forum advice.

Thank you for that Inch High - snide comments are just what we need here - NOT.

I said that I was not sure as I hadn't recently checked that particular section of the Road Traffic Regs, but was aware that there had been a recent revision/update on that very topic - repeater 30mph signs.

I have now checked and I am now sure that what I posted from memory is correct - no repeaters are necessary.

I shan't quote the source - but it was dated 11th March 2014 - I'll let you check if you are sure, as you obviously think you know all about signage.

Are you sure I'm wrong?

I don't think I'm priceless but I agree with your other comment of why folks shouldn't rely solely on forum advice. Note the extra word I've added.

Muscle750

The road in question is longdale lane in Ravenshead

Inch_High_2

Iceweasel wrote: »

Thank you for that Inch High - snide comments are just what we need here - NOT.

I said that I was not sure as I hadn't recently checked that particular section of the Road Traffic Regs, but was aware that there had been a recent revision/update on that very topic - repeater 30mph signs.

I have now checked and I am now sure that what I posted from memory is correct - no repeaters are necessary.

I shan't quote the source - but it was dated 11th March 2014 - I'll let you check if you are sure, as you obviously think you know all about signage.

Are you sure I'm wrong?

I don't think I'm priceless but I agree with your other comment of why folks shouldn't rely solely on forum advice. Note the extra word I've added.

What if there are no street lights?

Iceweasel

The google images are 3 years old, but I would reckon that what they have done is just change the 40mph signs at the entrances to Ravenshead and removed all the 30mph signs from the junctions of all the roads coming off Longdale Lane.

As the whole of Ravenshead has street lighting (presumably the lights are the required distance apart) then there is no need or requirement for repeater signs. In fact I would think repeater signs would be contrary to the RTRA rules.

That part of Longdale Lane not within the village of Ravenshead has no street lighting and would therefore have the National Speed Limit of 60mph.

However - (just to be clear) if the local authorities wanted to have a speed limit on the whole length of the lane then they would need to have repeater signs.

That is my personal opinion which I believe to be correct - but of course it could be a load of cr*p - what do I know.

Other opinions are available.

Joe_Horner

Muscle750 wrote: »

The road in question is longdale lane in Ravenshead

Ok. Just "drove" that on streetview - I'm assuming you mean where it passes through Ravenshead itself (somewhere near the A60 end of Longdale lane)?

Obviously, streetview will be out of date if they've changed the limits but a few observations:

If he was travelling from the A60 then that is 40mph, with correct signage and repeaters. So moving onto Longdale lane is (was when Google visited) still a 40 limit. That's backed up by all the side roads having 30mph signs at their entrance and 40mph signs as you leave them.

However, Longdale Lane itself has appropriate street lighting and no repeaters that I could see, indicating a 30mph limit. Frankly, it doesn't look like a 40mph road with all the new residential development and I'm not at all surprised they've had problems if that's what it was. Definitely an area where the limit should NOT be treated as a target!

Coming from the other end, you enter a 40 limit from the national speed limit) at the start of the village.

The problem is, with the lighting that's in place, that road is "restricted", and therefore 30mph, unless signed otherwise. It's a quirk of the road sign regulations that a restricted road doesn't even need a 30mph sign at its start - the mere fact of the streetlights makes it 30 unless signs are telling him differently

So, when they changed the limit, all they had to do to the signage was remove the 40mph signs (and the 30mph ones as you enter any side streets). There are a couple of legal / procedural errors they might make that would alter that but you'd have to do a lot of homework and probably still lose in a magistrates court.

Taking it to appeal is likely to be far more expensive AND time consuming than just accepting the course - especially seeing as the road doesn't appear to be suitable for 40 anyway, so he could possibly do with a little speed awareness to remind him it's NOT a target