Speeding Fine

[gg1]

Sounds like the A38 south of the city centre!
The signs are now gone (I think, it's been many months since I last drove along there), which is better than them being painted over. However, pretty much everyone drives at 40mph, the old speed limit. As far as I can tell, there was no "sensible" reason to reduce the limit, especially as north of the city centre it remains a 40mph road. I suspect it was the "something must be done" brigade who pushed through the change...
(interestingly, the bus lane along the road between Northfield and Selly Oak was removed a few years ago. That is somewhat at odds with the speed limit reductions across the city, as well as the emissions charge!)

Yes that's the one, I rarely head that way now but used to drive along it daily between Longbridge and Selly Oak when I lived in Rednal.

As you say it does seem an odd road to reduce from a 40 to a 30 limit, urban dual carriageway, no blind junctions, footpath set back from the road for most of it's length and not an accident blackspot.

 

[dangie]

There are so many signs and notices on the roadside (most unofficial) that it is so easy to miss the ones which are important. Such as being distracted by the ‘Car Boot Sale’ plaque while missing the ‘30’ sign it’s been attached to.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I recently got an "Intention to Prosecute" for doing 27-28 in a 20-zone on a major B road in London. Having used this road many times I don't know when the limit was dropped from 30mph. The picture was taken at driver level and captured the front of my car (not the back) mid evening on my way home.

What is my likely fate....?

 

[jfollows]

I recently got an "Intention to Prosecute" for doing 27-28 in a 20-zone on a major B road in London. Having used this road many times I don't know when the limit was dropped from 30mph. The picture was taken at driver level and captured the front of my car (not the back) mid evening on my way home.

What is my likely fate....?

See my post 5 above. Course or fixed penalty 3 points £100.
Court if you don't opt for either option when offered to you, or you delay too long in deciding and responding, or you don't believe you were guilty as alleged.

I would write response, keep a copy, post first class with free certificate of posting from a Post Office.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

See my post 5 above. Course or fixed penalty 3 points £100.
Court if you don't opt for either option when offered to you, or you delay too long in deciding and responding, or you don't believe you were guilty as alleged.

I would write response, keep a copy, post first class with free certificate of posting from a Post Office.

Thanks, already done and sent recorded delivery (wife preferred this option)

3 points for such a low speeding offence !? Mind you, seems like TfL want everywhere to be 20mph and are strapped for cash.....

 

[zwk500]

Thanks, already done and sent recorded delivery (wife preferred this option)

3 points for such a low speeding offence !? Mind you, seems like TfL want everywhere to be 20mph and are strapped for cash.....

You were doing 35-40% over the limit....

 

[jfollows]

Thanks, already done and sent recorded delivery (wife preferred this option)

3 points for such a low speeding offence !? Mind you, seems like TfL want everywhere to be 20mph and are strapped for cash.....

TfL doesn't get the money, it's a criminal offence so the money goes into the government's coffers.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

You were doing 35-40% over the limit....

Yes okay....

Is it just me (getting old) or are the 20 signs on lamp posts way too small....? Seems like I now have to pay attention to looking at lamp posts for these instead of looking at the road Just seems a bit harsh penalty for a "major" B road; but that's just my humble opinion. Otherwise a very clean licence. Guess I will just have to pay more attention....

 

[jfollows]

Also, 3 points in the minimum sanction except for one specific offence (https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-codes-and-penalty-points):

MS30	Play street offences	2

Play Street Offence - Page 1 - Speed, Plod & the Law - PistonHeads UK

Local Authority under powers vested in them by S 29 Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1982, can make an Order prohibiting traffic on roads to be used as a playground by the kiddywinkles. As to what exactly is prohibited will be within the Order -limited access, no access, time involved etc. Person who use a vehicle in contravention of the Order commits an offence. Max 500 notes and 2 points.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2023 ==

Yes okay....

Is it just me (getting old) or are the 20 signs on lamp posts way too small....? Seems like I now have to pay attention to looking at lamp posts for these instead of looking at the road Just seems a bit harsh penalty for a "major" B road; but that's just my humble opinion. Otherwise a very clean licence. Guess I will just have to pay more attention....

You should encounter large terminal sign(s) at the start of the limit. Repeaters are optional anyway I think.

PS I don't personally agree with 20mph limits (as opposed to 20mph zones) but I don't deliberately break them either. 20mph zones have speed bumps etc. to enforce the lower limit.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

You should encounter large terminal sign(s) at the start of the limit. Repeaters are optional anyway I think.

PS I don't personally agree with 20mph limits (as opposed to 20mph zones) but I don't deliberately break them either. 20mph zones have speed bumps etc. to enforce the lower limit.

There are no large terminal signs from what I can remember. And why is it called a "terminal sign" at the start of a new speed limit? Looks like I'm gonna have to buy a new Highway Code, my one is decades old....

I didn't deliberately break the 20 limit either. I had no idea until the NIP came in the post. The limit used to be 30, so I thought I was driving under the limit. Anyway I accept it's no excuse

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2023 ==

Its the blanket application I don't like. 20 is REALLY slow when the road is clear, and quite difficult to maintain.

I agree with this - especially on a wide road where there are long sections with no parked cars and not much traffic.

 

[zwk500]

Is it just me (getting old) or are the 20 signs on lamp posts way too small....? Seems like I now have to pay attention to looking at lamp posts for these instead of looking at the road Just seems a bit harsh penalty for a "major" B road; but that's just my humble opinion. Otherwise a very clean licence. Guess I will just have to pay more attention....

I agree that they can often be appallingly signed and the repeaters are often not obvious, just mounted to any convenient piece of street furniture.

Regarding the blanket application I personally support them - it's better to just have a 20 'Zone' rather than have every side road needing it's own markers, and traffic generally flows more smoothly at 20mph than 30mph anyway. (This next bit isn't a personal dig at you We need to change mindsets away from 'big road is for cars' to 'town is for people'. Even arterial roads in towns should be made safe for people above convenient for car drivers. that extra 10mph may feel really slow to you, so imagine how much harder you'd be hitting a person who tried to duck out between traffic 10mph faster.

 

[MotCO]

There are no large terminal signs from what I can remember.

Is it worth going back to ensure that there was correct signage? If there wasn't, does this mean that the penalty is not enforceable?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Is it worth going back to ensure that there was correct signage? If there wasn't, does this mean that the penalty is not enforceable?

If I finish early; I'm in the area so will go and look.

What is deemed "correct" and legal is anyone's guess I suppose. Yes, it's a a technicality and ignorance is not a defence but do the signs have to be a certain size? Obviously if I'm looking at the road, then I'm not going to see a tiny sign on a lamp post

 

[jfollows]

On road signs: https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/916837/TSRGD_2016_circular_document.pdf and note that this modified the requirement for terminal signs so that only a single sign is required (noted in post #112 also).

One terminal sign or two

• 3.11 For regulatory signs indicating the beginning of a restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit, direction 8(3) of TSRGD 2002 required the placing of one terminal sign on each side of a single-carriageway road, and the placing of one terminal sign on each side of the appropriate carriageway of a dual- carriageway road (i.e. on the near side and on the central reservation).
• 3.12 In 2011 this requirement was set aside in England for signs other than speed limits by way of an area-wide special direction issued to every English traffic authority. This allowed the placing of only one terminal sign on either side of the road as appropriate, thereby reducing their environmental impact.
• 3.13 This relaxation has now been included in TSRGD 2016 and extended to speed limit signs. In deciding whether to reduce terminal signing provision, the following factors could be taken into account:
  • turning angles
  • junction layouts
  • one way traffic conditions
  • sign mounting height
• 3.14 This relaxation has been made to reduce environmental impact. However, care should be taken to ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to road users and does not give rise to issues relating to enforcement or road safety. This might require the sign in some instances to be placed on the off side of the road. There will be some situations where two signs will still be preferable. Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction.

and

Repeater signs

• 3.15 TSRGD 2016 removes the requirement for a minimum of one repeater sign to be placed, which was first introduced in the amendments made in 2011.
• 3.16 Traffic authorities are best placed to decide how many repeater signs are needed and where they are placed, having regard to legislation and guidance in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

EDIT But I think we all know what "terminal signs" are, they're the big signs with the new limit inside a red circle. Repeater signs are the tiny signs on lamp posts.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

EDIT But I think we all know what "terminal signs" are, they're the big signs with the new limit inside a red circle. Repeater signs are the tiny signs on lamp posts.

Actually I didn't know they were called this until now. So will have to update myself with the new HC

 

[jfollows]

There are no large terminal signs from what I can remember. And why is it called a "terminal sign" at the start of a new speed limit? Looks like I'm gonna have to buy a new Highway Code, my one is decades old....

Because every sign marking the start of a new speed limit also has to be marking the termination of a different speed limit at that point, I presume.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2023 ==

Actually I didn't know they were called this until now. So will have to update myself with the new HC

I agree that the term is not commonly used, so at least you've learned something today!

 

[Meerkat]

I agree that they can often be appallingly signed and the repeaters are often not obvious, just mounted to any convenient piece of street furniture.

Regarding the blanket application I personally support them - it's better to just have a 20 'Zone' rather than have every side road needing it's own markers, and traffic generally flows more smoothly at 20mph than 30mph anyway. (This next bit isn't a personal dig at you We need to change mindsets away from 'big road is for cars' to 'town is for people'. Even arterial roads in towns should be made safe for people above convenient for car drivers. that extra 10mph may feel really slow to you, so imagine how much harder you'd be hitting a person who tried to duck out between traffic 10mph faster.

Nope. Brings the limit into disrepute and means people ignore more of them. There is a reason the plod try to block them.
Is there any evidence of 20mph flowing more smoothly? My vague opinion is that overly slow speed limits lead to spaced out traffic that is harder to cross/join.
If you follow that logic then why not 10mph? There is a cost to slowing traffic down, doing it for a road where people arent going to be unexpectedly leaping out from behind parked buses is rather overdoing it.

 

[zwk500]

If you follow that logic then why not 10mph? There is a cost to slowing traffic down, doing it for a road where people arent going to be unexpectedly leaping out from behind parked buses is rather overdoing it.

I'd personally be in favour of having any road with a house fronting on to it to be 10mph and have moving bollards only accessible to emergency and service vehicles, but I do recognise that's never going to happen.

I've got no hard evidence on traffic flow, but my anecdotal experience and seeing how cyclists low much more smoothly in London and other towns suggests to me that it does happen. If you've got a study please do send me a link though. There are studies that demonstrate slowing down dual-carriageway traffic from 70mph to 60 or 50 smooths the traffic flow consierably.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd personally be in favour of having any road with a house fronting on to it to be 10mph and have moving bollards only accessible to emergency and service vehicles, but I do recognise that's never going to happen.

The North Circular and A1 at Sandy spring to mind!

 

[MotCO]

There are studies that demonstrate slowing down dual-carriageway traffic from 70mph to 60 or 50 smooths the traffic flow consierably.

I always thought that increasing speed limits should increase the flow of traffic and therefore fewer delays. I liken it to turning a tap on - if you increase the flow of water, you get an increased quantity of water passing through. However, that is ignoring the human element. I think the flaw in my argument is that at fast speeds, if someone brakes, traffic behind also slows and brakes probably more than is actually necessary, which then leads to an irregular flow of traffic. Maybe autonomous cars may not over-react so much, and flows could increase with higher speeds.

 

[zwk500]

I always thought that increasing speed limits should increase the flow of traffic and therefore fewer delays. I liken it to turning a tap on - if you increase the flow of water, you get an increased quantity of water passing through. However, that is ignoring the human element. I think the flaw in my argument is that at fast speeds, if someone brakes, traffic behind also slows and brakes probably more than is actually necessary, which then leads to an irregular flow of traffic. Maybe autonomous cars may not over-react so much, and flows could increase with higher speeds.

The issue is always difference between speeds - as with railways. If every car is travelling at 100mph it's much less problematic than if some cars are at 90mph and some at 50mph.
Lowering the limit to 60 has been shown to allow merging between lanes to be much easier as people don't feel a need to cut in that forces people to brake sharply because they're following far too closely.

 

[Bald Rick]

I always thought that increasing speed limits should increase the flow of traffic and therefore fewer delays. I liken it to turning a tap on - if you increase the flow of water, you get an increased quantity of water passing through. However, that is ignoring the human element. I think the flaw in my argument is that at fast speeds, if someone brakes, traffic behind also slows and brakes probably more than is actually necessary, which then leads to an irregular flow of traffic. Maybe autonomous cars may not over-react so much, and flows could increase with higher speeds.

as with the railway - increasing speeds means increased braking distance which means a larger gap between vehicles (distance and time), reducing capacity.

The very first ‘managed motorway’ with variable hard shoulder running increased capacity by much more than expected, because having lower limits (and all traffic running at that lower speed) increases throughout.

 

[swt_passenger]

I always thought that increasing speed limits should increase the flow of traffic and therefore fewer delays. I liken it to turning a tap on - if you increase the flow of water, you get an increased quantity of water passing through. However, that is ignoring the human element. I think the flaw in my argument is that at fast speeds, if someone brakes, traffic behind also slows and brakes probably more than is actually necessary, which then leads to an irregular flow of traffic. Maybe autonomous cars may not over-react so much, and flows could increase with higher speeds.

Using the officially recommended braking and thinking distances, IIRC (from a maths course years ago), the traffic flow rate peaks at only about 25-30 mph. Obviously nobody drives at the recommended separation normally, but that’s the theoretical best speed for maximum capacity.

 

[Snow1964]

I didn't deliberately break the 20 limit either. I had no idea until the NIP came in the post. The limit used to be 30, so I thought I was driving under the limit. Anyway I accept it's no excuse

Unfortunately some local authorities seem to think a speed limit that worked fine for decades, suddenly needs changing, especially when they get a share of the fine revenue (officially to implement and enforce it)

I agree with this - especially on a wide road where there are long sections with no parked cars and not much traffic.

There is definitely some over use of low speeds, yes logical on residential roads, but not wide main roads.

The big irony is that lower limits tend to increase emissions, cars are generally not geared to cruise at 20mph (32.2km/h), and have to be driven in a lower gear. The zones with speed bumps usually see even higher emissions as people brake and accelerate frequently as bumps often cannot be taken at signposted speed

 

[biko]

I've got no hard evidence on traffic flow, but my anecdotal experience and seeing how cyclists low much more smoothly in London and other towns suggests to me that it does happen. If you've got a study please do send me a link though.

I always thought that increasing speed limits should increase the flow of traffic and therefore fewer delays.

The relation between speed and capacity isn't linear. Indeed, assuming following distances remain equal speed increases traffic flow linearly. However, braking distances also increase with higher speed. That increase is nearly quadratic. So, at some point higher speeds don't lead to more throughput, but less. On motorways and dual carriageways outside urban areas, that point is generally understood to be around 90 km/h (so about 55 mph). That's also why speed limits in busy areas are sometimes set to lower limits: it increases the capacity and therefore reduces delays.

In urban areas it's way more complicated because of many more interactions. In most urban areas the roads themselves do not form the bottlenecks, junctions do. Therefore, a speed limit change doesn't have a significant impact on capacity.

The main argument for speed reductions is the improved safety for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. Halving the speed reduces the energy in a collision with factor 4. Reducing the speed limit from 30 to 20 mph can make the difference between some injuries and severe injuries or death. Secondly, crossing a road is easier for pedestrians and cyclists as they can cross during smaller gaps between vehicles (assuming the same intensity on the road).

The big irony is that lower limits tend to increase emissions, cars are generally not geared to cruise at 20mph (32.2km/h), and have to be driven in a lower gear. The zones with speed bumps usually see even higher emissions as people brake and accelerate frequently as bumps often cannot be taken at signposted speed

True, although this effect is offset by reducing the attractiveness of driving through the lower speed limit and thus longer travel times and the increased ability to cycle or walk in the area.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

True, although this effect is offset by reducing the attractiveness of driving through the lower speed limit and thus longer travel times and the increased ability to cycle or walk in the area.

Not when you live 50+ miles from your workplace; rural buses don't start running until maybe 7-8am and don't even run to my nearest railway station. When was the last time you cycled or walked along the motorway?

 

[biko]

Not when you live 50+ miles from your workplace; rural buses don't start running until maybe 7-8am and don't even run to my nearest railway station. When was the last time you cycled or walked along the motorway?

It still reduces the attractiveness of driving. In those cases, it just won't lead to a change in modal shift because of a lack of alternatives. It shows why good transport policy needs many different measures that together change behaviour. And it also shows the need for integration between bus and rail services, something the UK is lacking.

I don't understand the relevance of the second point. But if you really want to know, less than 2 weeks ago I cycled parallel to a main dual carriageway.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

It still reduces the attractiveness of driving. In those cases, it just won't lead to a change in modal shift because of a lack of alternatives. It shows why good transport policy needs many different measures that together change behaviour. And it also shows the need for integration between bus and rail services, something the UK is lacking.

I don't understand the relevance of the second point. But if you really want to know, less than 2 weeks ago I cycled parallel to a main dual carriageway.

Apologies if you missed the irony; the point is, because I live in a completely different town to where I work, walking or cycling simply isn't an option for me. Of course, nobody is going to cycle or walk (to work) on a motorway - hence I have no other choice

Anyway, we're really drifting off-topic...

 

[Snow1964]

I don't understand the relevance of the second point. But if you really want to know, less than 2 weeks ago I cycled parallel to a main dual carriageway.

UK built a load of 9 foot (2.7m) wide protected cycle paths alongside dual carriageways and arterial roads in 1930s. I know one exists on A316 (the London extension of M3) near Twickenham. That section is now 40mph with average speed cameras

Found a link, but if anyone knows list of them, probably for different thread, thought to have been 300+ miles of them.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/carltonreid/lets-rescue-britains-forgotten-1930s-protected-cyc

 

[MotCO]

UK built a load of 9 foot (2.7m) wide protected cycle paths alongside dual carriageways and arterial roads in 1930s. I know one exists on A316 (the London extension of M3) near Twickenham. That section is now 40mph with average speed cameras

Found a link, but if anyone knows list of them, probably for different thread, thought to have been 300+ miles of them.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/carltonreid/lets-rescue-britains-forgotten-1930s-protected-cyc

Not sure if it was a cycle path as such, but the A3 had 'service roads' running parallel to the main carriageway for access to local houses built on the side of the carriageway. Some have been removed to facilitate underpasses etc, but there is a stretch from New Malden to Tolworth where these roads still exist.

Or alternatively, my post #99 above shows Bushey Road A298 with wide footpaths (cyclepaths?).