Speeding Fine - speed limit signs missing

artvandulet

Have searched a few threads on this but nothing with this specific problem.

I received a speeding ticket for going 60 in a 50 zone. I thought I was in a 60km zone. I passed a set of 60km terminal signs and never saw any 50km signs.

I couldnt figure out how I missed them so I took a video of the stretch of road and compared it to google street view.

The Terminal sign for 50km has been taken down on the left hand side of the road due to work on the path. The repeater sign a couple of hundered metres up the road on the left has also been removed due to the work on the path! There are no other signs on this stretch of road.

You pass a set of 60km terminal signs then 850m down the road there is one 50km sign on the far side of the road and that is it. I got done beyond this.

I submitted an FCN cancellation form to the gardai with photos of the area before and after the works showing that there is normally signs there but its just come back as declined.

Do I just suck it up and pay the fine and take the 3 points or does anyone think I should go to court? I feel Im in the right on this one but if the law isnt on my side then I wont waste my time and the chance of a bigger fine.

lifeandtimes

artvandulet wrote: »

Have searched a few threads on this but nothing with this specific problem.

I received a speeding ticket for going 60 in a 50 zone. I thought I was in a 60km zone. I passed a set of 60km terminal signs and never saw any 50km signs.

I couldnt figure out how I missed them so I took a video of the stretch of road and compared it to google street view.

The Terminal sign for 50km has been taken down on the left hand side of the road due to work on the path. The repeater sign a couple of hundered metres up the road on the left has also been removed due to the work on the path! There are no other signs on this stretch of road.

You pass a set of 60km terminal signs then 850m down the road there is one 50km sign on the far side of the road and that is it. I got done beyond this.

I submitted an FCN cancellation form to the gardai with photos of the area before and after the works showing that there is normally signs there but its just come back as declined.

Do I just suck it up and pay the fine and take the 3 points or does anyone think I should go to court? I feel Im in the right on this one but if the law isnt on my side then I wont waste my time and the chance of a bigger fine.

Legal advice can't be given in this thread so speak to a solicitor...however in my opinion as an observer I would hate to see a judge fine someone when signs had been taken away,even if the stretch if road is regarded as one that should be a certain speed in the rule book i.e motorway 120, secondary etc

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

artvandulet

thanks for the replies. I was trying to find specific bylaw on the two signs myself.
The Dept of Transport Published a manual on Traffic signs. There is a section that is specifically on this:

Terminal Speed limit signs:


The terminal Speed Limit signs at the start and end of a speed limit must normally be erected on both sides of the road at the location described in the relevant bye law or Road Works Speed Limit Order, but may be provided on one side only if site conditions preclude this. The byelaw or Order will usually describe the speed limit as applying either to a complete road or from a point a specified distance from some feature. The person responsible for drafting the byelaw or Order should, therefore, ensure that the location described provides visibility
for approaching drivers.

and then regarding repeater signs...


Where terminal Speed Limit signs are not at a site with good visibility, consideration should be given to providing a repeater Speed Limit sign soon after the start of the speed limit for the benefit of those who have not seen the first sign. As it is a repeater sign, its position can be chosen to provide good visibility. In such circumstances this repeater sign should be the same size as the sign at the start. It is especially important to provide such a repeater sign
where a lower speed is imposed.


To me the first part in bold and the entire section on repeater signs supports me I think. I included this in my FCN cancellation forms though and I was still rejected. :mad:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

FishOnABike

I would say talk to a solicitor, experienced in defending road traffic matters in the court it would be heard in and would know the judge's form.

I have seen a district court judge strike out several speeding summonses where the sign was not clearly visible because of overgrown hedgerows and had previously seen photographic evidence to that effect. That is not to say all judges would adopt the same pragmatic viewpoint.

A solicitor local to the court in question would be best able to advise you if it is worth contesting.

My view would be that it would be unfair to be prosecuted for speeding where the speed signs are missing or not visible but the law isn't always fair.

Victor

The offence is one of exceeding the speed limit, which is either the default set by the Road Traffic Act 2004, a special speed limit set by council bye-laws or a Road Works Speed Limit Order, assuming you were driving a normal vehicle.

The offence does not depend on signage. For all we know, a randomer could have stolen the sign(s).

What is the location and I'll see if I can find the relevant bye-law provision?

Samuel T. Cogley

Not a particularly considered opinion but perhaps a simple one to understand. Getting done in exactly the same way, other than the sign probably was there, my research led me to the conclusion that it's 50 unless specifically marked at 60. If you're not sure anymore then you should err on the side of caution and do 50.

Fecking Howth Road...

artvandulet

Victor wrote:

What is the location and I'll see if I can find the relevant bye-law provision?

Clontarf Road. Thanks

artvandulet

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

Not a particularly considered opinion but perhaps a simple one to understand. Getting done in exactly the same way, other than the sign probably was there, my research led me to the conclusion that it's 50 unless specifically marked at 60. If you're not sure anymore then you should err on the side of caution and do 50.

I agree with this. But where I was I had just past terminal signs for 60km

Victor

artvandulet wrote: »

Clontarf Road. Thanks

None of Clontarf Road is 60 km/h and to my knowledge hasn't been for at least 13 years.

Howth Road (from St. Assam's Road East to Kilbarrack Road) and James Larkin Road (i.e. north of Mount Prospect Avenue) are both 60 km/h.

See Second Schedule, paragraph 1 and 3 here: http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RoadsandTraffic/Documents/Adopted%20Special%20Speed%20Limit%20Bye-Laws%202016%20-Signed.pdf Google Street View matches the bye-laws.

Other information: http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-general-traffic-measures/speed-limits-your-area

artvandulet

Victor wrote:

Howth Road (from St. Assam's Road East to Kilbarrack Road) and James Larkin Road (i.e. north of Mount Prospect Avenue) are both 60 km/h.None of Clontarf Road is 60 km/h.

You are right as I found out but there are no signs between james Larkin road (60km) and when it becomes Clontarf road. The signs have been removed as I explained in the original post. Google street view has the 50km signs but they are gone now. At least the left hand side terminal sign and the repeater sign you can see at the junction of mount prospect. I passed 60km signs, drove about 1km up the road and got a speeding fine for driving 60km.
I didn't pass any 50km signs because there aren't any (bar the far side terminal sign which is not enough according to dept of transport).

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

artvandulet wrote: »

You are right as I found out but there are no signs between james Larkin road (60km) and when it becomes Clontarf road. The signs have been removed as I explained in the original post. Google street view has the 50km signs but they are gone now. At least the left hand side terminal sign and the repeater sign you can see at the junction of mount prospect. I passed 60km signs, drove about 1km up the road and got a speeding fine for driving 60km.
I didn't pass any 50km signs because there aren't any (bar the far side terminal sign which is not enough according to dept of transport).

If these signs are there, that is enough: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3675157,-6.171945,3a,75y,239.13h,77.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZP1kQCM2lCd45AbSOWQqvw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

NUTLEY BOY

Not legal advice - just a view on the issues raised.

I think that it is grossly unfair to expect OP to be penalised for this.

It may be that the relevant orders are in place designating the road as having an official limit of 50 kmh and that is it's official speed limit. However, a reasonable motorist cannot be expected to know every fiddling detail of the regulations designating speed limits for any road. The motorist relies on correct signage. OP drove according to the signage in what could only be described as an honest belief and now they want to penalise him.

The argument that the officially designated limit is 50 kph and that is all that is relevant is far too strict constructionalist for my liking.

Argument by analogy from contract law for whatever that might be worth. Generally, I cannot be held to comply with contract conditions not communicated to me before formation of the contract. OP did not have the 50 kph limit communicated to him before entering the stretch in question. Indeed, OP had an actual metaphorical condition of 60 kph communicated to him and that it what he obeyed.

I am a little unclear as to whether or not there was a 50 kph repeater on the right hand side of the road as OP travelled and after the 60 kph sign. If so, it occurs to me that such contradictory signage should be construed as being ambiguous and benefit of doubt given to OP.

As far as asking Gardai­ to reconsider the matter I am not surprised that OP got a rejection given the current heat on AGS about such matters. Out of interest did AGS give a reason for their "verdict" ?

Victor

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

The argument that the officially designated limit is 50 kph and that is all that is relevant is far too strict constructionalist for my liking.

It's more like public transport. You have to have a valid ticket, not that you bought a ticket.

NUTLEY BOY

Victor wrote: »

It's more like public transport. You have to have a valid ticket, not that you bought a ticket.

Understood.

My argument - using the public transport metaphor - would be that OP was given the incorrect ticket by the operator and had no reasonable way of knowing it to be so i.e. any invalidity was unknowable by or undiscoverable by the OP and was the fault of the authorities who muffed it up thus creating the present dilemma.

Anyway, as others have said, it is definitely solicitor time...

GM228

artvandulet wrote: »

thanks for the replies. I was trying to find specific bylaw on the two signs myself.
The Dept of Transport Published a manual on Traffic signs. There is a section that is specifically on this:

Terminal Speed limit signs:


The terminal Speed Limit signs at the start and end of a speed limit must normally be erected on both sides of the road at the location described in the relevant bye law or Road Works Speed Limit Order, but may be provided on one side only if site conditions preclude this. The byelaw or Order will usually describe the speed limit as applying either to a complete road or from a point a specified distance from some feature. The person responsible for drafting the byelaw or Order should, therefore, ensure that the location described provides visibility for approaching drivers.

and then regarding repeater signs...


Where terminal Speed Limit signs are not at a site with good visibility, consideration should be given to providing a repeater Speed Limit sign soon after the start of the speed limit for the benefit of those who have not seen the first sign. As it is a repeater sign, its position can be chosen to provide good visibility. In such circumstances this repeater sign should be the same size as the sign at the start. It is especially important to provide such a repeater sign where a lower speed is imposed.


To me the first part in bold and the entire section on repeater signs supports me I think. I included this in my FCN cancellation forms though and I was still rejected.

You have quoted the old November 2010 version of Chapter 5, the current Chapter 5 was issued in November 2015 and now reads:-

5.16.9.
The terminal Speed Limit signs at the start and end of a speed limit should normally be erected on both sides of the road at the location described in the relevant bye-law or Road Works Speed Limit Order, but may be provided on one side only if site conditions preclude this.
For minor roads, such as narrow single lane roads or housing estate roads that enter onto a T-junction, a sign may be located on the right hand side when travelling from a lower to a higher Speed Limit and where it is clearly visible and within the normal line of vision of the road user.

The bye-law or Order will usually describe the speed limit as applying either to a complete road or from a point a specified distance from some feature. The person responsible for drafting the bye-law or Order should, therefore, ensure that the location described provides visibility for approaching drivers.

Note that "must" has been changed to "should" which means it isn't mandatory, note the clarification in Chapter 1.

1.1.12
For the purposes of this Manual:

• Shall or must indicates that a particular requirement is mandatory;
• Should indicates a recommendation; and
• May indicates an option.

Note the key difference between must and should.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Is there any legal requirement for 2 signs i.e. one on each side of the road?

No, there is no legal requirement to provide ANY signs - this has previously been settled by the High Court in Flynn vs The County Council of the County of Waterford [2004] IEHC 335.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

But Dept of Transport guidelines are not the law. Going to be hard going to get a judge onside.

Actually the Traffic Signs Manual is law, unlike the older 1996 manual the 2010 manual and subsequent amendments were issued as a ministerial direction under S95(16) of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

artvandulet

Victor wrote:

If these signs are there, that is enough:

The one on the left is gone.

artvandulet

Thanks for all the responses. Really not sure what to do with this. Feel a little hard done by but don't fancy the higher fine and points if I go to court and lose

Samuel T. Cogley

artvandulet wrote: »

Thanks for all the responses. Really not sure what to do with this. Feel a little hard done by but don't fancy the higher fine and points if I go to court and lose

Precisely how I felt. My advice is just move on tbh. 3 points didn't seem to affect the renewal too much. Sneaky van there on the James Larkin road, one to watch out for.

artvandulet

GM228 wrote:

No, there is no legal requirement to provide ANY signs - this has previously been settled by the High Court in Flynn vs The County Council of the County of Waterford [2004] IEHC 335.

How are you supposed to know that the speed limit has changed?

Samuel T. Cogley

artvandulet wrote: »

How are you supposed to know that the speed limit has changed?

In a built up area you're supposed to know it's 50. It's only if you're sure you go faster. My take and what I was fumbling around trying to say above.

artvandulet

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

In a built up area you're supposed to know it's 50. It's only if you're sure you go faster. My take and what I was fumbling around trying to say above.

Doesn't quite answer the question though. How do I know when the 60 sign I just passed is no longer applicable?

Samuel T. Cogley

artvandulet wrote: »

Doesn't quite answer the question though. How do I know when the 60 sign I just passed is no longer applicable?

Given my three points I can't really answer that :pac:

GM228

artvandulet wrote: »

How are you supposed to know that the speed limit has changed?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

In a built up area you're supposed to know it's 50. It's only if you're sure you go faster. My take and what I was fumbling around trying to say above.

artvandulet wrote: »

Doesn't quite answer the question though. How do I know when the 60 sign I just passed is no longer applicable?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Given my three points I can't really answer that

Ok, the first thing to realise is that speed limit signs don't set speed limits, and there is no offence of exceeding an indicated speed limit. The offence is simply for speeding and speed limits are set by Acts, regulations or bye-laws - not signs.

As speed limits are set by legislation, and not signs the principles of ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance is not an excuse) applies, as speeding is a strict liability offence the defence of mistake of fact can't apply either. As STC said above you are expected to know the law, this may sound very unfair but it is a well established and accepted maxim of law - it dates back to 1800 when a sea captain was convicted based on a law which it was accepted was impossible for him to know about.


There is a similar case as the OPs that I know of - the case of Patrick Kenny who was convicted of speeding (72 km/h in a 50 km/h zone) on the Longmile Road in 2005. Patrick showed photographic evidence that only 60 km/h speed limit signs were present and that there were no 50 km/h signs (even though he was actually doing 72 km/h). Despite the photographic evidence the prosecuting Garda gave in oral evidence that there was a 50 km/h limit and a 50 km/h sign.

In cross-examination the Garda admitted there was no relevant bye-law to back up this, but it was shown that the Road Traffic Act sets a general 50 km/h speed limit for a built up area - despite showing no 50 km/h signs were present Patrick was still convicted which was inevitable in fairness considering he was doing 72 km/h anyway. The issue being that the charge was speeding in a 50 km/h zone which he wanted to be corroborated. He took a judicial review to the High Court in Kenny vs Judge Coughlan & anor [2008] IEHC 28 for a number of different reasons including the fact that the prosecuting Garda gave uncorroborated evidence that a 50 km/h limit was in force, the review failed to overturn the conviction - so he appealed to the Supreme Court in Kenny vs Judge Coughlan & anor [2014] IESC 14. So what was the result - the conviction still stood.

Samuel T. Cogley

You never cease to amaze me GM228. Thank you for the excellent answer!

Victor

Note that signs are prima facie evidence of the speed limit, but that can be disproved by producing the relevant bye-laws.

artvandulet

GM228 wrote:

In cross-examination the Garda admitted there was no relevant bye-law to back up this, but it was shown that the Road Traffic Act sets a general 50 km/h speed limit for a built up area

First off, thanks so much for your in depth answers.
Regarding a built up area. I was driving this stretch of road again today. In some 60km zones there are houses on one side of the road and the coast on the other. The 50km zones dont look any different. So if the signs themselves don't make the law but the area you are in then what defines a built up area?

I'm still tempted to try court. A special speed limit was in place and the end of that zone is not marked. What makes this even more interesting is the opposite side of the road is a different speed limit. Is that normal or is it further indication of grossly inadequate signage in the area?

I think i need a poll. Court or pay the fine and stop moaning!

GM228

artvandulet wrote: »

First off, thanks so much for your in depth answers.
Regarding a built up area. I was driving this stretch of road again today. In some 60km zones there are houses on one side of the road and the coast on the other. The 50km zones dont look any different. So if the signs themselves don't make the law but the area you are in then what defines a built up area?

A built up area means any city, borough or town, not that it is physically built up with buildings. Basically statute states that within the boundary of any city, borough or town there is a 50 km/h speed limit except on a motorway or a special speed limit bye-law applies.

artvandulet wrote: »

I'm still tempted to try court. A special speed limit was in place and the end of that zone is not marked. What makes this even more interesting is the opposite side of the road is a different speed limit. Is that normal or is it further indication of grossly inadequate signage in the area?

But there was a 50 km/h sign on one side (the right) wasn't there, so the end was marked. But again a sign does not set the start or end point of a special speed limit, the relevant bye-law does. There is no obligation to place a sign on any particular side or any side at all as already shown.

artvandulet

GM228 wrote:

But again a sign does not set the start or end point of a special speed limit, the relevant bye-law does. There is no obligation to place a sign on any particular side or any side at all as already shown.

I'm sure you are right about the above but it's absolute nuts. The speed limit can change at will and there is no obligation to have adequate signage to tell you so. There are recommended signage guidelines but they don't have to be followed. In fact they can be ignored entirely and it's the drivers problem.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

4ensic15

artvandulet wrote: »

I'm sure you are right about the above but it's absolute nuts. The speed limit can change at will and there is no obligation to have adequate signage to tell you so. There are recommended signage guidelines but they don't have to be followed. In fact they can be ignored entirely and it's the drivers problem.

No reason you can look at Iris Oifiguil and found out when speed limits have changed.

Johnboy1951

GM228 wrote:

But again a sign does not set the start or end point of a special speed limit, the relevant bye-law does

Which causes me to wonder about a situation where an incorrect sign is placed which indicates a greater speed than the by-law.

It seems the driver who complies with such a sign could still be done for speeding and have no defence.

The conclusion being that all drivers must at all times comply with the by-laws in all locations in which they travel, regardless the presence of signage or what those signs might indicate.

artvandulet

Ive obviously been way more aware of positioning of speed limit signs ever since this and I'm yet to find even one single other place in Dublin where there is a Terminal speed limit and no sign on the left side of the road. They are always in pairs just as they are meant to be.

Im sure that doesnt help my position here but I'm almost willing to take the extra points and fine at this stage just to see what happens.
Curiosity is getting the better of me...and the sense of injustice!

FishOnABike

If there is no corredponding sign on the left side of the road the sign on the right side can easily be hidden by a passing high sided vehicle (lorry or van) coming in the opposite direction as you aporoach.

artvandulet

Exactly. But from what others here are saying, that doesn't matter. It's tough luck if the signs aren't there. You are meant to know when the speed limit changes even without the signs

NUTLEY BOY

FishOnABike wrote: »

If there is no corredponding sign on the left side of the road the sign on the right side can easily be hidden by a passing high sided vehicle (lorry or van) coming in the opposite direction as you aporoach.

Good point. I nearly missed a red traffic light at a pedestrian crossing because of high sided delivery vehicles obscuring them on both sides !

NUTLEY BOY

If OP goes to court could a DJ take sympathy on him, on the merits, and take the poor box contribution route thus avoiding a conviction if there is to be no acquittal ?

In relation to RTA type offences generally, I take the view that they are strict offences in the sense that evidentiary proof of the event having happened creates a presumption of guilt and shifts the burden to the accused to rebut the charge positively.

davej

Could you be asked by the Judge:

"How long have you been living in the area / commuting on this road?"

FishOnABike

davej wrote: »

Could you be asked by the Judge:

"How long have you been living in the area / commuting on this road?"

I have seen this happen.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But can a solicitor give evidence that there was a missing sign?

NUTLEY BOY

davej wrote: »

Could you be asked by the Judge:

"How long have you been living in the area / commuting on this road?"

Could that be construed as asking the defendant to self-incriminate ? I know that DJs are the masters of their court rooms but would such a question not be out of order, sorry, objectionable ?

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

In relation to RTA type offences generally, I take the view that they are strict offences in the sense that evidentiary proof of the event having happened creates a presumption of guilt and shifts the burden to the accused to rebut the charge positively.

+1.

Indeed, the only defence generally is to show the event didn't happen, rather than they didn't know the event was happening.

In strict liability cases only the actus reus needs be proved. The accused need then only rebut the actus reus and not the mens rea as mens rea is irrelevant to the charge.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Could that be construed as asking the defendant to self-incriminate ?

By contesting the charge the accused must then give evidence so isn't the right to silence waived and so the accused must answer all questions put to them, they can't then decline to do so on the basis that the answers may incriminate them.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

By contesting the charge the accused must then give evidence so isn't the right to silence waived and so the accused must answer all questions put to them, they can't then decline to do so on the basis that the answers may incriminate them.

The charge can be contested without the accused going into evidence. In the vast majority of drink-driving defences, the accused does not give evidence.

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

By contesting the charge the accused must then give evidence so isn't the right to silence waived and so the accused must answer all questions put to them, they can't then decline to do so on the basis that the answers may incriminate them.

I don't think so. Defence could just challenge prosecution evidence or legal or procedural matters. However, if defence gives evidence, witness can be cross-examined.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

The charge can be contested without the accused going into evidence. In the vast majority of drink-driving defences, the accused does not give evidence.

Victor wrote: »

I don't think so. Defence could just challenge prosecution evidence or legal or procedural matters. However, if defence gives evidence, witness can be cross-examined.

Sorry brain fart moment, to clarify when someone chooses to testify they can't then claim the right of silence afterwards.

artvandulet

Plot twist - The missing signs were erected yesterday!

Doesn't help my cause but just proves they should have been there in the first place.

What about small claims against the council for not having the signs where they were meant to be?
Waste of time?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.