Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi. Appreciate some advice on my predicament.

---

I was clocked doing 59 mph between the M1 J35a-35 Southbound where a 50 mph speed limit was being enforced using average speed cameras due to roadworks on the smart motorway. The offence was back in October 2024 and it's progressed all the way to SJPN because if I'm convicted I'll be due a 'totting up' driving ban.

I've got 9 points from three previous SP50 convictions in the last three years. (none were excessive speeding, two were due my unfamiliarity with variable speed limits on smart motorways). I've pleaded guilty on the SJPN because I only saw the letter on the deadline and didn't have time to look into whether I had a valid defence.

---

However looking into it the charge and facts I'm wondering whether I have a mitigation or defence?

In this section of motorway the 50 mph speed limit came into force with temporary fixed plate signage which I must have missed (unlike me since I'm already on 9 points I have been very careful to always react to the speed limits), I've carried on assuming 70 mph speed limit applies  and then when I've seen the next 50 mph repeater with camera sign I've slowed down. However because I've already entered the speed camera timing zone by the next camera my average speed is still above the limit.

Checking on Google Maps the repeater sign is postioned approx 500m after the 50 mph terminal signs. Do I have an argument that I did not receive sufficient signage to know that the national speed limit no longer applied. My understanding is for 50 mph limit on the motorway a repeater should be placed 350m after the speed limit change)? If the repeater was placed in the recommended distance I would have reacted earlier to the 50 mph change.

Agree it's not the most compelling defence but to give some more detail - It was driving after dark in an unlit section of the motorway so visibility is not the same as during the day. it's not beyond the realm of possibility for a person to miss the initial terminal signs driving at 70 mph especially as the signs are not overhead but by the side of the road.

The 350m figure for a repeater is from the DfTs own Traffic Signs manual.

And it's an average speed camera, so probably over 1/2 mile and the first repeater is therefore a moot point - there would be more opportunities to realise the limit was in force and reduce speed - to well below the limit if required to bring the average out at under the enforcement point.  Do you have the makings of an Exceptional Hardship argument?

Quote from: ohmygod on March 19, 2025, 08:54:49 am

The 350m figure for a repeater is from the DfTs own Traffic Signs manual.

But guidance, not law.

What weight does non-conformance to official guidance to the law carry in court?

As it's a motorway in the absence of signage I should proceed at the national speed limit? Shouldn't the guidance be relevant in such a speed limit application? There's a duty for drivers to be sufficiently reminded that the national speed limit does not apply?

The TSM is clear that the distances are recommendations only - so it does not give an absolute defence for the repeater not being at the recommended distances.

Looking at the stretch on GSV the first repeater IMHO could be a little earlier (It's around 470m).  Prior to the terminal signs there are 'Average Speed Check' signs on both sides of the carriageway.  Effectively missing 4 signs - the argument that you believed the NSL was in effect would be a challenge.  (There appears to be other indications such as cones and closed lanes)

Of note, the distance from first camera to the repeater is only around 280m and a further 800m to the second camera.  So if you were travelling at 70mph up until the repeater and then 50mph for the rest, your average speed would be somewhere around 55mph (taking into account some braking time from 70 to 50).  So a clocked 59mph is notably in excess of that.

I think the chances of running an EH plea could be better than a defence to the allegation itself.  Of course, avoiding an EH plea would be ideal.

The SJ will refer the matter to court anyway.  How the points were accumulated is irrelevant to an EH plea anyway.

Effectively missing 4 signs - the argument that you believed the NSL was in effect would be a challenge.  (There appears to be other indications such as cones and closed lanes)

Aren't the other signs or cones irrelevant in this case? They're not conveying the speed limit information and thats what I'm being charged with?

Your argument seems to be that if you had been reminded of the lower limit some 150 yards sooner, your average speed would have been below 57 mph. Are you sure? In any case, any speed above 50 is speeding, so you would still be guilty.

I accept I didn't register the speed change at the terminal signs (it was dark and my attention was not caught by it), but I did react to the next sign.
The camera is positioned around 210m after the terminal signs. The repeater is another 290m after the camera.

I would say the speed was being enforced by the camera before adequate guidance had been given on the speed limit. In terms of what adequate would look like I would refer to the 350m recommended of repeater after a terminal sign in the TSM.

I would say the speed was being enforced by the camera before adequate guidance had been given on the speed limit.

And I would say the "guidance" (or I'd prefer to say, the instruction) was given by the terminal signs which you missed. The limit has to be adequately conveyed. The terminal signs tell you where it begins; the reminders are there to remind you it is still extant. They are not provided as back-ups to the terminal signs for those drivers who miss them. My view is that you'd struggle to convince a court that the beginning of the limit was not adequately conveyed when, on your own admission, you missed the compliant terminal signs.

But it doesn't matter what I think. If you think you'll succeed, give it a run. But I would have an EH argument in my pocket along with a cheque book if I were you.

Literally my first reply to you.