It only meets the minimum in law: 30cm, unlit, low level and on one side of the road...
That is incorrect. There are twin “40” roundels, one each side of the carriageway on each of the two entries to the stretch. Whilst I haven’t measured them, I would guess they are larger than 30cm. Here’s GSV images of the two locations. The first is on the slip road from the Crittals corner roundabout; the second is on the main eastbound carriageway towards the end of the flyover. These images were taken before the new limit was imposed, and NSL roundels are visible. These have been replaced with “40” roundels of the same size and, as far as I can see, using the same mounting posts.
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.41266,0.115838,114.32h,0.99p,1z,zTU951oZ-0g818wgJzsekQhttps://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.412276,0.117029,90h,5p,0z,ZachmDzHGp3x0nHPGrg8bgThese are perfectly clear and, as far as I can tell, comply with the usual signage which conveys the limit, not just to the barest minimum, but perfectly adequately. They are no different to any other “terminal” signs seen elsewhere. There is street lighting in both these locations (they are virtually adjacent to each other) so no illumination of the signs is necessary. Neither of these images seem to concur with the photo you posted at 4:08pm yesterday, which you assert is at the the point of entry. That looks to be taken much further east, before the brow of the hill before the road begins its descent towards Swanley half a mile or so into the stretch, probably about here:
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.41071,0.125029,113.33h,-0.57p,0z,SZTXO_gWXQxeTS_s3QIyaAThe other picture you posted is at the first countdown marker to the service area, so almost at the end of the stretch.
So perhaps, if that is so, you should surmise why so very many motorists are falling foul of this change in the speed limit.
I’ve absolutely no idea. What I can say is that even with all the recent publicity (including on national television) drivers are still hammering along well in excess of 40mph, some I would suggest at up to 70mph. I cannot explain this other than to think they are regular users who simply have not noticed the reduced limit. But it is certainly not because of deficient signage.
The magistrates showed leniency due to the signage being the bare minimum in law. You are confusing your *view of the situation* with *facts* and what happened in a courtroom where you were not present.
No, I was not in the courtroom, but I have a reliable acquaintance who was. That’s how I found out about Mr Foster’s ten points because, as far as I am aware, no other source has reported it, preferring instead to emphasise that he was "only " banned for 28 days instead of six months. Mr Foster’s solicitor did not plead for leniency on the basis of deficient signage; he asked for an alternative approach to twelve points and a totting up ban, bearing in mind that the offences all occurred in the same place within about a week, and all having been committed before he got notification of the first. It is that plea which the Magistrates reacted to. He accepted that his client must have suffered a lack of observation. Unfortunately Mr Foster and his family painted a slightly different picture of the proceedings when he was interviewed for TV as he left court.
No publicity would have been given to this issue had it not been for the “rogue” 50 sign which appeared for a short period after Christmas. The Facebook group which had been formed to discuss it firstly rounded firmly on this as a reason for the high number of transgressions. This was dismissed by the police because the rogue sign, being sited almost at the end of the stretch, played little or no part in the transgressions. It seems the attention is now centred on “inadequate” signage.
We’re straying way too far into “Flame Pit” territory here and I fear the moderator’s sword may descend on us, so I’ll leave it there.
