https://highways-news.com/drivers-outraged-as-islington-introduces-temporary-10mph-speed-limit/Zero surprise as to where, but some surprise this has actually been painted and the LA don't seem to have said this is advisory.
I'd be very interested to know if there is actually any legal basis for this 'speed limit' (beyond the obvious implications on due care offences), whether this is a Wandsworth style attempt to impose a civil speed limit, or just advisory (in which case surely a rectangular sign would be more appropriate.
Does anyone have any thoughts?
Knowing St John Street as I do, I should think many drivers would be more than happy to be able to do 10mph.
I suppose so long as they have a TRO in place and the signage conveys the limit adequately, there should be no problem.
It's a short bit of St John's Street where there are roadworks. Lots of pedestrians and cyclists and it's inside the congestion charge zone.
The whole of Islington is a 20mph zone.
I suppose so long as they have a TRO in place and the signage conveys the limit adequately, there should be no problem.
I don't see the use of convoy vehicles, nor do I think the DfT would have signed off on this. I'd say that this is unenforceable, but naturally one would need to check with the DfT first.
As there has been a second round of media interest on this 'limit' (despite neither the media, nor the council saying anything new) which has included fresh use of the term 'restriction', I have submitted an FOI to find out more about the legal basis for the restriction.
To my mind if this is actually driving 'advice' or a 'request' from the council, rectangular "Max Speed" signs ought to have been used.
I had thought that DfT approval was needed for anything other than 20-70 limits with round numbers (hence the City of London failed in their attempt to enforce a 15mph limit - so there are now rectangular 'Max Speed' signs which give it as advice instead). I wasn't sure if that was to do with TSRGD or wider TRO limitations.
As there has been a second round of media interest on this 'limit' (despite neither the media, nor the council saying anything new) which has included fresh use of the term 'restriction', I have submitted an FOI to find out more about the legal basis for the restriction.
To my mind if this is actually driving 'advice' or a 'request' from the council, rectangular "Max Speed" signs ought to have been used.
I had thought that DfT approval was needed for anything other than 20-70 limits with round numbers (hence the City of London failed in their attempt to enforce a 15mph limit - so there are now rectangular 'Max Speed' signs which give it as advice instead). I wasn't sure if that was to do with TSRGD or wider TRO limitations.
If there actually is a TRO, you wouldn't need to put in a FOI request, you could get it substantially quicker by just emailing or calling the relevant department at the City of London Corporation
If there actually is a TRO, you wouldn't need to put in a FOI request, you could get it substantially quicker by just emailing or calling the relevant department at the City of London Corporation
Why would the City of London have a traffic order for a road in Islington?
Update - it's advisory.
You requested the following information:
Whether the 10mph 'restriction' recently placed on St John Street during roadworks is
advisory/recommended or legally mandated?
Response: The 10mph indication around the worksite on St John Street is a temporary and
advisory limit, due to be in place for the duration of the works. It is not legally mandated.
If advisory - I request disclosure of any information that logs the decision taken to brand
this as a 'restriction' rather than a 'recommendation', and the reasons why it was taken.
Response: No decision was taken to brand this as a “restriction” rather than a
“recommendation”. The word “restriction” was first used by the press in an enquiry and was
therefore repeated in the council’s response to help clarify our answer.
Begs the question whether road markings with a number in a circle are suitable for an advisory limit. Surely rectangular "Max speed" signs should have been used instead?
The road is going to be closed off and it will be a pedestrian area with access road. No one is going to be driving through there when the scheme is finished.
Just wondering: does anyone know what the legal accuracy requirements are for speedometers at low speeds:10mph and 20mph?
AIUI, the requirements are that it cannot under-read at any speed, and for true speeds between 25mph and 70mph it cannot over-read by more than 10% +6.25mph.
Accordingly for any true speed outside of the 25mph to 70mph range, the requirements are simply that it must not under-read. If the result of this is that Doris drives at an indicated 8mph in a fraudulently misrepresented advisory 10mph "limit" and her true speed is 5mph, David Lammy will argue that that shows that the scheme is working.
N.B. If the general rule (for between 25 and 70) were extended to all speeds, Doris' indicated 8mph could lawfully represent a true speed of ~1.6mph, which would be argued to be a double win - although with no rule against the level of over-reading below 25mph, the speedo could lawfully display 80mph at that speed - which would result in Doris dying of a heart attack, as opposed to dying of old age before getting to the end of the road.
Funny x 1
View List