{"id":7571,"date":"2012-01-01T00:00:32","date_gmt":"2012-01-01T00:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.diaryofanadi.co.uk\/?p=7571"},"modified":"2023-04-15T01:30:21","modified_gmt":"2023-04-15T00:30:21","slug":"advice-or-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/diaryofanadi.co.uk\/?p=7571","title":{"rendered":"Advice? Or Law?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is an old post.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the impending change to the law, which will see learner drivers allowed on the motorways with their instructors (and that\u2019s means with ADIs \u2013 not mum and dad), there is a big question mark hanging over what they will learn from what they see other drivers doing, as opposed to what those other drivers should<\/strong> be doing. The most obvious example is speed and the various speed limits associated with motorways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About 90% of the population labours under the mistaken impression that 70mph is an \u201cadvisory\u201d limit, and that it\u2019s perfectly safe and legal to do 80 or even 90mph if \u201cyou can see it is safe\u201d. They support this argument with the claim that the police won\u2019t stop you \u201cunless you\u2019re doing more than a ton\u201d, or some similarly stupid logic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some might argue that this is no different to what happens on normal roads. But motorways have been for so long the preserve of the \u201cadvanced\u201d motorist, and what happens on them is not the same as on normal roads at all \u2013 it\u2019s one big reason why learners are being allowed on them: the simple fact that they ARE<\/strong> different!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A similarly high percentage of these \u201cexpert\u201d drivers also thinks it\u2019s OK to ignore reduced speed limits through road works \u2013 particularly if it looks like no road work activity is taking place (at night times or weekends, for example). Of course, they know that something<\/strong> must be different \u2013 most of them will still slow down a little to begin with \u2013 but it\u2019s a case of monkey-see-monkey-do, and once they\u2019ve been frustrated for a mile or so by others going faster than them, they also speed up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact of the matter is that the police COULD<\/strong> stop you, and they COULD<\/strong> prosecute you, if you exceed 70mph on a road works-free motorway. It would depend heavily on the circumstances. And they COULD<\/strong> also stop and prosecute you if you ignore the round speed limit signs erected through road works. In most cases, to avoid having to keep taking them down at night, the construction companies seek temporary speed limit restrictions, which remain in force for the duration of the works. The problem of \u201cexperts\u201d putting road workers\u2019 lives at risk is so bad that the construction companies sometimes even erect expensive average speed cameras in places where work is likely to be of an extended nature (but even then, the \u201cexperts\u201d apparently know when these are not in service, and therefore can treat them as \u201cadvisory\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my area, the A46 is being turned into a dual carriageway, and various bypasses built. Work started in 2009 and is due to end this spring – it\u2019s been a huge project. But you can subscribe to Highways Agency updates for projects such as this, and I can assure you that official temporary speed limit restrictions have changed dozens of times in the period work has been in progress (I had to unsubscribe in the end because of the volume of the updates \u2013 not all of them are particularly relevant to the driver).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The police have guidelines which they can use to decide when to issue a ticket or notice of intended prosecution (NIP). This Which?Car article<\/del> (it’s now dead) tables the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) recommendations for when to issue a ticket and when to prosecute, but it also stresses that individual forces can use their own discretion \u2013 and only an idiot would assume that \u201cdiscretion\u201d just applies to not<\/strong> prosecuting someone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But getting back to the point. Everything I\u2019ve already mentioned also applies to the motorway matrix sign system. And this is where learners are likely to become extremely confused by what they see, and what it appears they might end up being taught by people who always think that they<\/strong> know best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Matrix signs usually appear in the central reservation, and the Highway Code says the following about them:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

255 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Motorway signals (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’) are used to warn you of a danger ahead. For example, there may be an incident, fog, a spillage or road workers on the carriageway which you may not immediately be able to see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

256 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Signals situated on the central reservation apply to all lanes. On very busy stretches, signals may be overhead with a separate signal for each lane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

257 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amber flashing lights. These warn of a hazard ahead. The signal may show a temporary maximum speed limit, lanes that are closed or a message such as \u2018Fog\u2019. Adjust your speed and look out for the danger until you pass a signal which is not flashing or one that gives the \u2018All clear\u2019 sign and you are sure it is safe to increase your speed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Now, the problem here is that there is no MUST <\/span><\/strong> about it. In the Highway Code, anything that you MUST <\/span><\/strong> or MUST NOT <\/span><\/strong> do (in bold red), as opposed to SHOULD<\/strong> or SHOULD NOT<\/strong> do (in bold black) will have a specific law associated with it, meaning that if you contravene that specific rule then you are committing an offence. The Highway Code does not say that the matrix signs are The Law, so the \u201cexperts\u201d regard them as \u201cadvisory\u201d \u2013 it is inevitable, therefore, that some learners will end up being taught the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I found this interesting link to Traffic Answers<\/a>. What especially interested me was what it said about matrix signs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are speed limits on them obligatory?<\/strong> No, but they would be displayed for a reason, and if you were caught ignoring them then you could<\/strong> possibly be committing the offence of driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving. But even more interesting is this comment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In some areas, the local legislation is such that they have now become mandatory and you could, therefore, be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Now this flies completely in the face of those \u201cexperts\u201d who know best, and who insist on emphasising the \u201cadvisory\u201d nature of matrix speed limits. But I already know their argument. It will be along the lines of \u201cthey can\u2019t do that\u201d, combined with some amateur courtroom stuff about how it would have to get through Parliament! Or maybe something like “ah! But that’s only the overhead ones…”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Traffic Answers says, \u201cthere is always a cause for them even if it doesn\u2019t become apparent\u201d. They cite the example of something lying in the carriageway (something that you might pass without even noticing if it isn\u2019t in your lane), and the speed limit being reduced accordingly to reduce risk. There is no way ANY<\/strong> \u201cexpert\u201d could possibly know whether this is the case, and so no way they could make the correct decision to ignore the matrix limit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if Traffic Answers is wrong concerning matrix speed limits being mandatory \u201cin some areas\u201d, teaching learner drivers to ignore them would be appallingly bad instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It will be interesting to see if taking learners on to motorways has the effect that Mike Penning says it will \u2013 by reducing motorway fatalities. Because if new drivers end up being given even the slightest indication that matrix signs can be ignored \u201cif you judge it to be safe\u201d, I just can\u2019t see that happening. Quite the opposite, in fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n