57mph in 40mph. Confusing NSL sign. Can you be the jury...

BurningHorizons · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:17

I've just been caught doing 57mph in a 40mph zone and been given a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), which I have accepted, because it was a 40mph zone and I was doing 57mph! However, I thought it was NSL.
I'd been doing 40mph, then passed the sign shown in the photo below and increased my speed. Further down the road was a 40mph repeater sign and 50m after it was a police car with gun.
He shot me from 150m away. As I passed the 40mph repeater sign and police car I was doing 40mph.
As the police officer pointed out, the NSL sign is for the road going off to the left, however, he accepted that it was confusing... before issuing me with a FPN!! (I had never driven on this road before btw.)
As per above, I've accepted the FPN as I'm aware that taking it to court could be expensive and time consuming. Prior to this morning I had a clean license.

What are your thoughts. Do you think I would have had grounds to contest, or do you think I am guilty as charged?

[TW]Fox · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:19

It refers to the side road?

Howard · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:20

I'd have definitely understood that sign to be for that road off to the left I'm afraid, else there'd be a sign on the opposite side of the road too

Typical that you'd get caught through an honest mistake though!

LiE · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:21

Just one of those things

Rroff · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:23

Hmm interesting one... its facing oncoming traffic that are going straight ahead (I would have atleast expected it to be on an angle if not 90degrees to its current orientation/further up the road to the left), there are no arrows on the sign itself to indicate that it applies to the left hand turn.... very confusing in this context there should be a 40 MPH circle on the road infront of the straight ahead arrow IMO.

BurningHorizons · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:36

[TW]Fox;16750079 said:
It refers to the side road?

It does yes. I know that now. At the time, I interpreted it differently.

LiE said:
Just one of those things

That's how I'm treating it, but just interested in everyone's POV.

Rroff said:
Hmm interesting one... its facing oncoming traffic that are going straight ahead (I would have atleast expected it to be on an angle if not 90degrees to its current orientation/further up the road to the left), there are no arrows on the sign itself to indicate that it applies to the left hand turn.... very confusing in this context there should be a 40 MPH circle on the road infront of the straight ahead arrow IMO.

I think that's where my mis-interpretation came from. Usually they're at the angle of the road they refer to.

[TW]Fox · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:38

Some chav has turned the sign around thats all. It's still obvious what its for.

Rroff · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:39

Yeah personally I'd have expected something like this:

http://aten-hosted.com/images/40.jpg

due to the very high possibility for confusion.

DannyDan · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:39

I'd ask on Pepipoo. I don't think it's particularly obvious that the sign refers to the road on the left.

Howard · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:39

In my experience they're normally a bit further up the road though as opposed to right on the junction!

DannyDan · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:40

Howard said:
In my experience they're normally a bit further up the road though as opposed to right on the junction!

Exactly, it seems like a stupid place to put it

Howard · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:41

I still maintain the opinion that it's reasonably clear what it's referring to, though, and that the OP sadly doesn't really have much chance of appeal

Dano · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:43

I'd appeal, haven't got anything to lose by pointing out that it could be mistaken for the road you were on, even more so if you're concentrating on traffic at the junction itself and thus more likely to see the sign on that side of the road.

Engram · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:45

I don't think that's clear at all. No idea what would happen in court though.

Wicksta · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:53

Dano said:
I'd appeal, haven't got anything to lose by pointing out that it could be mistaken for the road you were on, even more so if you're concentrating on traffic at the junction itself and thus more likely to see the sign on that side of the road.

He has money and extra points to lose.

BurningHorizons · 14 Jun 2010 at 16:58

Wicksta said:
He has money and extra points to lose.

Another reason not to go to court. It could all go wrong and they increase the penalty.

Well, I'm glad there's been a mixed response. Makes me feel a little less like a child killer.

Dano · 14 Jun 2010 at 17:25

Wicksta said:
He has money and extra points to lose.

Only if he takes it the court route, pay it and then write a letter of complaint requesting the situation be looked at, nothing to lose by doing it that way instead of mesing around with the courts.

danza · 14 Jun 2010 at 17:44

You could easily take that to mean the road you were on is NSL.

Gutted. :mad:

Housey · 14 Jun 2010 at 17:48

I actually think the police officier might have taken a more pragmatic approach as it could cause confusion where it is located as it is badly positioned for both the road you are on and the road it is for I suggest.

Kenai · 14 Jun 2010 at 17:52

It probably is confusing for quite a few people and that'll be exactly why there is a copper down the road with a speed gun.

Ching ching ching, here comes the money!