ILLEGAL SPEED LIMIT 'DOES NOT MATTER'

15:00 - 29 November 2007

England expects. I wonder whether, as that electric message transmitted itself from ship to ship, the men led by Nelson contemplated the possibility they were merely the precursors of motorists in Chideock?How, you may ask, are sailors at Trafalgar connected with people tootling along the A35 in 2007?

The answer is because Jim Fitzpatrick, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, expects motorists in Chideock to do their duty.

I know this because I wrote a little while ago to Mr Fitzpatrick's boss, the Secretary of State for Transport, to ask about the mildly embarrassing fact that the 30mph speed limit in Chideock, and hence hundreds of speeding fines, had been declared illegal in court.

Mr Fitzpatrick, who is, in my experience, an amiable cove, replied on behalf of his boss and courteously informed me that he has "ministerial responsibility for road safety policy".

It is comforting to know that someone has ministerial responsibility for road safety policy. It is also good news that the Highways Agency have put speed restrictions in Chideock on a firm legal footing and have "published a new speed limit order" which "came into effect on 13 November".

The really interesting part of Mr Fitzpatrick's letter comes right at the end. His last paragraph is a genuine masterpiece and I would love to know which of his officials had the delicious task of composing it for him. What makes this paragraph so masterly a triumph of the bureaucratic art is the quiet way in which it delivers its radical message.

Having conceded "the Department for Transport acknowledges that the original speed limit signing and the traffic order may not have been introduced correctly", it moves on seamlessly to imply this little legal slip does not really matter because "the fact remains that there were and still are signs indicating a 30mph speed limit".

This is a most interesting departure from the old-fashioned view that it is rather important for organisations like the Highways Agency to obtain legal backing for their actions.

It is Mr Fitzpatrick's last sentence that really opens up new vistas. He tells us "the department expects drivers to comply with all speed limit signs, irrespective of whether or not they suspect the sign or traffic order has been introduced incorrectly."

Mr Fitzpatrick has invented an entirely new constitutional theory. On the basis of this new constitutional theory, people could be expected to do almost anything that someone in some office somewhere in Whitehall thought it would be nice for them to do, so long as a sign had been put up about it. If, for example, the Highways Agency put up a sign in Chideock saying "hold your breath on this stretch of road", I take it on Mr Fitzpatrick's constitutional theory, the department would "expect" that motorists would all duly hold their breath "irrespective of whether or not they suspect the sign or traffic order has been introduced incorrectly".

Amiable cove though Mr Fitzpatrick is, I am not sure I will follow that advice if such a sign does appear.