Speeding liability question

[Lockwood]

A thought prompted by the BSR thread.

Driver asks if a BSR has been lifted. Told yes. Drives at line speed. Is found to have been in excess of the limit in place at the time

So, here's a scenario I'm curious about...
Driver is aware of a temporary limit.
Driver is on the first train of the day. (*)
Driver asks signaller "Is that limit still in place?"
Signaller says yesno.
Driver does 80 in the temporary 50.
Something happens that means that there's nobody else going that way for a while. (*)
Some how it is reported/discovered that the driver is speeding.

Who has responsibility/liability?
Signaller for saying the temporary limit is no longer in effect?
Driver for travelling at a speed in excess of the limit and should have known? Mitigation of that being that they had shown due diligence and checked?
50/50?

(*) This is a narrative device just to stop comparisons with other drivers (19/20 drivers managed it in the last hour without a problem, or whatever)


Not finger pointing. Not speculating about that BSR scenario. Just curious about the general process.

 

[43066]

AIUI this scenario has happened and both driver and signaller were blamed.

 

[DelW]

So, here's a scenario I'm curious about...
Driver is aware of a temporary limit.
Driver is on the first train of the day. (*)
Driver asks signaller "Is that limit still in place?"
Signaller says yes.
Driver does 80 in the temporary 50.
Something happens that means that there's nobody else going that way for a while. (*)
Some how it is reported/discovered that the driver is speeding.

Surely from the two sentences [I've put] in bold, it would be unequivocally the driver's error?

Apologies if I've misunderstood something.

 

[OscarH]

Surely from the two sentences [I've put] in bold, it would be unequivocally the driver's error?

Apologies if I've misunderstood something.

Based on the context I'm pretty sure that's meant to be the signaller says "no"

 

[Falcon1200]

AIUI this scenario has happened and both driver and signaller were blamed.

If this was a blanket speed restriction, with no equipment on the ground to inform the Driver, this would surely be Signaller's error only; The restriction could just have been lifted before written advice could be passed to Drivers?

 

[43066]

If this was a blanket speed restriction, with no equipment on the ground to inform the Driver, this would surely be Signaller's error only; The restriction could just have been lifted before written advice could be passed to Drivers?

In the case I’m thinking of (IIRC) there was a notice which the driver had misread, hence called the signaller to ask. The signaller was either unaware of it or believed the driver was talking about a different location - basically a break down in communication.

 

[Lockwood]

Sorry, I did mean to say "no". Juggling too many things at once when posting again.

And I'm not asking about any specific incident - just a hypothetical inspired by the other thread.

 

[Falcon1200]

Thanks @43066 .

 

[Supercoss]

Unless the driver wiped their safety boots prior to visiting the signaller in person at the signal Box, a voice recording will exist of either cab radio call GSM-R or internal/ external telephone Call.

 

[357]

I've only found out about a blanket speed restriction via a GSMR broadcast on many occasions. I've likely been speeding until I heard said broadcast.

And before anyone jumps in - yes, I do check my notices.

 

[Falcon1200]

I've only found out about a blanket speed restriction via a GSMR broadcast on many occasions. I've likely been speeding until I heard said broadcast.

Which can happen if such a restriction is imposed with immediate effect (rather than being planned and advertised in advance on the basis of forecast extreme weather); As a result of embankment or cutting examination, for example.