We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Fixed Penalty Notice..... Gobsmacked!
Options
Comments
-
Mmini roundabouts ... In the UK, they cannot be used on roads over 30mph.
Do you have a reference for that? Not saying you're wrong and I'm genuinely interested as this pair is set on a 40mph road
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bristol+Road,+Chippenham,+United+Kingdom&hl=en&ll=51.466013,-2.136149&spn=0.001454,0.003396&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=11.507289,27.817383&oq=bristol+road,+chi&hnear=Bristol+Rd,+Chippenham,+Wiltshire+SN14,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.466095,-2.136375&panoid=BwBEDg9W3rm_zWtmQM-Kug&cbp=12,155.26,,0,24.38What goes around - comes around0 -
Do you have a reference for that? Not saying you're wrong and I'm genuinely interested as this pair is set on a 40mph roadbrat wrote:In the UK, they cannot be used on roads over 30mph.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bristol+Road,+Chippenham,+United+Kingdom&hl=en&ll=51.466013,-2.136149&spn=0.001454,0.003396&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=11.507289,27.817383&oq=bristol+road,+chi&hnear=Bristol+Rd,+Chippenham,+Wiltshire+SN14,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.466095,-2.136375&panoid=BwBEDg9W3rm_zWtmQM-Kug&cbp=12,155.26,,0,24.38
I recalled it from a discussion on a local forum a couple of years ago.
Ah, here it is. It's from the DfT's own design standard for mini roundabouts.
TD54/07. Page 2.1 says
2.1 Mini-roundabouts must only be used on roads with a speed limit of 30mph or less and where the 85th percentile dry weather speed of traffic is less than 35mph within a distance of 70 metres from the proposed give way line on all approaches, unless installed in combination with speed reduction measures.
Obviously, they can and do break that rule, but I would imagine they would have to present a strong case to do so.
Edited to add; the last part of the sentence would allow consideration to be given to mini RABs in higher speed areas, but obviously only if speed reduction measures, presumably such as larger deflection angles, lane narrowing etc are used.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
That's why there were public information films as brat mentioned. I remember them and I wasn't old enough to drive until the mid 80s.They came in in the late 1970s so anyone who passed their test prior to then is unlikely to have received any education in how to use them.
Not that they would be as much use now - who actually watches the ads?I need to think of something new here...0 -
I can't comment on the policewoman being let off as I don't know all the circumstances, but I can understand your frustration. That could be a matter for the IPCC.
No complaint related to this or a similar incident would make it to the IPCC because the issue is not serious enough. The most appropriate way to highlight it would be through 'local resolution' i.e. that the PC's sergeant would look into the matter and find out how the PC justified the ticket, but the chances of getting it over tuned are very remote. The OP is bang to rights legally speaking, although I also think the PC should have dealt with it with words of advice.0 -
If we're going to be pedantic, the word MUST doesn't make it a legal requirement - what makes it a legal requirement is the legislation. The Highway Code isn't the law even when it uses the word must - the legislation is the law, and the HC is just a summary of it. If there's disagreement between the two, the law trumps the Highway Code. That's why it's better to quote actual legislation rather than the Highway code.
It does, read it again:-
"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.".
Those words inform the motorist that they are actual legislation, and if they can be bothered they can look it up from the "abbreviated reference to the legislation", that is included in the paragraph.
The point is not many drivers read the legislation, but all, at some time, do read the HC, and as such that is the only reference to traffic laws/legislation that most will come across, so if we all adhere to the HC, there will be less accidents, road rage etc.
.Don`t steal - the Government doesn`t like the competition0 -
It's admittedly a slightly pedantic point, but no, it doesn't make it a legal requirement, it indicates that it's a legal requirement. What makes it a legal requirement is the legislation on which the Highway Code is based. So if some one asks if something is an offence it's better to quote the actual legislation rather than the Highway Code, as it's the legislation which is the final authority on such things.It does, read it again:-0 -
That's why there were public information films as brat mentioned. I remember them and I wasn't old enough to drive until the mid 80s.
Not that they would be as much use now - who actually watches the ads?
Even in the 70s did people watch the ads? Apparently you did, but I remember that every advert break my grandparents would get up and do something purely for the sake of avoiding the ads. Grandma would put the kettle on or read a knitting magazine or something and grandad would go outside for a smoke (yes every ad break it seemed like). I'm sure this is hardly a unique situation so I stand by my point that many people who have passed their test before the late 70s will not have received any education on how to handle a mini roundabout.
Not everybody even owns a telly, especially in the 70s.0 -
It's admittedly a slightly pedantic point, but no, it doesn't make it a legal requirement, it indicates that it's a legal requirement. What makes it a legal requirement is the legislation on which the Highway Code is based. So if some one asks if something is an offence it's better to quote the actual legislation rather than the Highway Code, as it's the legislation which is the final authority on such things.
Then you are saying the HC is wrong?
From the introduction;-
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements
Why not use the HC, that is what it is for.
The legislation is there for anyone to see if they want to, e.g. it is an offence through a red light, that is in the HC with the relevant legislation reference, and that is enough for most people,or because you say "The Highway Code isn't the law", we can just ignore what is in it? Well try that with a traffic cop behind you and see how far you get.
.Don`t steal - the Government doesn`t like the competition0 -
Then you are saying the HC is wrong?
From the introduction;-
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements
Why not use the HC, that is what it is for.
The legislation is there for anyone to see if they want to, e.g. it is an offence through a red light, that is in the HC with the relevant legislation reference, and that is enough for most people,or because you say "The Highway Code isn't the law", we can just ignore what is in it? Well try that with a traffic cop behind you and see how far you get.
.
No, he's not saying the HC is "wrong", he's stating the fact of what the bit you quoted above means.
Nothing in the HC makes" law, and you cannot be prosecuted for "failing to obey the HC" even when the part you ignore is a legal requirement.
You will be prosecuted for failing to obey the legislation that makes that particular requirement a legal requirement - such as teh Road Traffic Act, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and so on.
The HC is simply a quick-reference guide to point you in the direction of what you should be doing / not doing when on the road. Claiming it as "the law" is like claiming that the quick-start card that came with your printer is the full user manual!0 -
But quoting the HC in a thread like this is VERY useful.
For those who find it difficult to understand legislation, the HC explains things very well.
For those who are interested in legislation, it is very useful because it references the laws which can then be looked up and read, to get a detailed understanding of them.
To say we should not quote the HC but instead quote the legislation is nonsense.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards