Free Traffic Legal Advice

If you are a fix it yourself person, then the big brands are better, as they will either tow you on the spectacle frame or on their own trucks to where you want, so if you intend to fit a new alternator yourself on your drive for a fraction of garage prices, you want this option.

The cheaper ones use local contractors to recover you to their garage for a fix. If you would pay a garage anyway, you might prefer this.

It is possible to game the system by waiting until all the garages are closed to call it in, then it invokes proper recovery.

Assuming that the logs of the displayed variable speed limits are accurate and reliable, it should have been relatively trivial to check which cases would have been triggered by an incorrect implementation of the 10 second delay.

Also, we were "reliably" informed that whilst the legislation mandated no enforcement within 10 seconds of the limit first being displayed, because the relevant authorities were all kind and helpful people, they operated a minute's grace.

Whilst the story in the Daily Wail is the most coherent and plausible purported version of events (as opposed to mere educated guesses) I've seen so far, it leave more questions to be answered (which is not the same as begging the question) than it purportedly answers. On this occasion, I'm not accusing them of poor journalism, but I do think that there's more to this than we've been told.

Reading between the lines, and remembering the poster who had several witnesses (but unfortunately no camera footage) that the limit must have reduced when he was so close to the camera that no-one in the car saw it, yet the timings on the photo said it had been in force over an hour, I suspect that the enforcement timing is counting clock cycles or milliseconds rather than seconds from when the limit is triggered, and the "grace period" is actually a fraction of a second. (maybe there is a maximum time that rolls back to zero when it is reached every few seconds)

Otherwise, as you say it would be trivial to spot from the photograph that when a limit drops (the only possible case that would be affected) the limit had been in force for less than the grace period.

Unusual that no-one posted here with dashcam footage showing the limit change (or the higher limit until it went out of view, the flashes and a photo claiming the limit was in force for hours.)


A request for the logs from VSL control would show that the timing was way out and cast doubt on every photograph (If they can't even measure time correctly, how can we trust the speed measurement?), hence they have cancelled every ticket.

Assuming that there is a TRO creating the 20MPH zone (I have no reason to doubt it exists) then to prosecute excess speed within the area covered by the TRO, there needs to be the correct signage in place to communicate that the speed limit is 20MPH within that area.

In the case of a 20MPH zone, this would be the entrance signs to diagram 674 and the existence of prescribed traffic calming measures such that all points on through roads within the zone are within 50m of one.

(A 20MPH limit would require terminal signs and regular repeaters to diagram 670- speed humps on their own are meaningless- I honestly have no idea if the TRO for a 20MPH zone would cover it's changing to a 20MPH limit)

TSM 2019 states that in order to use the entrance sign 674 it must comply with schedule 10 (of TSRG2016) which states that no part of a road within the zone (apart from a cul-de-sac less than 80m long) can be more than 50m from a traffic calming feature, measured along the road.



So it would seem to me that all of the entrance signs are defective because a single part of the zone does not have calming features, therefore the TRO is not communicated properly and an attempted prosecution for speeding anywhere within the zone could be successfully defended.


The alternative is that only the 250m street fails to communicate the TRO  due to missing/defective signage, so an attempted speeding prosecution within that street could be defended, but you could defend any prosecution within the zone if your claim to have entered via that street could not be disproved.



Am I correct?

The offence relates to section 22 of the RTA https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/22



If a person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or a trailer drawn by it to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to involve a danger of injury to other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.


It covers things like parking on a blind bend or approach to a humpback bridge or right on a junction so that traffic has to risk a head on collision to pass because their visibility is blocked- by the car itself or the road layout and the car forces traffic into a potentially dangerous overtaking manoeuvre, or blocking the pavement so pedestrians (e.g. pushchair & wheelchair users) have to step into the road to pass.


The prosecution has to prove that:
(1) You left it there (hence the S172)
(2) The position/condition that it was left caused a danger of injury to others using the road.
(The "in such condition" part would cover not applying the handbrake so that the vehicle could roll, having something unmarked sticking out a long way, or a severe oil/fuel leak spreading out over the road)


I'm unclear on (2) whether a photo of the position would do, or whether they have to observe someone risking injury.

The FPN is £100 + 3 points.

A defence would be "circumstances beyond your control" like a breakdown that locked the transmission so it couldn't be moved until recovery arrive.

Just a quick question for confirmation.

When a gantry goes from clear to displaying a speed limit of 40, the camera doesn't start enforcing 40 for a short while, to give traffic the chance to slow down safely.


But, if the displayed limit had been 40 for half an hour, and then raises to 60, does it continue to enforce 40 for the same delay time?
So traffic that is speeding up gets flashed, but won't be prosecuted as the confirmation photo will show the 60 displayed, (or the time logs will show 60 was active)?

This came up in discussion (I lead an exciting life)

If even the towball of your car proceeds across the stop line when the light is red then it is an offence. (I know the same applies for amber, but with amber you have the unsafe/impossible to stop defence)

does this apply to both lines?

The Highway Code rule 178 states


If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you should stop as soon as possible and MUST stop at the second white line.


Rule 178 references RTA 1988 Sect 36 & TSRGD Schedule 14 pt1, but I can't find the answer there.

I insisted that if your towball is proceeding over the second line when the light goes red that the offence is complete. (Obviously, if it does clear the first line it might not clear the second)




Out of pedantry, which one is the advanced stop line? (Or are the two together "advanced stop lines")

The first one (for cars) has been advanced against the direction of travel, but the second (usually the original pre-cycle box line) is further forwards, so cyclists stop in an advanced position.  The HC calls them first & second to eliminate confusion.

Why do you think it wouldn't apply?

I think it does apply, as it would obviously be dangerous driving if the cyclist wobbled, or you sneezed, and you hit him, so it must be at least careless to be that close even if you don't.

Why I asked the question was I see plenty of close passes (and experience them as an occasional cyclist) in situations 1,3 & 4, and my attention was drawn to that graphic, supposedly posted by the Police, which effectively says that once you are in another lane, the position of the cyclist in his lane is irrelevant- situation 2.


There is also the current guidance "give a cyclist as much space as you would a car"- when travelling in traffic lanes in a town cars are often far closer than 1.5m.                                                         

Image searching that graphic, it was very popular in 2018/2019 then disappeared. I suspect a well meaning someone unofficially produced it (hence the typos and obvious errors) and it was withdrawn once it came to the attention of the Higher Ups as anything officially posted by a Police source should be 100% accurate and unambiguous (one hopes..).