Show Posts - facade

Fix the scratches and never, ever, ever let anything touch the surface of your car that you can't be 100% sure is perfectly clean and unlikely to scratch the surface (i.e. your own brush that you have kept from touching the floor or any dirt/mud)There is probably a notice about using the facility at your own risk, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for damage/loss caused by the negligence of their employees.You would need to show that Tesco or the operator of the machine (whoever gets the money) were negligent in either not removing foreign material from the brush on a regular basis, or not inspecting it for damaged bristles/vandalism (is there a schedule in place that someone isn't keeping to? Did some vandals push nails into the brush since the last check maybe?)Bearing in mind that the obvious defence would be to suggest that the contaminant most likely came from the mud & sand covered 4x4 that was washed after a heavy off roading session immediately before you used it (or even your own vehicle if you didn't pre-wash it thoroughly to remove any grit) I'd have thought this would be difficult, although I suppose you could try a small claims action for reasonable rectification costs and hope that they won't defend it. (You would need to contact them first, and send a Letter Before Action detailing your loss and why they are responsible for it) 

Apologies for mentioning the Daily Fail, so  this is unlikely to have much relation to the truth, but they are claiming that Dr Gary Duffield, a London Psychiatrist has done a course and accepted 2 more 3 point penalties all for 22MPH in a 20. (So 3 NIPs for 22MPH) as well as another for 25MPH so another one and he is paying for taxis for 6 months...(Google reveals there is indeed a Dr Gary Duffield)The MET publicly claim to follow the "10% plus 2" guidelines, so either the article is distorting the truth somewhat or the MET are getting nearer to zero tolerance. If you want to read it https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15726257/Psychiatrist-faces-road-ban-22mph-breaking-unjust-limit.htmlI note that they claim that he received a course and a fine for the first offence, so they aren't overly bothered about factual accuracy (who knew!)The same article appears in the Torygraph, but I refuse to give them an email address to access it.A pity he didn't post his NIPs on here.....It didn't mention whether these were cameras though, or if he was followed at speed and 22 was the minimum.

Tesla make some of their DC chargers publicly available and the pricing is only expensive (at the right time of day)- you will need the Tesla app.Otherwise as hc25036 posted, the Electroverse app is one of the more useful, it shows Lidl chargers, if you have the Lidl app for your shopping and pay using it they are 62p per kWh for DC rapid charging and 40p/kWh for the 7kW "fast" charging.  (Still hugely more expensive than home charging, even at standard rate, horrendous if you are used to 7p/kWh!)The Lidl needs to be open though and there will be a limit on your time in the carpark, but half an hour rapid charging will be fine.Tbh, if you would have to pay 80 odd pence per kWh to rapid charge away from home you might as well just run on petrol for the same sort of cost per mile and not waste time charging. (Can you charge by regenerative braking when running on petrol?)Most of the charger networks do a subscription service where you shell out every month and get a discount on their extortionate prices, but you need to be doing a lot of rapid charging to make it worthwhile.EDIT: Whoops! I put Aldi by mistake, their chargers do show, but I don't know their prices, I tested that my car will DC charge with £3 worth of Lidl electricity, I won't be buying any more unless the choice is pay or walk home....

Obviously I bow to those with Legal Qualifications, but to my reading, section 59 of the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Policing act 2014 does provide for making it a requirement to carry something to clean up after your dog, provided that:There is a persistent problem with dog fouling in that area (would be stated in the order)It is reasonable for a person in charge of a dog to carry the means to clean up after it (I would agree that it is, sitting typing with half a dozen bags in my pocket)The justification for it being that having the means to clean up after your dog demonstrably would Quotereduce that detrimental effect or to reduce the risk of its continuance, occurrence or recurrence as not having anything to clean it up would either mean it would be left there, or you'd have to pick it up in your bare hands (unlikely), or as Glitch suggested, in your sock! (again, unlikely unless there was a suitable enforcer watching you)https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/59

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.

It depends on the PSPO, HMG reckon that carrying poo bags and a scoop (I don't own one, handling my own dog's poo through a bag isn't a problem) can be required by the PSPO.https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/public-spaces-protection-orders  (enforcement is by £100 on the spot fines, or risk upto £1000 in Court)My own Council (Walsall) have one PSPO, covering the town centre, and the relevant section of must dos isQuoteIt is ordered that the following specified things are done by persons carrying on specified activities in this restricted area.1. Any person in charge of a dog in a public place must keep the dog on a lead or otherwise under physical control at all times.I presume that they could insert a point about carrying the means to clear up any dog fouling at all times in this section, and anything else that isn't discriminatory that they feel like- wearing an upper body covering (as well as a lower body covering) springs to mind. The BBC reported that someone was fined for no poo bags https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpzxnl7l9oI recall reading a thread somewhere about an owner being fined because they had used their last bag clearing up and no longer had the means to clear up as required, but I can't track it down.EDIT: I don't know why I didn't think of this in the first place, but Manchester publish their PSPOs https://www.manchester.gov.uk/directory_record/438586/dog_fouling/category/1732/control_of_dogsand indeed it does stateQuoteA person in charge of a dog on land specified in the Schedule to this Order must have with him an appropriate means to pick up dog faeces deposited by that dog forthwith unless :-     (a)    he has reasonable excuse for failing to do so; or    (b)    the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the land has consented (generally or specifically) to his failing to do so.The obligation is complied with if, after a request from an authorised officer or constable, the person in charge of the dog produces an appropriate means to pick up dog faeces.

Quote from: andy_foster on 15 Dec, 2025 22:27Assuming 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.

I am arguing that the TRO restricting the area to 20MPH cannot be enforced due to signage that is defective/non-compliant with TSM/TSRG. (Caused by the lack of traffic calming in just one street of the zone)I hadn't thought whether the 20MPH TRO would have removed the previous blanket 30MPH indicated by the compliant system of street lighting, I was suggesting that an attempt at prosecution between 25-30 MPH could be defended. If the 20MPH TRO cannot be enforced would that mean that any speed could be successfully defended?

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?

I live in the middle of a bit of Urban Sprawl, a couple of estates that have mingled together.The whole area is a 20MPH zone, with the correct entrance signs at the start of every road leading in (to diagram 674 of The Traffic Signs Manual 2019 Chapter 3 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf) and regular speed humps within 100m of each other.However, following resurfacing (when the humps were removed), one of the streets that enters the zone, which is 250m long, has no traffic calming measures from the list in TSM 2019 Ch3 8.7.1. within 100m of the entrance sign.What does this mean for the zone?Does the speed limit revert back to 30MPH only on this street between 50m from the entrance and 50m from the nearest traffic calming feature on the road that this one joins?Does the entrance sign become non-enforceable due to non compliance with 8.7.1 (as if it didn't exist)  and it is therefore possible to enter the zone along this road and never see a 20 MPH sign to diagram 670 or a compliant entrance sign to 674, so  the whole zone is non-enforceable if it cannot be proved that you didn't enter along this street?(The obvious solution is for The Council to come out and nail a couple of those "spinebreaker" plastic humps to the road less than 100m apart, but it has been several months since resurfacing)

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

It came up on Reddit, someone posted a dash cam video of being flashed as they were speeding up because a gantry went from 50 to 60 as they approached it, but their dashcam shows that they were under 60 when they were flashed (and the gantry was displaying 60).No-one was overtaking/catching them, so it must have been them that triggered the flash.I can't think of any other reason for the flash other than a camera test. (or a fault)One would expect that as the confirmation photo would show 60 on the gantry so it shouldn't ever get sent out.I suppose that technically they are still in a 50 from the previous sign until they pass the 60 sign and the measurement could be made before the sign (I thought HADECS cameras were self contained so the radar faces in the direction of travel though), but most likely the whole section went to 60 at the same time including the previous gantry anyway.It would be an interesting day in Court if the measurement is behind the gantry to match the photo and they tried to infer speeding before the gantry from it.

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)?

Quote from: andy_foster on 23 Oct, 2024 15:24De minimis non curat lexI know they probably wouldn't prosecute over just the towball, but it is possible to clear the first line on amber, and still be half across the second line when red appears- so you should have stopped.I just wanted confirmation that the Law applies to both lines equally, and you can't cross either on red.

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 statesIf 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.