Free Traffic Legal Advice

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..).

If the cyclist is in a separate marked lane, does the rule about close passing somehow no longer apply?


e.g.

1) The cyclist is travelling towards you on the other carriageway, but is very close to the white line as he is about to turn right. Are you required to move towards the kerb to give him 1.5m+?

2) The cyclist is riding close to the centre line (his handlebar end is almost on the white line), you move completely into the other lane to overtake, must you be at least 1.5m to the right of the centre line?

3) The cyclist is wholly within a marked cycle lane at the left of the carriageway (only separated by a painted line). Must you leave 1.5m+?

4) The cyclist is within a cycle lane separated from the road by a narrow raised kerb. Must you leave 1.5m+?


I would suggest that not keeping 1.5m+ away is dangerous. In case 4) you are unlikely to hit him because of the kerb, but what if he clips that kerb and falls off?

There was a graphic shared by some Police Forces on Twitter a few years ago that states that "If one moves into the opposing lane (to overtake) then the position of the rider (within his lane) is irrelevant". (Complete with typo on the version I link below)

https://x.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1035083543016366080

It also had a graphic explaining that 12 bikes in single file become 8 in double file and are 3 times as quick to overtake- I suspect the graphic was quietly retired rather than being corrected.

I suggested the OP try here for advice.

As far as I can make out from

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-enforcement-policy/dvla-enforcement-of-vehicle-tax-registration-and-insurance-offences
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-enforcement-policy/dvla-enforcement-of-vehicle-tax-registration-and-insurance-offences#wheelclamping

The Out of Court Settlement for having a SORN'd vehicle on the road is £30 + twice the backtax (presumably upto 31 July 24 because you have to tax it today)

As the vehicle is clamped there is a £100 clamp release fee, which I assume (maybe incorrectly) is the alternative to the £30 OOCS.
There is also the £160 refundable surety as the vehicle has no MOT and cannot be taxed before unclamping.

The OP says the release fee is £280, so there is an extra £20 which must be twice the backtax??


I suggested they let the DVLA remove the vehicle and then sign it away in lieu of fees, which should leave the DVLA seeking their pound of flesh at twice the backtax, plus no doubt, the OOCS of £30, so the estate would only be liable for £50 rather than the current £280.

However, if I am wrong, the impound release fee is £200, plus £21 a day, plus the £160 surety and that extra £20, so £380 +£21 a day increasing.


So the question is-

If the vehicle isn't collected within 14 days do they still pursue the keeper for the impound & storage fees, or are they cancelled by the disposal of the vehicle?


(If they are "release fees" then surely if you don't want it/didn't have it released you don't have to pay them?)

But the "Using a SORN'd vehicle on the road" offence is complete and would be outstanding, unless the DVLA waive it due to the death of the RK.