Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

XMG5

Original Poster:

1,056 posts

114 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
There are road works currently underway in the middle of my town. There has been advance signage in place for some weeks now and diversions are in place.

The road works have blocked a major through route in the town and the diversions serve to feed traffic into the 'top' and 'bottom' halves of the town respectively.

There is now only one way to drive through the town from end to end and that is to ignore the big red "Road Closed" and "Except for Buses" metal fold up signs errected at each end of the single lane that passes the holes in the road.

Probably most traffic (98%) uses the diversions and travel the long way around but the remainder insist on ignoring the signs and driving through. According to the workmen, it's the same drivers ignoring the signs all the time.

These are not boy racers, tradesmen delivering to shops within the town nor are they scroats. They're just nobs who can't be arsed to comply with the 'rules'. I've even watched whilst some have driven through one handed with a mobile phone pressed up to their ear.

Question is:- What offence(s) are disclosed and as the signs are the usual red folding council type signs, are they enforcable? Assuming of course that there were any BiB to be seen within a few miles of the town, let alone near the road works at peak times.

Gaffer

7,076 posts

164 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
Had the same problem near where I live in the City Centre - a road was closed off to allow scaffolding and other building works to go on, they even put a barrier across part of the road to stop people turning in.

Didnt work, they either got out of the cars and moved it, or waited for the traffic to clear before going on the wrong side. and then caused jams as it was a one-way system.

The diverion took them to the same place and took a minute longer.

It was normal cars rather than delivery drivers in this case....

Claire

Ranger 6

4,922 posts

136 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
IIRC To place road closed signs out, there must be a road closure order, people breaking the closure order are liable to penalty. In the case of roadworks I'm not sure what the penalties are.

When we close the roads for rallying, the ONLY people who can use the roads (yes, that does include walking) are the competitors and marshals. Any unauthorised access can be dealt with by the BiB who are usually not too far away.

odyssey2200

18,650 posts

96 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
XMG5

you must also live in Melksham!

The town has been colsed for weeks while, aparently 2 guys work on the road!

2 blokes who are takingtheir time and were not even working atall when I went to Sainsbury's last week.

Piss boiling as the by-pass is not completely clogged most of the time!

IMHO WWDc really does treat Melksham like st.

mmm-five

6,315 posts

171 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
Assuming the work has proper authority to close the road and everything else is in order, then the drivers are committing an offence and would be done if a copper saw them.

I'd suggest to the workmen that the pile/park something in the middle of the road about halfway along the street so that any driver who uses the 'shortcut' will have to reverse all the way back.

The actual offence is something like 'failure to comply with traffic direction/sign' IIRC.
Advertisement

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

131 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
Ranger hits the nail.

For a proper closure then a Temporary Road Works Traffic Regulation Order will have to be made. These are generally published in your local rag.

In this it will or should state what road(s) are closed and alternative route and what traffic is prohibited on the area closed.

Contravention of the order can be dealt with under Road Traffic Act 1984 and Road Traffic offenedfsr Act 1988 - max fine £1,000.

dvd

supermono

6,686 posts

135 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
I love people thinking outside the box. Us brits are too shy and allow all kinds of pee taking of us with our reasonableness. We need people to start contravening signs, etc.

Break some rules! Live a bit! Make the PTB think again...

SM

Buzz word

1,908 posts

96 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
I don't suppose its people just making mistakes rather than actually ignoring the signage?

I was once driving down the A12 and there were works that closed the road. I took the diversion as was sign posted up into witham and got lost driving in circles for about 20 mins, it was about 2am so not another soul on the road. I saw about 4 open back lorries in convoy so I thought, "great lorries they must know where they are going" so followed them.

We didn't go past any signage or if there was any I didnt see it as it would have been visable for fractions of a second due to the lorries width the lack of large open verges and the dark. We didn't stop to remove any barriers or cones you would assume would block the road off but before I knew what was what I was on the closed a12 driving past crazy machines and loads of workmen.

I had to stop and ask somone how I was going to deal with this as I didnt want to progress incase there was some machine further down that would tear me apart or the like and I didn't want to tun round unless I was told it was ok. In the end it turned out with no drama but the long and short is I drove on a closed road through an honest mistake. I think the lorries must have been delivering supplies to the works not passing through as I hoped.

What i'm getting to is it could be a mistake on their part not an act of disregard.

tvrgit

8,187 posts

139 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
DVD is right as usual.

Once the highway authority have made the Temporary Traffic Regulation Order then the signs have the same effect, and are every bit as enforceable, as if they were permanent.

To escape enforcement, you would have to prove either that there was no Order at all, or that the Order hadn't been made in accordance with the statutory procedures (relating to advertisement etc - the procedures for temporary orders are much simpler than for permanent ones though). To be honest, TTRO procedures are so simple that it's very difficult to prove that it wasn't done correctly at the time.

XMG5

Original Poster:

1,056 posts

114 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
odyssey2200 said:
XMG5

you must also live in Melksham!

The town has been colsed for weeks while, aparently 2 guys work on the road!

2 blokes who are takingtheir time and were not even working atall when I went to Sainsbury's last week.

Piss boiling as the by-pass is not completely clogged most of the time!

IMHO WWDc really does treat Melksham like st.
yesyesyes

Actually they increased their workforce by a third the other day, there were three there.

But it amazes me that for such an important route (the only one through the town from top to bottom) that the contractors should be allowed to shut the road for 6 weeks and then use 2-3 blokes to work on it. Is it me or would it be too obvious to blitz the work with around twenty and close the road for a week, maybe two instead?

odyssey2200

18,650 posts

96 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
XMG5 said:
odyssey2200 said:
XMG5

you must also live in Melksham!

The town has been colsed for weeks while, aparently 2 guys work on the road!

2 blokes who are takingtheir time and were not even working atall when I went to Sainsbury's last week.

Piss boiling as the by-pass is not completely clogged most of the time!

IMHO WWDc really does treat Melksham like st.
yesyesyes

Actually they increased their workforce by a third the other day, there were three there.

But it amazes me that for such an important route (the only one through the town from top to bottom) that the contractors should be allowed to shut the road for 6 weeks and then use 2-3 blokes to work on it. Is it me or would it be too obvious to blitz the work with around twenty and close the road for a week, maybe two instead?
If it were Trowbridge they would have done it in a week and not closed the road.

bluepolarbear

1,598 posts

133 months

[news] 
Thursday 13th March 2008 quote quote all
The signs often haev "except for access" in small print - so what does that mean?

Can I go to a house in the middle of the closed road, drop something off and then drive through to the other end?

If so, what is the minimum - do I need to stop? do i need to get of the car etc

Medic-one

2,462 posts

90 months

[news] 
Friday 14th March 2008 quote quote all
mmm-five said:
I'd suggest to the workmen that the pile/park something in the middle of the road about halfway along the street so that any driver who uses the 'shortcut' will have to reverse all the way back.
Yes cos that would be really convenient for any ambulance (firetruck/police car) who needs to be somewhere along that road on an emergency....

mmm-five

6,315 posts

171 months

[news] 
Friday 14th March 2008 quote quote all
Medic-one said:
mmm-five said:
I'd suggest to the workmen that the pile/park something in the middle of the road about halfway along the street so that any driver who uses the 'shortcut' will have to reverse all the way back.
Yes cos that would be really convenient for any ambulance (firetruck/police car) who needs to be somewhere along that road on an emergency....
And so would a bloody big hole they've dug across the same street - or don't you bother looking because you're in an ambulance!

Chrisgr31

8,951 posts

142 months

[news] 
Friday 14th March 2008 quote quote all
With most temporary road closures for road works a clear access route has to be kept to allow access to businesses/houses within the works area and to allow the emergency services access through the works.

However of course some people realise that there is a route through so take advantage of it however as discussed it is an offence.

Medic-one

2,462 posts

90 months

[news] 
Friday 14th March 2008 quote quote all
mmm-five said:
And so would a bloody big hole they've dug across the same street - or don't you bother looking because you're in an ambulance!
rolleyes


Chrisgr31 said:
With most temporary road closures for road works a clear access route has to be kept to allow access to businesses/houses within the works area and to allow the emergency services access through the works.
There you go....

I believe it is the council's responsibility that they should ensure all houses on a road on which roadworks is beeing carried out should be still accessible by the fire brigade in case of a house fire.
Which means that if a big red truck will fit trough, we will fit through...

SS2.

8,137 posts

125 months

[news] 
Friday 14th March 2008 quote quote all
tvrgit said:
DVD is right as usual.

Once the highway authority have made the Temporary Traffic Regulation Order then the signs have the same effect, and are every bit as enforceable, as if they were permanent.
But what 'offence' is committed for failing to comply with a Road Closed sign, permanent or otherwise ?

The offence of failing to comply with a traffic sign is provided by Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988

A 'Road Closed' sign is a permitted variant of a 7010.1 sign:

Regulation 10 of the TSRGD 2002 specifies the signs to which s.36 RTA 1988 applies - and 7010.1 is not listed.

This would tend to suggest that it is not an offence to contravene a 7010.1 'Road Closed' sign..scratchchin

g_attrill

2,950 posts

133 months

[news] 
Friday 14th March 2008 quote quote all
A chap on PePiPoo had a related problem, he was prosecuted for contravening a "No Entry" sign, which was actually a "Road Ahead Closed" sign:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=4850

I found the same problem as the post above, I couldn't tie up the signs to an offence in particular. The "no entry" sign contravention was definitely wrong in that specific case.


Edited by g_attrill on Friday 14th March 16:42

tvrgit

8,187 posts

139 months

[news] 
Friday 14th March 2008 quote quote all
g_attrill said:
A chap on PePiPoo had a related problem, he was prosecuted for contravening a "No Entry" sign, which was actually a "Road Ahead Closed" sign:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=4850

I found the same problem as the post above, I couldn't tie up the signs to an offence in particular. The "no entry" sign contravention was definitely wrong in that specific case.


Edited by g_attrill on Friday 14th March 16:42
"Road Ahead Closed" and "Road Closed" are two different signs.

The first means that the road is open for a bit, until it's closed somewhere up ahead. There is no problem using the road up to the point of closure - the sign is only a warning that you might not get through.

The second means that the road is closed "here".

SS2.

8,137 posts

125 months

[news] 
Friday 14th March 2008 quote quote all
tvrgit said:
"Road Ahead Closed" and "Road Closed" are two different signs.

The first means that the road is open for a bit, until it's closed somewhere up ahead. There is no problem using the road up to the point of closure - the sign is only a warning that you might not get through.

The second means that the road is closed "here".
But no offence is committed by driving beyond either sign..
2
Reply to Topic