Parking - Unattached Trailer
Parking - Unattached Trailer
Author
Discussion

jeffreyarcher

Original Poster:

675 posts

278 months

Sunday 19th June 2005
quotequote all
Background: It's an 'adtrailer', about the size of a small boat trailer. It's been 'parked' for a couple of weeks now, on an unclassified public road with street lamps, speed limit 30 MPH. It displays a rear facing number plate, with rear facing light fittings, but obviously not lit.
So, the question is, what offences have been committed?
Ideally, fixed penalty ones so that I might be able to get 'them' to do something about it, if I hand it to them on a plate.

TIA

streaky

19,311 posts

279 months

Sunday 19th June 2005
quotequote all
Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations (and/or Construction and Use Regulations) should provide the definitive answer (I haven't got a copy and seemingly not available on-line).

However, as the trailer is (presumably) fitted with rear reflectors, it might be that, provided it is either parked facing the direction or travel or in a "recognised parking space" (CUR 101 & RVLR 24), on a road with a speed limit of 30mph or less, lights are not required.

Streaky
[IANAL]

Flat in Fifth

48,801 posts

281 months

Sunday 19th June 2005
quotequote all
You need to do a search for a thread entitled "PARKING A TRAILER ON THE ROAD - LEGAL?"

back about Nov 2004 ish.

Should supply some ammo methinks.

edited to add link >> www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=135215&f=10&h=0

>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 19th June 08:44

nonegreen

7,803 posts

300 months

Sunday 19th June 2005
quotequote all
jeffreyarcher said:
Background: It's an 'adtrailer', about the size of a small boat trailer. It's been 'parked' for a couple of weeks now, on an unclassified public road with street lamps, speed limit 30 MPH. It displays a rear facing number plate, with rear facing light fittings, but obviously not lit.
So, the question is, what offences have been committed?
Ideally, fixed penalty ones so that I might be able to get 'them' to do something about it, if I hand it to them on a plate.

TIA


Don't treat it as a trailer, treat it as an advertising houarding and then trip over it and hurt your knee. If they have no planning permission then environmental health will shift it far quicker than the police (cos after all the police have speeders to catch).

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

274 months

Sunday 19th June 2005
quotequote all
JA

Lighting Regs at

www.tinyurl.com/f8mw.

Look at Reg 3 down to the definition of a trailer - a VEHICLE drawn by another vehicle.

Now go to Reg 24 and wend your way throw (5) and (7) as to what VEHICLES can be parked w/out lights in a 30 mph. Does it fit? Def Goods vehicle elseweher is a motor vehicle OR trailer constructed to carry goods?????

Now consider elswhere, i.e Obstruction which is a matter of fact to be decided by Mags on length of time obstruction continued, place, purpose for which done, actual or potential (Nagy v Weston [1965]) so there could be obstruction -

of the Highway -Highways Act 1980 S137
of the road - RV (Con and Use)Regs 1986 Reg103
of the Street - Town Police Clauses Acxt 1847 s.28.

There again what about:

Causing a trailer to remain at rest on a road in such condition or position as likely to cause danger or injury to other persons using the road. S 22 RTA 88

Intentionally or w/o lawful excuse causes anything to be on a road in such circumstances as likely to cause danger - Section 22A RTA 1988, or

very similar under Section 161 Highways Act 1980.

DVD

streaky

19,311 posts

279 months

Sunday 19th June 2005
quotequote all
Now, now, DVD, don't be ambivalent - Streaky

jeffreyarcher

Original Poster:

675 posts

278 months

Sunday 19th June 2005
quotequote all
Thanks for your comprehensive replies guys, particularly DVD's, and FiF's analysis in the linked thread.
Nothing's ever simple!
The obstruction angle's a bit tenuous as it's at the end of a cul-de-sac (although, since there's no hammer-head, to allow vehicles to turn, I suppose it might be applicable).
The most promising looks like the fact that it is parked against the 'flow' of traffic (24.(8)(b)).
They could just turn it round, though, which leads us back to the ambiguities about a 'vehicle'.
Anyway, we shall see.

streaky

19,311 posts

279 months

Sunday 19th June 2005
quotequote all
jeffreyarcher said:
Thanks for your comprehensive replies guys, particularly DVD's, and FiF's analysis in the linked thread.

[ ... ]

The most promising looks like the fact that it is parked against the 'flow' of traffic (24.(8)(b)).
Having suggested that, I'll try not to be too upset that I didn't get a personal 'thank you' - Streaky

jeffreyarcher

Original Poster:

675 posts

278 months

Sunday 19th June 2005
quotequote all
streaky said:
Having suggested that, I'll try not to be too upset that I didn't get a personal 'thank you' - Streaky

jeffreyarcher

Original Poster:

675 posts

278 months

Wednesday 22nd June 2005
quotequote all
Well, I don't know if anyone has been charged or FPNd, but the trailer has gone.
Thanks, guys (incl.) Streaky