Discussion
Does anybody know the fine for being caught going through a 'Road Closed' section ?
There is a section of road near my work which has recently been closed leaving the only other route very congested.
I have opted to go through the road closed section to save some time and not to add to the local congestion. It is passable as only one side of the road is out of action and is safe to go through on the opposite side as all traffic coming the other way is controlled by static traffic lights at intervals, clearly in view from my position.
This morning, I passed through said area and rounded a corner only to stumble across a police motorbike that had 'pulled' a guy in an Audi.
I don't know if it was for doing what I'd done or if he'd done something totally unrelated - but it got me thinking...
There is a section of road near my work which has recently been closed leaving the only other route very congested.
I have opted to go through the road closed section to save some time and not to add to the local congestion. It is passable as only one side of the road is out of action and is safe to go through on the opposite side as all traffic coming the other way is controlled by static traffic lights at intervals, clearly in view from my position.
This morning, I passed through said area and rounded a corner only to stumble across a police motorbike that had 'pulled' a guy in an Audi.
I don't know if it was for doing what I'd done or if he'd done something totally unrelated - but it got me thinking...
lazyitus said:
There is a section of road near my work which has recently been closed leaving the only other route very congested.
Go on...lazyitus said:
I have opted to go through the road closed section to save some time and not to add to the local congestion.
Using your common sense is an offence punishable by a four-year prison sentence. 
Take him down.
Failing to conform to a traffic sign
Offences against traffic signs and police signals are dealt with in Sections 35, 36, 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
It will often be appropriate to prosecute for both this offence and for careless driving as a result of the same incident of driving.
Offences against traffic signs and police signals are dealt with in Sections 35, 36, 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
It will often be appropriate to prosecute for both this offence and for careless driving as a result of the same incident of driving.
TPS said:
Failing to conform to a traffic sign
Offences against traffic signs and police signals are dealt with in Sections 35, 36, 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
It will often be appropriate to prosecute for both this offence and for careless driving as a result of the same incident of driving.
Good job it wasn't actually me then. It was a friend - I just found it easier to write as if it was me.Offences against traffic signs and police signals are dealt with in Sections 35, 36, 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
It will often be appropriate to prosecute for both this offence and for careless driving as a result of the same incident of driving.
. What happens if your destination is JUST outside the road closed part, are you expected to go all the way round?lazyitus said:
Major Bloodnok said:
You don't work in Trafford Park, do you?
[dontincriminateyourselfmode]
Maybe, maybe not. And if I did ?
[/dontincriminateyourselfmode]
Major Bloodnok said:
lazyitus said:
Major Bloodnok said:
You don't work in Trafford Park, do you?
[dontincriminateyourselfmode]
Maybe, maybe not. And if I did ?
[/dontincriminateyourselfmode]
Dwight VanDriver said:
Fine will depend on what the Road Closure Order is, what Act it was made under and what signs are erected at point iof closure?
dvd
That would make sense. Originally there were only 'Road Closed' signs but I notice that this week, 'No Entry' signs had been placed on the opposite side of the road, which is the only way through.dvd
This, I suspect is to show the severity of the driving offence and indeed would help make a fine a touch heavier/more severe.
Edited by lazyitus on Tuesday 10th July 15:33
TPS said:
Failing to conform to a traffic sign
Offences against traffic signs and police signals are dealt with in Sections 35, 36, 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
It will often be appropriate to prosecute for both this offence and for careless driving as a result of the same incident of driving.
Firstly it is a temporary sign; secondly, you would have to prove careless or reckless. Assuming it simply because a sign is in place is not evidence.Offences against traffic signs and police signals are dealt with in Sections 35, 36, 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
It will often be appropriate to prosecute for both this offence and for careless driving as a result of the same incident of driving.
I take a distinctly different view of this due to the experiences I have had with numerous councils, roads departments and contractors.
In some of these cases it was the signs themselves that were illegal or forgotten, causing huge inconvenience and traffic chaos: they were never prosecuted for criminal negligence, TPS.
TPS eh? Now let me see, that rings a bell.
I've got it!
If we just change the first letter we have...........CPS!
One other thing to note (and I'm assuming that lazyitus has actually admitted to working in Trafford Park), it's possible to get into the road without negotiating "No Entry" signs - there's an open left turn onto it that comes in behind the the barrier to those coming across the junction. It is, therefore, possible to find yourself (if you are particularly unobservant) heading down the unobstructed section, only to be faced with a blockage and no alternative other than turning around and going back. (The actual road works are the other side of a wide bridge, and not visible until you get over it.)
BTW, I nearly got my offside front wing rearranged at lunchtime by a Mini coming out of the Kellogg's factory who assumed that the correct way to deal with a barrier across the left hand side of the road is to drive at the traffic approaching the lights and go to the right of the central island.
BTW, I nearly got my offside front wing rearranged at lunchtime by a Mini coming out of the Kellogg's factory who assumed that the correct way to deal with a barrier across the left hand side of the road is to drive at the traffic approaching the lights and go to the right of the central island.
supermono said:
Never underestimate the importance of closing roads and creating congestion. How can you bring in a congestion charge unless you first bring in the congestion? Hmmm?
SM
They don't need to close roads to create congestion at the moment. All the trams between Altrincham and Manchester are off for the next two months. The trams were every six minutes and full. Now there are buses (slow, slow, slow) and two trains an hour. Guess what? People are using their cars.... Now, who'd have thought that would happen?SM
jith said:
TPS said:
Failing to conform to a traffic sign
Offences against traffic signs and police signals are dealt with in Sections 35, 36, 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
It will often be appropriate to prosecute for both this offence and for careless driving as a result of the same incident of driving.
Firstly it is a temporary sign; secondly, you would have to prove careless or reckless. Assuming it simply because a sign is in place is not evidence.Offences against traffic signs and police signals are dealt with in Sections 35, 36, 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
It will often be appropriate to prosecute for both this offence and for careless driving as a result of the same incident of driving.
I take a distinctly different view of this due to the experiences I have had with numerous councils, roads departments and contractors.
In some of these cases it was the signs themselves that were illegal or forgotten, causing huge inconvenience and traffic chaos: they were never prosecuted for criminal negligence, TPS.
TPS eh? Now let me see, that rings a bell.
I've got it!
If we just change the first letter we have...........CPS!
For the record though i do not work for the cps.
jith said:
Firstly it is a temporary sign;
if it is supported by a temporary traffic regulation order, then it has (for the duration of thaty Order) the same statutory effect as a permanent sign and closure.jith said:
secondly, you would have to prove careless or reckless
Not if there is a temporary Order - you can be nicked for breaking the terms of a temporary Order in exactly the same way as a permanent one.jith said:
Assuming it simply because a sign is in place is not evidence.
I take a distinctly different view of this due to the experiences I have had with numerous councils, roads departments and contractors.
In some of these cases it was the signs themselves that were illegal or forgotten, causing huge inconvenience and traffic chaos: they were never prosecuted for criminal negligence
Agree though, that this is the real problem: either no temporary Orders or not properly made, or allowed to expire before end of works, or signs left out after works finished - in which case they have no legal effect.I take a distinctly different view of this due to the experiences I have had with numerous councils, roads departments and contractors.
In some of these cases it was the signs themselves that were illegal or forgotten, causing huge inconvenience and traffic chaos: they were never prosecuted for criminal negligence
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff