PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Switching off street light, Speeding defence
Lynnzer
post Mon, 22 Dec 2014 - 08:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,391
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Given that a lot of councils are now switching off street lights to save money they are obviously putting pedestrians at risk in built up areas. However, since the Road Traffic Regulation Act requires street lighting to be at intervals of 200 yards for the road to be a prescribed restricted road, any speeding offence caught in such circumstances can be defended n the premise that the road is not a restricted road and the speed limit unenforceable.

I'm all for saving money but have the relevant councils sought police or home office guidance on this for the matter of complying with the legal lighting requirements I wonder?

Has anyone successfully defended a speeding offence on that basis already perhaps?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 22)
Advertisement
post Mon, 22 Dec 2014 - 08:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 3 Jan 2015 - 13:11
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44,993
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The restricted road is effectively a national speed limit, single carriageway 60, DC and Mway 70, street lighting (except on a Mway) 30, it's not really hard if you can be bothered to read the Highway Code just once! the restricted road is the only 'NSL' that can be increased by order.

Back on topic now as it was about the effect of switching off street lights?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 4 Jan 2015 - 09:39
Post #22


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,951
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Other than that the first set of pundits are clearly wrong, what is there that can meaningfully be added to Fredd's summary?


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
matt285
post Tue, 6 Jan 2015 - 09:09
Post #23


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 3,043
Joined: 16 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,914



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 4 Jan 2015 - 09:39) *
Other than that the first set of pundits are clearly wrong, what is there that can meaningfully be added to Fredd's summary?


Maybe an explanation of why you think so. But then you don't tend to be very good in giving explanations, rather just bolsterous comments. But this is no news.

By the way - I agree with your point. It's just the way to convey a message...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 5th July 2020 - 23:50
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.