PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Restricted Road (30mph), Does it have to have street lighting?
angelman
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 11:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,215



I haven't been on the boards for a while, as I have been a very very good boy. But got a NIP.

Very simple question - do restricted roads (signed at 30mph) have to have street lighting? I did a search of the forum, and it threw up all sorts of other things. 30 is signed at the beginning of the section, and there are repeaters every so often, but not a single street light, or rather, there is one or two a few hundred meters prior to where I was caught. The local traffic order clearly states that the section of road is intended to be 30.

I know that I transgressed so happy to take the medicine, but.....

This post has been edited by angelman: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 11:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Advertisement
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 11:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 11:30
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



A road with regular streetlighting without signage to the contrary will indeed be a restricted road of 30mph.

For a road without streetlighting there needs to be regular repeaters to maintain the limit. Also, as you note the traffic order confirms the limit - a restricted road doesn't need such an order.

If the signs were sufficient to convey the limit then it appears you need to take your medicine. What speed is alleged?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 13:14
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (angelman @ Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 11:11) *
I haven't been on the boards for a while, as I have been a very very good boy. But got a NIP.

Very simple question - do restricted roads (signed at 30mph) have to have street lighting? I did a search of the forum, and it threw up all sorts of other things. 30 is signed at the beginning of the section, and there are repeaters every so often, but not a single street light, or rather, there is one or two a few hundred meters prior to where I was caught. The local traffic order clearly states that the section of road is intended to be 30.

I know that I transgressed so happy to take the medicine, but.....

There's two types of 30 limits, there's "restricted roads" where the speed limit is automatically 30 due to the presence of street lighting (and the use of 30 mph signs is prohibited), and there's 30 mph speed limits that are imposed by means of a local order and 30 mph signs (and by definition these cannot be "restricted roads" within the meaning of the Road Traffic Regulation Act).

From what you say, you were not caught on a restricted road, instead you were caught on an unlit road with a 30 mile per hour speed limit in force. As long as the signs give adequate guidance (which you don't seem to dispute), the limit is perfectly enforceable.

If you think about it, it would be really odd if you couldn't have a 30 limit on an unlit road, given you can have a 20 or a 40 limit in such circumstances.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
angelman
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 17:05
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,215



I was allegedly doing 36. Strange as I really was just tootling about, but I am not going to dispute as by the time I looked down at the speedo, it was registering 36.

I also have gone back to the relevant Traffic Act, and it seems that I should have put my glasses on as I've made a hash of things. In the order Schedule 1 lists various restricted roads, and schedule 2 is for roads with 30mph limits, which is the one I was on (as per the PDF on here http://www3.hants.gov.uk/pnadetail?noticeUID=6581)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 17:14
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



You should be offered a course to avoid the points...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 20:13
Post #6


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



ISTR many years ago there was a case appealed to the High Court where a TRO made a road without street lights a restricted road (under s. 82 RTRA 1984, rather than s. 84) - or somesuch. IIRC there were the appropriate repeaters, etc. - the issue was whether the TRO was defective. The outcome was that it wasn't defective because if you squint enough the words can be mangled sufficiently to make it legal.

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 20:13


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

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 21:31
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 20:13) *
ISTR many years ago there was a case appealed to the High Court where a TRO made a road without street lights a restricted road (under s. 82 RTRA 1984, rather than s. 84) - or somesuch. IIRC there were the appropriate repeaters, etc. - the issue was whether the TRO was defective. The outcome was that it wasn't defective because if you squint enough the words can be mangled sufficiently to make it legal.

How was the TRO said to be defective?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 07:09
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



In that it created a restricted road of a road with no streetlights, as such it was a 30 limit by virtue of being restricted but no repeaters were aloud as it was restricted.

The original appeal hearing stated that it ‘drove a horse and cart through the intention of Parliament’ (Or similar) intended to allow roads that had lighting to be remade a restricted road where a higher limit had been imposed in the interim.

As AF says, the high court mangled the English to allow it to stand.

That was in Worcestershire in 2003. A starting point if you want to read up is here http://original.abd.org.uk/30.htm

The High court judgement fudgement https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?d.../2004/2785.html

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 09:40


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:28
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The judgment makes perfect sense and I would have reached the same conclusion.

The alternative would be to say that section 81(2) is only there for the purpose of making a lit road with a limit higher than 30 into a restricted road again, but to achieve that it's sufficient to simply revoke the relevant TRO.

So the only alternative interpretation is to say that section 81(2) is redundant, which cannot be right. Parliament must be taken to have enacted section 81(2) for a meaningful purpose, IMO the High Court judges were entirely right in reaching the conclusions they did.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:32
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Despite the fact you end up with a road with a 30 limit and no streelighting or repeaters to inform a driver that it is a 30 limit?

Despite 'winning' Worcestershire created new orders making them 30mph limits and installing the repeaters that were previously not there.

Warwickshire had at least one and did the same.


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 12:01
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:32) *
Despite the fact you end up with a road with a 30 limit and no streelighting or repeaters to inform a driver that it is a 30 limit?

But they did have repeaters, this was not disputed. The court's decision was plainly right, on any other interpretation, section 81(2) would be entirely redundant.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 12:01


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:44
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here