Overtaking and traffic islands

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

For all those who say it is illegal, what is the offence you think is committed?

No idea on chapter & verse, but isn't it an offence (under something - helpful, eh?) to fail to abide by a mandatory road sign or marking (eg an arrow directing flow on a one way street, or a white arrow painted on the road at a junction/set of lights)?

The arrows painted on the road are IIRC merely guidance, not compulsory.

I am interested in what the actual offence is ( if there is one)

Agent57

spen666 wrote:

For all those who say it is illegal, what is the offence you think is committed?


I'm not sure it is illegal per se.

In certain circumstances, it could be careless or inconsiderate driving/ cycling or even dangerous. However, this would depend on circumstances.

I do not advocate doing it, but am not certain it is illegal per se

In the UK, I would expect the island to have a traffic bollard on it like this:



In the Highway Code, Rules for cyclists (59-82) it says:

69

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

Since that bollard is a traffic sign, cyclists must obey it and keep left (though what the exact offence is, I wouldn't know). If there's no such bollard on the island, I assume it'd be OK for cars and cycles to pass on either side.

Edit: It seems the offence would be "failure to comply with a traffic sign" -- although again, I don't know what the punishment would be for a cyclist. Can't get 3 penalty points, so maybe some fixed penalty fine.

spen666

Agent 57 - I do not think the bollard is a traffic sign as per the relevant part of the RTA & the TSRGD

biondino

Asprilla wrote:

I do it on Fulham Road. There is one junction where it's two lanes one side and one lane plus bus lane on the other which causes the traffic to back up. It's a yellow hatching junction and the traffic generally respects this, so I generally go up the right, round the traffic island and then from right to left into the bus lane as I cross the junction.

Everyone else is stationary and I don't horse it, so I see it as a safe manouver.

I know exactly where you mean, and you, sir, are worse than Hitler.

jimmypippa

Agent57 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

If there were no motor vehicles, there would also be no nice smooth (hopefully) tarmac.

Why not? The CTC were campaigning for better roads back in the nineteenth century. Indeed, I recall reading that the CTC were instrumental early on in getting some roads covered in tarmac or asphalt (although I can't find the reference now).

I've heard that too (think it was teh gruniad)

Agent57

spen666 wrote:

Agent 57 - I do not think the bollard is a traffic sign as per the relevant part of the RTA & the TSRGD

Why not? The circular sign certainly looks like one to me. Obviously, I'm not an authority on what does or doesn't constitute a traffic sign; or the difference between one that must be obeyed and one that's merely decoration.

litwardle

Of course it's a traffic sign! It's in a circle giving you an order. Just because it's on a platic bollard doesn't change the fact. It's only on a plastic bollard because as it's in the centre of the carriageway it's an illuminated bollard. It also caves in should you hit it.

Lee

Ian.B

Agent57 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Agent 57 - I do not think the bollard is a traffic sign as per the relevant part of the RTA & the TSRGD

Why not? The circular sign certainly looks like one to me. Obviously, I'm not an authority on what does or doesn't constitute a traffic sign; or the difference between one that must be obeyed and one that's merely decoration.

+1, why not? which relevant part of the RTA and regs?

section 36(1), reg10(1)(a), reg 15(1) and diagram 610 seem to make it clear it's an offence to disregard the sign. And Sch 17 item 7 clearly envisages the sign being mounted on a bollard.

spen666

litwardle wrote:

Of course it's a traffic sign! It's in a circle giving you an order. Just because it's on a platic bollard doesn't change the fact. It's only on a plastic bollard because as it's in the centre of the carriageway it's an illuminated bollard. It also caves in should you hit it.

Lee

Lee, The law does not work in the way you suggest

for a start the sign has to be of correct size, colour etc.

It has to be authorised by the appropriate SI or Order etc

Just because it is a white arrow on a blue circle does not mean it is a legal requirement to follow it

litwardle

Maybe not, riding otherwise in accordance with it would probably be classed as driving without due care and attention. If, for example you hit a car/ped etc. Then you would be in the wrong for ignoring the instruction/advisory/whetever sign.

Lee

Agent57

spen666 wrote:

for a start the sign has to be of correct size, colour etc.

It has to be authorised by the appropriate SI or Order etc

Just because it is a white arrow on a blue circle does not mean it is a legal requirement to follow it

Well, Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 1 says:

Signing includes not only signs on posts but also carriageway markings, beacons, studs, bollards, traffic signals and other devices.

(1.1 page 11)

Also, on page 20 it says:

1.77 Specifications for construction of signs, bollards and their supports are contained in the current edition of British Standard No 873, The Construction of Road Traffic Signs and Internally Illuminated Bollards. No signs should be purchased unless they comply with this standard or with the equivalent standard of a European Economic Area member state.

To me, that suggests they are included in road signage that must be obeyed.

Again, I'm not an expert; if you are I'm happy to concede to your greater wisdom -- but again, it seems odd to me that car drivers (and cyclists) are expected to know which signs are mandatory to obey, and which are merely advisory. We wouldn't get out and measure a sign as we pass it, and the Highway Code only shows the signs - it doesn't say how large they should be in order to be mandatory. Although, that said, I know Matrix signs on motorways for example are advisory unless within a red circle, so I accept it's possible that some road signs aren't mandatory.

Ian.B

spen666 wrote:

litwardle wrote:

Of course it's a traffic sign! It's in a circle giving you an order. Just because it's on a platic bollard doesn't change the fact. It's only on a plastic bollard because as it's in the centre of the carriageway it's an illuminated bollard. It also caves in should you hit it.

Lee

Lee, The law does not work in the way you suggest

for a start the sign has to be of correct size, colour etc.

It has to be authorised by the appropriate SI or Order etc

Just because it is a white arrow on a blue circle does not mean it is a legal requirement to follow it

Well yes, but I think it's fair to assume that the standard 'keep left' bollard on British roads does comply with the regulations as regards the correct size, colour etc, and is therefore mandatory

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

Lee, The law does not work in the way you suggest

for a start the sign has to be of correct size, colour etc.

It has to be authorised by the appropriate SI or Order etc

Just because it is a white arrow on a blue circle does not mean it is a legal requirement to follow it

You know what Spen, I'm sure you're right

But it depresses me that we, as a society, have got to this point

Agent57

Well if I were a magistrate and someone tried to get out of a fine by claiming it wasn't a proper sign, I'd tell him to GTFO and pay up.

litwardle

@agent57 Goid point well made!

amnezia

My moped riding friend got a PCN from TFL for riding down the wrong side of a traffic island.

The PCN stated - failing to drive in direction shown by a blue arrow, you can see more info here:

http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/si ... blue-sign/

specifically 32P, which is the sign used on bollards.

Agent57

From that site:

Contravention code 62:
Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than the carriageway (footpath parking) – You are not allowed to park with a wheel on the pavement within the M25 unless specifically allowed by signage. Elsewhere you can park on the pavement unless specifically prohibited.

I didn't think cars were actually allowed to park on the pavement (footway).

prj45

nich wrote:

If the traffic is built up on the left, can you overtake going around the island (if there's no oncoming traffic!)

Highly illegal. I once saw the result of a full on smash of a motorbike that had gone round the island and a lady who had not looked the "wrong" way when crossing the road.

It wasn't nice, and whilst a cyclist is not going to cause the same amount of damage, I still think it's a pretty low thing to do.

prj45

spen666 wrote:

For all those who say it is illegal, what is the offence you think is committed?


I'm not sure it is illegal per se.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 wrote:

Section 3

Sign shown in diagram 610 [keep left/keep right] and its significance
15. - (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the requirement conveyed by the sign shown in diagram 610 shall be that vehicular traffic passing the sign must keep to the left of the sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left, or to the right of the sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the right.

(2) On an occasion where a vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance, bomb or explosive disposal, national blood service or police purposes and the observance of the requirement specified in paragraph (1) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for one of those purposes then, instead of that requirement, the requirement conveyed by the sign in question shall be that the vehicle shall not proceed beyond that sign in such a manner or at such a time as to be likely to endanger any person.

(3) The requirement specified in paragraph (1) does not apply to a tramcar or trolley vehicle.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#15

_Brun_

Must've gone past this hundreds of times, but for some reason it caught my attention tonight.

Very proud to have never ridden round the wrong side of it.

spen666

Agent57 wrote:

Well if I were a magistrate and someone tried to get out of a fine by claiming it wasn't a proper sign, I'd tell him to GTFO and pay up.

So you favour people being randomly convicted of offences they have not committed?

sounds to me like alynch mob mentality.


fortunately in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. ie the Crown have to prove you have committed an offence, not the other way round. This is an essential freedom

spen666

prj45 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

For all those who say it is illegal, what is the offence you think is committed?


I'm not sure it is illegal per se.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 wrote:

Section 3

Sign shown in diagram 610 [keep left/keep right] and its significance
15. - (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the requirement conveyed by the sign shown in diagram 610 shall be that vehicular traffic passing the sign must keep to the left of the sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left, or to the right of the sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the right.

(2) On an occasion where a vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance, bomb or explosive disposal, national blood service or police purposes and the observance of the requirement specified in paragraph (1) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for one of those purposes then, instead of that requirement, the requirement conveyed by the sign in question shall be that the vehicle shall not proceed beyond that sign in such a manner or at such a time as to be likely to endanger any person.

(3) The requirement specified in paragraph (1) does not apply to a tramcar or trolley vehicle.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#15

I have not seen the pictures, nor have I seen the relevant definition of vehicular traffic in this section.

Does it apply to motor vehicles only or does it include pedal cycles.

The law is not as black and white asyou may think or want it to be.

spen666

prj45 wrote:

nich wrote:

If the traffic is built up on the left, can you overtake going around the island (if there's no oncoming traffic!)

Highly illegal. I once saw the result of a full on smash of a motorbike that had gone round the island and a lady who had not looked the "wrong" way when crossing the road.

It wasn't nice, and whilst a cyclist is not going to cause the same amount of damage, I still think it's a pretty low thing to do.

Interesting that you start by referring to the legality issue and highlight it with an anecdote about the effects of it- ie not a reference to the legislation that makes it illegal, but a reference to an emotive anecdote


[ For the avoidance of doubt, i'm not suggesting anyone should ride the "wrong" side of an island or bollard]

Agent57

spen666 wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Well if I were a magistrate and someone tried to get out of a fine by claiming it wasn't a proper sign, I'd tell him to GTFO and pay up.

So you favour people being randomly convicted of offences they have not committed?

sounds to me like alynch mob mentality.


fortunately in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. ie the Crown have to prove you have committed an offence, not the other way round. This is an essential freedom

I'm in favour of people not getting off on "a technicality". If someone's obviously guilty despite some trivial red tape -- such as a sign being an inch too small -- I'm happy to see the prosecution stick, yes.

Where signage is missing or clearly substantially inadequate, that'd be another matter.

I'm in favour of common sense, and application of the spirit of the law, not necessarily the letter of the law.

spen666

Agent57 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Well if I were a magistrate and someone tried to get out of a fine by claiming it wasn't a proper sign, I'd tell him to GTFO and pay up.

So you favour people being randomly convicted of offences they have not committed?

sounds to me like alynch mob mentality.


fortunately in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. ie the Crown have to prove you have committed an offence, not the other way round. This is an essential freedom

I'm in favour of people not getting off on "a technicality". If someone's obviously guilty despite some trivial red tape -- such as a sign being an inch too small -- I'm happy to see the prosecution stick, yes.

The technicality is being not guilty.

The Crown must prove all elements of its case if they do not, then the offence is not made out.

Its not a technicality at all, its an essential element of the case not being proven. All elements of the offence have to be proven


by your logic someone accused of murder and acquitted because the victim was not dead also gets off on a technicality

Agent57

spen666 wrote:

by your logic someone accused of murder and acquitted because the victim was not dead also gets off on a technicality

Yes, you're right, That's exactly what I'm saying.

:roll:

spen666

Agent57 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

by your logic someone accused of murder and acquitted because the victim was not dead also gets off on a technicality

Yes, you're right, That's exactly what I'm saying.

:roll:

If it is not an element that is essential to the offence, then it would not form part of the offence

Parliament thought it necessary that someone died to found an offence of murder upon.

similarily, parliament found it essential to the road sign offences that signs are of specific sizes and colour etc.

You can't ignore essential elements of the offence because you don't like them. Persuade Parliament to change the law. However, everyone is entitled to know what the law is and what is required for an offence

If not, then no one c an act in accordance with the law. would you be happy being convicted of a traffic light offence even though the traffic lights were not working?

Agent57

spen666 wrote:

would you be happy being convicted of a traffic light offence even though the traffic lights were not working?

If the traffic lights are not working, how could one be guilty of an offence? If the offence were "failing to stop at a red light", and there's no red light, where's the offence?

Do you mean a set of lights that are permanently stuck on red? If so, then no; if I crawled through the red because the lights were broken, I wouldn't be happy with being convicted. That's what I mean, though; I'd want some common sense applied, and the spirit of the law, not necessarily the letter of the law. But I think this is the opposite scenario from someone failing to be convicted because a sign was slightly wrong. It's obvious what the spirit of the sign is, and as long as it's not significantly incorrect, I don't really see the problem.

I think it's similar to a driver who gets caught by a speed camera. For the sake of argument, let's say he's doing 38mph in a 30mph zone. Then he successfully appeals against the ticket because the camera was obscured by a tree (or something). To me, he's still guilty of speeding. If we assume that the cameras themselves are accurate, again for the sake of argument, then the evidence is there. But because he wasn't given an opportunity to slow down for the camera, he gets away with it. In fact, he shouldn't need a warning, since he shouldn't be speeding in the first place.

Yes, in both cases (someone driving slowly through a broken red light, and someone speeding), they're guilty of an offence, but I see it as different if one person is let off because there are reasonable extenuating circumstances, and another is let off because a tree was obscuring the camera.

But hey, I'm not a magistrate, nor will I ever be, so it doesn't really matter too much what I think.

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

If it is not an element that is essential to the offence, then it would not form part of the offence

Parliament thought it necessary that someone died to found an offence of murder upon.

similarily, parliament found it essential to the road sign offences that signs are of specific sizes and colour etc.

You can't ignore essential elements of the offence because you don't like them. Persuade Parliament to change the law. However, everyone is entitled to know what the law is and what is required for an offence

Spen, you sometimes come across badly, but to your credit that's a very good post.

Suppose the real question is how could 'the authorities' be stupid enough to put up road signs which weren't the correct spec????

spen666

Agent57 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

would you be happy being convicted of a traffic light offence even though the traffic lights were not working?

If the traffic lights are not working, how could one be guilty of an offence? If the offence were "failing to stop at a red light", and there's no red light, where's the offence?

if the required sign is not present then how can one be guilty of the road sign offence.

The traffic lights are required to be working - this is an essential part of traffic light offence

The road sign is required to be of a specific size and colour - this is an essential part of the offence

Do you mean a set of lights that are permanently stuck on red? If so, then no; if I crawled through the red because the lights were broken, I wouldn't be happy with being convicted. That's what I mean, though; I'd want some common sense applied, and the spirit of the law, not necessarily the letter of the law. But I think this is the opposite scenario from someone failing to be convicted because a sign was slightly wrong. It's obvious what the spirit of the sign is, and as long as it's not significantly incorrect, I don't really see the problem.

That is perhaps why you are not a legislator or a lawyer!

Ask instead, why did Parliament specify the precise sizes and colours if they did not intend them to be requirements

You can't ignore parts of legislation when it suits you. The road user is entitled to know what the laws are before he is prosecuted.

for whatever reason Parliament chose to define sizes and colours of signs.

It may seem silly, but that is what the law is. Until it is changed, then the law can't be ignored and people who have not committed an offence be convicted

I think it's similar to a driver who gets caught by a speed camera. For the sake of argument, let's say he's doing 38mph in a 30mph zone. Then he successfully appeals against the ticket because the camera was obscured by a tree (or something). To me, he's still guilty of speeding.

To you maybe, but if the essential legal elements are not made out, then he is not guilty in law and i9s rightly not convicted.


BTW the example you give would not happen as there is no legal requirement that speed camera is visible - it guidance not law

If we assume that the cameras themselves are accurate, again for the sake of argument, then the evidence is there. But because he wasn't given an opportunity to slow down for the camera, he gets away with it. In fact, he shouldn't need a warning, since he shouldn't be speeding in the first place.

Yes, in both cases (someone driving slowly through a broken red light, and someone speeding), they're guilty of an offence, but I see it as different if one person is let off because there are reasonable extenuating circumstances, and another is let off because a tree was obscuring the camera.

But hey, I'm not a magistrate, nor will I ever be, so it doesn't really matter too much what I think.