the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 13:19 get out and trash the lights? Satisfying and avoids a traffic offence, but may involve committing criminal damage.
What would the consequence of getting out and turning the traffic signal away from the lane so that drivers cannot see it?
I suspect that's all police would do, if it's quiet enough.
To be clear, it is illegal to interfere with temporary traffic management unless you are authorised to do so. That includes me, with TM tickets, can't interfere with another contractor's scheme.
Best thing to do is ring the council as they will know who is working there, or police if out-of-hours. I've normally proceeded with caution through red & then rang police.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
AndyB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 15:07
A red traffic light, unfortunately, is a red traffic light whether it is a temporary or permanent installation, and it is always technically an offence to disobey it.
If someone approaches two way TTLs at red, waits for two clear cycles of traffic to come the other way with no green, proceeds with caution after the next wave the opposite way, and someone comes the other way on green and crashes into them, then their dashcam is evidence that the lights appeared to be stuck on red. Sufficient doubt for it never to go for prosecution.
Whilst they might consider that a justification, red light offences are absolute offences, the offences is complete once you have passed the 7011 sign. There can be no mitigation other than that specified I.e. instructed by a uniformed constable etc.
Bendo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 17:40
Whilst they might consider that a justification, red light offences are absolute offences, the offences is complete once you have passed the 7011 sign. There can be no mitigation other than that specified I.e. instructed by a uniformed constable etc.
It'd be interesting how this would work from an insurance P.O.V. because while driver might be liable for 3 points & £100 fine, their insurance company may argue they took the reasonable approach and the contractor is liable for installing faulty equipment. Civil tort is determined on the balance of the evidence rather than absolutes.
Burns wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:20
Here are the official rules: Let's say Clancy Docwra turn up on a Friday afternoon, dig a small, pointless hole then bugger off for the weekend, as long as you can see from one end to the other, the temporary traffic lights are permissible and its legal to ignore them.
Official rules from where? Certainly not in any legislation I've read so the actual bit of legislation that covers the would be good to know. I suspect it doesn't exist however.
In the unlikely event it existed I'm sure it would be "you may treat it as give way" rather than "you may ignore it completely".
Bendo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 17:40
Whilst they might consider that a justification, red light offences are absolute offences, the offences is complete once you have passed the 7011 sign. There can be no mitigation other than that specified I.e. instructed by a uniformed constable etc.
It'd be interesting how this would work from an insurance P.O.V. because while driver might be liable for 3 points & £100 fine, their insurance company may argue they took the reasonable approach and the contractor is liable for installing faulty equipment. Civil tort is determined on the balance of the evidence rather than absolutes.
Amongst many other arguments, I suspect speed would be considered eg did the drivers involved proceed slowly with caution or just blast through like it wasn't there?
AndyB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 15:07
A red traffic light, unfortunately, is a red traffic light whether it is a temporary or permanent installation, and it is always technically an offence to disobey it.
If someone approaches two way TTLs at red, waits for two clear cycles of traffic to come the other way with no green, proceeds with caution after the next wave the opposite way, and someone comes the other way on green and crashes into them, then their dashcam is evidence that the lights appeared to be stuck on red. Sufficient doubt for it never to go for prosecution.
Whilst they might consider that a justification, red light offences are absolute offences, the offences is complete once you have passed the 7011 sign. There can be no mitigation other than that specified I.e. instructed by a uniformed constable etc.
This kind of thing is why strict liability isn't fit for purpose, at least as long as a similar absolute duty isn't imposed on the operator of the lights to ensure they work properly.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Bendo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 17:40
Whilst they might consider that a justification, red light offences are absolute offences, the offences is complete once you have passed the 7011 sign. There can be no mitigation other than that specified I.e. instructed by a uniformed constable etc.
I wonder if there could be an argument that they didn't pass a traffic signal on red, as the thing they passed is not in fact a traffic signal? A fundamental part of being a traffic signal is that it displays changing aspects to control the traffic. A signal that only ever shows red is not performing this function. In fact it's indicating a full road closure, which is illegal without a TTRO authorising it.
What would the consequence of getting out and turning the traffic signal away from the lane so that drivers cannot see it?
Happens at least once a week on the Bath Road, Bristol ones. It's a TTL pedestrian crossing, so the consequence is pedestrians who don't notice press the button, get a green, but traffic doesn't get to see a red.
SteelCamel wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 22:28
I wonder if there could be an argument that they didn't pass a traffic signal on red, as the thing they passed is not in fact a traffic signal? A fundamental part of being a traffic signal is that it displays changing aspects to control the traffic. A signal that only ever shows red is not performing this function. In fact it's indicating a full road closure, which is illegal without a TTRO authorising it.
Where's the legislation or regulation stating maximum red and green periods for traffic signals, please?
SteelCamel wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 22:28
I wonder if there could be an argument that they didn't pass a traffic signal on red, as the thing they passed is not in fact a traffic signal? A fundamental part of being a traffic signal is that it displays changing aspects to control the traffic. A signal that only ever shows red is not performing this function. In fact it's indicating a full road closure, which is illegal without a TTRO authorising it.
Where's the legislation or regulation stating maximum red and green periods for traffic signals, please?
Guidance on the settings for portable signals is in this document, AKA The Pink Book:
The attached file allows you to calculate timings for 2, 3 or 4 way portable signals, with or without convoying. I can't vouch for how accurate or appropriate it may be.
SteelCamel wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 22:28
I wonder if there could be an argument that they didn't pass a traffic signal on red, as the thing they passed is not in fact a traffic signal? A fundamental part of being a traffic signal is that it displays changing aspects to control the traffic. A signal that only ever shows red is not performing this function. In fact it's indicating a full road closure, which is illegal without a TTRO authorising it.
Where's the legislation or regulation stating maximum red and green periods for traffic signals, please?
I assume this doesn't necessarily exist but it is an interesting point that a traffic signal only displaying red is clearly not operating as the legislation intends and may cease to be considered "lawfully placed" and may even constitute an unlawful obstruction. It would be interesting if case law existed for this but I doubt anything of the sort would ever make it to court.
Bendo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 17:40
Whilst they might consider that a justification, red light offences are absolute offences, the offences is complete once you have passed the 7011 sign. There can be no mitigation other than that specified I.e. instructed by a uniformed constable etc.
I wonder if there could be an argument that they didn't pass a traffic signal on red, as the thing they passed is not in fact a traffic signal? A fundamental part of being a traffic signal is that it displays changing aspects to control the traffic. A signal that only ever shows red is not performing this function. In fact it's indicating a full road closure, which is illegal without a TTRO authorising it.
How do you respond to Level Crossing lights stuck on red? If they fail with the crossing closed to the road, then it's a full road closure as not even the emergency services can ignore them until such times as the railway can attend and switch them off.
In any case, a red traffic light is a traffic sign with a specific meaning, and the offence is breach of a traffic sign.
Bendo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 17:40
Whilst they might consider that a justification, red light offences are absolute offences, the offences is complete once you have passed the 7011 sign. There can be no mitigation other than that specified I.e. instructed by a uniformed constable etc.
I wonder if there could be an argument that they didn't pass a traffic signal on red, as the thing they passed is not in fact a traffic signal? A fundamental part of being a traffic signal is that it displays changing aspects to control the traffic. A signal that only ever shows red is not performing this function. In fact it's indicating a full road closure, which is illegal without a TTRO authorising it.
How do you respond to Level Crossing lights stuck on red? If they fail with the crossing closed to the road, then it's a full road closure as not even the emergency services can ignore them until such times as the railway can attend and switch them off.
In any case, a red traffic light is a traffic sign with a specific meaning, and the offence is breach of a traffic sign.
The traffic sign must be lawfully placed for contravention to be illegal.
“Lawfully placed” is debatable, because the argument would be that the contractor could not reasonably have expected the fault to have occurred and had therefore placed it lawfully.
However, you’re correct that it would never make it to court. Any case that did make it to court would be as a result of a report for Driving without Due Care and Attention or something more serious after a collision caused by failing to miss a car coming the other way on green (or red).
Well in Cambridgeshire I have seen situations where the police/local authority simply went out and put hoods on the lights because they were causing chaos, the first example would have been around 1994 when the HA installed lights on the A14 junction at Bar Hill, the result was a catastrophic with traffic queuing all the way back down the M11/A14 to Girton and beyond.
The same happened not many years ago when the A174/A19 intersection got new 'smart' traffic lights. The queue on the A174 went back over 3 miles to Marton until they got turned off. It took weeks before the HA got it right. That said it now works pretty well.
AndyB wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 19:37
“Lawfully placed” is debatable, because the argument would be that the contractor could not reasonably have expected the fault to have occurred and had therefore placed it lawfully.
However, you’re correct that it would never make it to court. Any case that did make it to court would be as a result of a report for Driving without Due Care and Attention or something more serious after a collision caused by failing to miss a car coming the other way on green (or red).
"Lawfully placed" doesn't refer to the initial act of placing the sign but to its current state. A speed limit sign placed to enforce an ETRO will be legally placed when it is erected but cease to be so when the ETRO expires. All Warboys signs will probably have been lawfully placed at one point but won't be more. The argument would be, I suppose, that as soon the as the traffic signal fails, or after a certain amount of time, it ceases to be lawfully placed.
Hopefully this will arrest the use of PTS on 20 mph side streets like the ones near my flat last week which were running 4-way temps to allow a tiny hole to be dug. Why they didn't just, you know, close the junction and send people on the tiny diversion it would've taken around it is anyone's guess.
Did someone have a commission for "most PTS on a side street" or something?
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Hopefully this will arrest the use of PTS on 20 mph side streets like the ones near my flat last week which were running 4-way temps to allow a tiny hole to be dug. Why they didn't just, you know, close the junction and send people on the tiny diversion it would've taken around it is anyone's guess.
Did someone have a commission for "most PTS on a side street" or something?
You need a TTRO to close a road. With PTS you don't need a TTRO.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Hopefully this will arrest the use of PTS on 20 mph side streets like the ones near my flat last week which were running 4-way temps to allow a tiny hole to be dug. Why they didn't just, you know, close the junction and send people on the tiny diversion it would've taken around it is anyone's guess.
Did someone have a commission for "most PTS on a side street" or something?
You need a TTRO to close a road. With PTS you don't need a TTRO.
Yes, but if I was in charge of Bolton's highways I'd have said "WTF is this not a TTRO". I regularly spoke with the highways maintenance team at one of my first council roles to ensure that any TTM was appropriate, they appreciated the feedback. It's how we managed to prevent Halifax melting down when the parapets on Burdock Way needed replacing.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
get out and trash the lights? Satisfying and avoids a traffic offence, but may involve committing criminal damage.
