Using the authority provided by Section 131(2) of the Highways Act 1981, which permits the 'pulling down' or 'obliteration' of signs 'illegally placed on the highway', a sign saying '30m>' to a road hump in Nightingale Road, Cambridge (just by Addenbrookes Hospital, the scene of two previous 'Imperial conversions') was today removed from the public highway to ensure compliance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

Cambridge City Council has been advised to comply with the law and told to order and erect a new sign.

Tony,
Given that the law is very clear, why do you think councils persist in breaking it? What do they hope to gain?

Forum Owner wrote

<<
Given that the law is very clear
>>

In my view the law is as clear as mud. It states:

<<
'pulling down' or 'obliteration' of signs 'illegally placed on the highway'
>>

This can be interpretted in a number of ways:

1. A sign that is placed on the highway by somebody who has no authority to do so.

2. The placing of an illegal sign on the highway.

TO date the courts have not decided which of these interpretations apply and no local council is willing to fork out the money to fund such an investigation.

If this were put to the courts, I believe that case (1) applies in general, and that case (2) only applies if the member of the public is able to show that the sign in question posed such a hazard as to require immediate action.

Martin,

JUST accept what the TSRGD says, about metric signage.

BWMA, the councils probably hope that we'll give up trying to rescue the mile, not only are they anxious to influence its way in e.g. lying about pedestrian signs one way or another.

Frederick wrote

<<
JUST accept what the TSRGD says, about metric signage.
>>

The point of the matter is that the Highways Act is Primary legislation (ie it was debated by Parliament) and the TRSGD is secondary legislation (ie rules made by the Secretary of State under the powers conferred to him by primary legislation).

I was challenging the Forum Owner about a point in the primary legislation. In such circumstances the secondary legislatiion (such as the TRSGD) is irrelevant.

<<
Using the authority provided by Section 131(2) of the Highways Act 1981, which permits the 'pulling down' or 'obliteration' of signs 'illegally placed on the highway', a sign saying '30m>' to a road hump in Nightingale Road, Cambridge (just by Addenbrookes Hospital, the scene of two previous 'Imperial conversions') was today removed from the public highway to ensure compliance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
>>

What consideration was given to the fact that a hazard warning was degraded from some indication being given to nothing at all being given?

Tony Bennett you are evil!

So, Metre Man, you are concerned - even indignant - about motorists coming across road humps without an adequate warning. Then may I suggest that wherever you find road humps which are not clearly marked with white markings (usualy triangular), you pick up the 'phone to the local Council concerned and ask them to get them re-painted ASAP. This applies to tens of thousands of road humps - many of which are virtually invisible if they are not painted or if the original painting has worn off.

Dealing with tne Nightingale Road sign in Cambridge, the sign '30m>' was placed about 30 yards from the road hump. At a speed of 30 mph, the hump comes up about 2 seconds' travelling time after the sign - i.e. virtually immediately. So there is no additional risk by removing the '30m>' sign. I'm sure that if Cambridgeshire Coutny Council conclude that the removal of the illegal distance sign is as dangerous as you claim, they'll be round there at 8.00am tomorrow erecting a sign that says '30 yds' and so complies with the law

There is no excuse for your unauthorised intervention in these issues about signs which only add to the risk rather than reduce them.

If you believe that you are empowered in law to do so then you are sick.

re (Metre Man): "...then you are sick"

In a continuous working career of 34 years, I have had fewer than 10 days' absence through sickness.

This is a matter for gratitude, not self-congratulation.

Incidentally, Metre Man, you should be aware that it is well known that when people resort to using terms of abuse about others, they are usually holding up a mirror to themselves

Metre Man - you are increasing looking like a bizzare joke.

Keep those insults coming - it teaches the rest of us an awful lot about you personally (in regards to Tony's "mirror" theory).