It has now been reported that this approach has been blocked by the Department for Transport (DfT) who have indicated that obtaining driver details for that purpose is unlawful. The DfT have told the DVLA to stop sharing details of drivers caught speeding under the scheme.
Barrie Segal, an expert on motoring law who runs a web site called MyappealNow, has also said that he believes this scheme is illegal as only the police can enforce speed limits. He would be interested in hearing from anyone who is issued with a PCN by any council in such circumstances.
Comment: Motorists need to oppose this attempt to extend the law so that councils can generate money from minor infringements of speed limits.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
I commented previously on the use of PCNs to enforce 20 mph speed limits on certain roads in the London Borough of Wandsworth – see links below. After exchanging numerous emails with the Council and looking into the relevant Acts of Parliament I have come to the conclusion that they have no proper legal grounds for issuing PCNs in these circumstances.
They claim to have taken two legal reviews which supports their stance. But why two? Did the first one not give the right answers?
After my last question to them they simply said “It would appear we are at an impasse, legal advice is privilege information and I have nothing further to add at this time”, i.e. they seem to be stumped for an answer.
Our advice to anyone who receives a PCN for exceeding a 20-mph speed limit in Wandsworth is to challenge it and take it to appeal to London Tribunals.
We are considering a wider legal challenge and if anyone would like to assist with that please contact me (tel: 020-8295-0378 during office hours).
The Council claims to be relying on the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. (LLA &TfL Act 2003) and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. (RTR Act 84). Specifically Section 4(5)(a) of the LLA&TfL Act 2003 that allows for Penalty Charge Notices to be issued for contravening a Prescribed Order. I pointed out that a prescribed order can only apply where there is a contravention of a traffic sign listed in Schedule 3 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. There is no 20 mph sign limit listed in Schedule 3. And Section 4(6)(a) says: “No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where—(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign; or….”. They also claimed support of Section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which specifically refers to “Speed limits on roads other than restricted roads” so only applies to non-restricted roads. The roads under discussion are almost certainly “restricted roads”.
The legislation in this area is exceedingly complex and difficult to understand but I believe they have simply misinterpreted it in their enthusiasm to raise money from drivers who might not challenge PCNs.
20 Mph speed limits may be enforceable by the police but Councils have no authority to issue PCNs for breaches of 20 mph limits in our view.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
I have asked the Council to provide information on what public consultation took place on this proposal and a copy of the Traffic Management Order (TMO) used to impose it (which was not published anywhere so far as I can see). They provided the latter but were very evasive about the former even though they claim they received 23 responses. I am pursuing it further.
But I have sent in an objection to the TMO as follows and I suggest readers do the same.
I refer to “The Wandsworth (Prescribed Routes) (20mph Speed Limit) Experimental Order 2021”
Please note our objections to this Order for the following reasons:
1. The 20-mph limit on the roads concerned is likely to have very little, if any, impact on road casualties. I quote from a recent article in the Daily Mail: “Researchers from Queen’s University Belfast, Edinburgh University and the University of Cambridge collected data on traffic collisions, casualties, driver speed and traffic volume before a 20mph limit was introduced, as well as one and three years afterwards.
Their study encompassed 76 streets in the city centre, and they compared data with that collected from nearby streets where the restrictions did not apply. Analysis showed that when compared with the sites that had retained their speed limits, a 20mph speed limit was associated with little change in short or long-termaccident statistics.
Small reductions in road traffic collisions of 3 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively, were observed one and three years after the policy took effect. But there was no statistically significant difference over time, the researchers said.
Similarly, casualty rates fell by 16 per cent and 22 per cent, respectively, one and three years after implementation – but these reductions also weren’t statistically significant”.
3. The roads on which you are enforcing the 20 limit are inappropriate for a 20 limit. For example Wimbledon Park Road is a straight and relatively wide road which drivers will not perceive as needing a 20 limit. Is there really a road safety problem in this road?
4. The ability of the Council to enforce such a limit via the issue of PCNs rather than have police pursue a prosecution suggests the motive for the scheme is to enable the Council to collect money from fines rather than to improve road safety.
5. We have studied the relevant Acts of Parliament referred to in the TMO and we cannot see that they enable enforcement of the 20 limit in this way by Wandsworth Council. London Councils certainly have powers to enforce parking restrictions, road closures and certain other traffic offences but we do not see that this extends to 20-mph speed limits. Please point out exactly which provisions in those Acts are being relied upon.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Wandsworth Council is suspending its Low Traffic Neighbourhood which has affected areas such as Tooting and West Putney following an urgent review subsequent to residents’ complaints. Wandsworth Council’s cabinet member for strategic planning and transportation, Cllr John Locker said:
“We have monitored the traffic flows and listened to feedback from residents and businesses. We have also spoken to our partners including local hospitals and key services to hear the impact on them.
It is clear that the LTNs are not delivering the benefits we want to see. In fact it looks like the combination of changes in areas like Tooting, where TfL are making changes to the main high road, are unfortunately having the opposite effect. That is why we have taken the difficult decision to pause and re-think about how we can achieve our objective of delivering healthier, safer streets”
He added: “We all want to do what is right environmentally, whilst maintaining people’s ability to travel and making sure town centres and high streets function properly. It’s important that we listen to what people are saying so that we get this right.”
But other London Councils such as Lewisham are not listening and are still persevering in the vain home that the worsening traffic congestion they have caused will go away. It will not.
Opposition is growing to road closures across London with many local groups being formed. The Freedom for Drivers Foundation is happy to advise or assist any local groups.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The following is an interesting article recently received from a contributor who prefers to remain anonymous. It no doubt reflects the views of many of our supporters:
“Over the recent months of attempting to carry on with life under the dark cloud of Covid19 we have all learnt that there are sacrifices that we must make for the greater good of the community. The great British public have rallied to the cause and, in the main, accepted the restrictions to the conduct of their daily lives.
My fear is that we are being forced to accept a number of limitations to our freedoms that are not justified by the Covid crisis but are being implemented without care or consultation.
I am specifically concerned about the redistribution of the road space in favour of pedestrians and cyclists and against the interests of other road users be they private motorists, commercial users or those on public transport.
The widening of payments and cycle lanes, the closures to facilitate pavement restaurants, and, worst of all, the closure of many routes through suburban areas all come at a cost. There is more congestion and hence more pollution and longer journey times consuming more fuel and adding to the burden of private citizen and business operation alike.
Anyone who has tried to get a response from a local council over the last few months will be familiar with the refrain that “Due to Covid 19 there are restrictions on staffing and many services may take longer to implement”. Given that councils are unable to provide basic and urgent care and support services it is a miracle that they are somehow able to create road closures complete with blooming planters overnight!
Perhaps we should question our representatives about what their priorities are.
A cynical person might suspect that they are diverting the few available resources they have to these road closure schemes because the current Covid 19 regulations allow them to introduce them with little or no consultation. It is quite clear that many of these schemes have been ill thought out and are causing chaos. This is hardly surprising given that so little thought has gone in to considering the consequences on neighbouring streets. My only thought is that what the council can put in place overnight residents could remove in the same timescale.
This is only one part of the concerted effort to bully and demonise the motorist. It is said that there should be no taxation without representation and maybe this is a lesson that the motoring public can learn. If the available road space is to be redistributed in favour of pedestrians and cyclist then the burden of tax should move in the same direction. That motorists are treated as cash cows and required to pay more and more for less and less is nothing short of a scandal that will eventually lead to acts of civil disobedience”
<END>
Wandsworth Road Closures
On the subject of road closures, the following is a note recently received on a demonstration against them in Wandsworth on the 12thSeptember:
“The onewandsworth group are arranging a peaceful socially distant protest, details can be found below
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The London Borough of Richmond is set to ignore a public consultation where a majority of respondents opposed the introduction of a borough-wide 20 mph speed limit. The almost 10,000 respondents voted 47.9% in favour and 49.7% against. There was even less support for the notion that 20 mph speed limits will improve air quality and reduce car use.
However they have made some changes to the original proposals with more roads excluded from the scheme. See https://tinyurl.com/y2qcfz2m for more details.
Note that the LibDems won control of Richmond Council in 2018 when it had previously been Conservative controlled. They took over from LibDems in 2010 after the latter repeatedly ignored public opinion, e.g. over emission-based permit parking charges.
Comment: It looks like the LibDems are back to ignoring the results of public consultations, presumably because they think they know better. A very dubious decision which they will surely live to regret.
Wandsworth Claim 20 Mph Success, But Is It?
Meanwhile the neighbouring London Borough of Wandsworth have claimed a success for their borough-wide 20 Mph scheme which was implemented in 2017. Analysis of the first year post implementation data indicated a reduction of 9% in casualties although mean traffic speeds only fell by 0.6 mph. On that basis they have claimed it to be a success although casualties actually fell by 28% across all roads in the borough (which includes the Transport for London controlled main roads where the speed limit generally remained unchanged).
The other problem with this data is that using only a one-year post implementation period is known to distort the figures. A three-year before and after period is recommended by road safety engineers to avoid temporary reactions to perceived road changes.
But Wandsworth is claiming it as a success anyway and is looking to impose 20 mph limits on some major roads such as Putney High Street.
