Who can legally stop traffic?

[russ p]

The reason I asked 'legally' was that if I had kids at school I would expect them to be always safe and supervised within the law. As I train driver I work within the rules and I expect other professions to do the same.

I don't normally get agitated by things like this but it was so unexpected and once I got the facts of what had happened so unprofessional. I hate to think who drives the school bus!!

[duncan]

On stopping traffic, if we are taking a convoy of classic cars up a single track hill, the traffic police suggest we have someone at the top asking motorists to wait at the top for the cars to come up.  Never had any trouble as the public usually are in no hurry & are delighted to see the old cars coming up (& often not slowly). 

 

Hiviz jacket, polite request / suggestion, but if public want to go down, we stop the next car starting at the bottom by radio, even the short wait guarentees a clear road down the hill & no problems passing.  We certainly don't stand in the road to stop them, a wave from the side is sufficient, but then the locals know what is happening & tourists are curious.  The problem is usually getting the public to go down, they all want to wait at the top, see the cars coming up & that can form quite a jam at the top.

 

We have no legal right, but it is courtesy & common sense. 

[melmoth]

Thanks Kenton, to be perfectly honest I didn't realise it was a school trip until the headmistress told me. I thought it was a few mothers with pre school kids on their way to pick up other kids

 

Surely it doesn't matter whether you though they were parents and pre-school kids or a teacher and school kids? Let's face it, if the worst were to have happened, the age range of the people involved wouldn't have influenced an inquest.

[YesTor]

We have no legal right, but it is courtesy and common sense. 

 

I think those few words sum occurrences such as this in a nutshell, ie. courtesy and common sense - two things which seem to be in short supply nowadays, which is why we seemingly require reams and reams of legislation and guidelines in order to be able to carry out the most basic of tasks, which should in effect require nothing more than, yes, basic courtesy and common sense.  Instead we find ourselves living in an increasingly namby-pamby world, ruled by nanny states, and whereby no-one takes responsibility for their own actions.

[alastairq]

 

We have no legal right, but it is courtesy & common sense. 

 

  I would hope the 'convoy'....[for that, in itself, has no more 'rights' than any other individual road user]..[or rather, the organisers of that 'convoy?']......is prepared to stop & wait, if an oncoming motorist chooses not to 'stop' at the top?

 

After all, when we are out and about in our precious ancient under-powered [and often, poorly driven, skills-wise] vehicles, we don't want to be seen to impose ourselves on a potentially [and perhaps, rightfully?} uninterested public, do we?

 

And I make this observation from the viewpoint of someone who has, and does, compete in classic reliability trials....[a blatant ad for the upcoming MCC Lands End trial, this easter!!]...where, no matter how obdurate the other road users can be [''I have a right,I shall exercise it, regardless'' ]...during which such events, our sometimes ancient, underpowered old vehicles get no special consideration when out on the public highway...and, why should we?

 

In my view, 'convoys' of old vehicles present [to other road users] just as much of an irritating obstruction to progress as large groups of cyclists.

 

The organisers of such 'outings' really should consider insisting their members observe decent time intervals between vehicles....then there would be little or no need to 'stop' oncoming traffic.

 

Organisers really should make every effort to minimise the imposition of their 'enjoyment' on the rest of the world.

 

After all, that is one of the prime responsibilities of the organisers of motor sporting events....which utilise the public highway.

[Kenton]

 

I also believe that the police do not have the right just to stop traffic only with a court

issued permission.

 

 

I would like to be a fly on the bonnet when that excuse is next given to the TPO who has just chased you with flashing blue lights and siren. Or, when you survey the damage from a "stinger" deployment. I believe the chare is one of "Failing to stop".

 

But then there is a big difference between some plain dressed member of the public and a uniformed policeman.

[Ashcombe]

I'm glad I don't have kids there

The teachers may well have a view on this.

 

I am a retired Primary School teacher who has survived numerous such experiences in a busy Midlands town without loss of life or limb or encountering angry drivers

[Neil]

..... My point was that Russ stated  that "It was also low bright sun directly in my eyes so she was even less visible", which is the sort of thing that, in an insurance/liability context, is basically an unwitting admission that he were going too fast for the road conditions. .....

 

I took this a different way. Given that Russ did stop in time (and the car behind too) I'd conclude that he was diving appropriately for the conditions at the time and that the comment about the lighting conditions points more to the lack of caution on the part of the teacher and possibly the school itself (inadequate training/supervision).

 

[nostalgic tangent] I'm of an age when school trips were conducted without high vis of any sort unless the occasional red bobble hat counts. At primary school our class teacher  and headmaster took a group of thirty five round Goole docks, weaving in and out around lorries, cranes, trains, mooring ropes, wandering too and fro over lock gates, poking our noses into warehouses and watching the tom pudding operations. Marvellous, but a different age. [/nostalgic tangent]

[rockershovel]

Strictly speaking the builder's labourer or banksman seeing a lorry out of the site gate is covered by Chapter 8 and related legislation, and is carrying out duties defined by his employer's safety procedures and insurance.

 

I can't believe that any school has a safety case or risk assessment permitting a staff member to stop traffic on an ad-hoc basis a few moments walk from a marked pedestrian crossing.

[trisonic]

The local Baptist Church run a large creche. Unfortunately the playground is across the road from the Church. The local Police Department ran a half day training course (it only takes one cop) for staff and equipped them with Vests and “STOP” paddles. The Church paid the costs.

 

Half the problem in the UK is the lack of such local Police Departments who take care of the community.

 

Best, Pete.

[jamie92208]

Going back to the OP's original question.  It used to be very simple, Only the Police in Uniform had the power to stop traffic on the Queens Highway, under I believe the Highways Act though it's nearly 14 years since I retired.  There were also School Crossing Patrols who had to be in the proper clothing + lollipop/, have training and be escorting parents AND children, not as many of them do, letting the mums back to their 4 X 4's after dropping the little darlings off.   Traffic wardens and then PCSO's were also added to the list and I think Highways Agency Traffic Officers.  As Mick (NB) has stated there may be other people added to that list.

 

However in practice common sense and courtesy has always been a part of life.  We used to have a large factory with it's own bus station on my patch (in1974) and the security officers, all retired police, used to do traffic duty at the end of the works road to let the buses out.  It never caused a problem and saved us the hassle of being there every shift change.  I've helped our church when we process through the village on Good Friday with a  cross since I retired and in general most drivers courteously wait until we have crossed to the opposite pavement. The same often happens at funerals and weddings.   

 

On a personal basis I once had to stop the traffic on the A58 to let the bride and her father walk across the road from her house to the church for her wedding.  I was very happy to do that one and have a rather nice photo of the occasion.  It was also quite nice to be able to inform a movie producer that we had a monopoly on the power to stop traffic and that I would happily rent him 2 PC's for the day as long as he made sure they were fed and watered and that he paid the substantial invoice.   He laughed and booked them.

 

Jamie

[Joseph_Pestell]

We have two lollipop persons locally who jump out into the road in front of moving traffic. I think that they are far more likely to cause an accident that injures the children than if the children (mostly secondary age) were left to get on with it themselves.

[russ p]

Drivers are part of the community and when driving through a school zone should slow down and expect to stop for sudden appearance of, wait for it, children.  What's the big deal here?  No need for officious behaviour, stop when children are crossing for heaven's sake.

This isn't a school zone,the school is about 1/4 mile away on another road. At certain times if you just stopped you are likely to get hit from behind.

I'm hoping to see what the police have to say about this today. In this day and age everything has to have a prescribed method. If this is theirs it's not good enough for the safety of all concerned

[kevinlms]

Going back right to the start, surely it is legal for anyone however dressed (or even not dressed), is entitled to attempt to stop traffic.

 

Given an absolute emergency, a person could be attempting to warn you of a bad situation, right in front of you. What if a person was lying injured in the middle of the road, or a bridge was broken or flooded, or almost anything. Would you just drive straight past them at normal speed, because they didn't think to dress safely and properly?

 

Potentially, it could be someone trying to car jack you, but you need to make a decision, based on evidence available to you, not just the dress code.

[Dave47549]

.

[jamie92208]

Going back right to the start, surely it is legal for anyone however dressed (or even not dressed), is entitled to attempt to stop traffic.

 

Given an absolute emergency, a person could be attempting to warn you of a bad situation, right in front of you. What if a person was lying injured in the middle of the road, or a bridge was broken or flooded, or almost anything. Would you just drive straight past them at normal speed, because they didn't think to dress safely and properly?

 

Potentially, it could be someone trying to car jack you, but you need to make a decision, based on evidence available to you, not just the dress code.

 

It is definitely not legal for anyone to stop traffic.  It can be classed as obstructing the free passage of traffic on the highway.  This power is used to stop some demonstrations.  

 

However in some circumstances common sense and discretion are used. eg to save life and further injury after and accident, or to prevent someone driving into a hole that's opened up in the road due to a broken manhole cover or sinkhole.

Jamie

[trisonic]

“School Zones” are also handy. They double the fines for any traffic offenses within the zone.

I own up to working part time for our local Police Department (it’s my way of payback to the community in which I now live) and I can say that most offenses are caused by parents dropping off children - though usually not willfully.

 

Most drivers do not want to live the rest of their lives with consciences tearing them apart. Thankfully.

 

Best, Pete.

[Torper]

I'm hoping to see what the police have to say about this today. In this day and age everything has to have a prescribed method. If this is theirs it's not good enough for the safety of all concerned

 

What a fuss about a relatively trivial incident that endangered nobody.

 

DT

[russ p]

I just hope this joke of a teacher doesn't take the kids for a walk that involves crossing the railway, there are quite a few occupation crossings within walking distance of this school!

[russ p]

What a fuss about a relatively trivial incident that endangered nobody.

 

DT

Shame you don't work for network rail!!

[alastairq]

 

 

What a fuss about a relatively trivial incident that endangered nobody.

 

 

The above seems to be the State's attitude towards all Law enforcement.

 

And everybody soon gets up-in-arms over 'driving  standards' [to quote a thread elsewhere], or burglaries[if no-one harmed, won't the insurance sweeten the pain, eh?].....

 

Do we have to wait until some high-minded teacher drags 50 squealing kids out in front of a 44 tonne lorry, that hasn't a hope in 'ell of stopping within such a short distance?

 

Of course, the downside is, the lorry driver will have to get out the pressure washer on his wagon...before getting the 'so what' folks to back him up with a 'snotmyfault' plea?

 

I mean, who cares? They weren't MY kids!

 

Go for it, russ p.....shake the tree...it's about time more folk had their trees shaken!

[petethemole]

But it would be the lorry driver's fault, as far as the media/police/parents would be concerned. He'd be hung out to dry while the teacher would be the one who bravely tried to warn him.

.

[Kenton]

and the next person who deliberately steps out in front of a bus (or a train) to gain salvation and media immortality ....

[PhilH]

I can't wait to see where this flight of fancied improbable situations ends up...

[Guest]

What a fuss about a relatively trivial incident that endangered nobody.

 

There you go, DT. Feast your eyes on that. It marks the spot where a 15 yr-old schoolgirl was killed crossing the road not far from what Russ witnessed yesterday. Maybe the poor girl that died got her road sense from the primary school teacher who thought it was okay to flag down traffic and cross a main A road less than 200 yards from a pelican crossing.

My kids go to school in Sheringham. Not impressed. Go see what the police have to say, Russ.