Re: First step in winning the light pollution battle?
- From: "James Cook" <uksf_x@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:00:41 +0100
on such roads. What I find very interesting (and somewhat puzzling) about
this, is that on the face of it, they are proposing to directly contravene
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 85 (1) and (2) and Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 1994 Direction 10. ISTM though, that it
would only take one speeding driver to successfully mount the defence that
the council had failed to ensure that the streetlights were not working
and we're back to square one.
AIUI, the installation of street lighting of a certain density will
automatically restrict a road to 30 mph (unless an order exists imposing a
different limit) - I don't think that's the same as making it unlawful for
30 mph restricted roads to be unlit. The local authority will need to ensure
that 30 mph orders are in place (and the correct signs erected) of course
for those roads where the street lighting is the only means by which the
restriction exists (i.e. there is no other order in place) for when it
switches them off. As one lucky resident of Essex (whoever thought that
phrase would be used) I know that much of the county's roads are not lit now
(and never have been), including many many residential roads, this very
sensible initiative isn't *that* groundbreaking.
.
- References:
- First step in winning the light pollution battle?
- From: james
- Re: First step in winning the light pollution battle?
- From: PeterD
- Re: First step in winning the light pollution battle?
- From: mike
- Re: First step in winning the light pollution battle?
- From: PeterD
- First step in winning the light pollution battle?
- Prev by Date: Re: NLC's visible right now !
- Next by Date: Re: NLC's visible right now !
- Previous by thread: Re: First step in winning the light pollution battle?
- Next by thread: Re: First step in winning the light pollution battle?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|