Ballasalla Traffic Calming

[Stavros]

As I understand it, "Traffic Calming Device" is a useful alternative word for "Obstruction" because causing an "Obstruction" is a breach of The Highways Act.

 

Obviously the law may be slightly different here on the island but it generally follows the law of the UK and perhaps someone could find the relevant section of Manx legislation relating to the Highways Act and the wilful obstruction of a highway.

 

Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 makes it an offence for a person, without lawful authority, to wilfully obstruct a highway. A 'person' includes a body corporate. If a person is convicted of such an offence and it appears to the magistrates that the obstruction is continuing and that it is within the power of that person to remove it, the magistrates may make an order under section 137ZA (1) of the 1980 Act requiring that person to remove the obstruction. If the person fails to comply with the order, he is guilty of an offence under section 137ZA(3) of the 1980 Act and liable to a fine. The maximum fine is level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently £5000.

 

Now let's look at what constitutes causing an obstruction:

 

if the obstruction is without lawful authority, and:

- is any structure, including a machine, pump, post or other object of such a

nature as to be capable of causing obstruction whether or not it is on wheels

(section 143 of the Highways Act 1980);

- is anything deposited on a highway which constitutes a nuisance (section 149

of the Highways Act 1980); or

- is a hedge, tree, shrub or vegetation of any description that overhangs a

highway so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of vehicles, pedestrians or

horse-riders (section 154 of the Highways Act 1980).

 

Section 149 of the Highways Act 1980 “If any thing is so deposited on a highway as to

constitute a nuisance, a Highway Authority may by way of a notice require a person

who deposited it there to remove it forthwith. Upon failure to comply, the authority

may make a complaint to a magistrates court for a removal and disposal order under

this section”

 

It is not only causing an obstruction of a highway, it is also considered a danger to life. Emergency vehicles are also subjected to the obstructions and in an emergency, seconds can cost lives. It could be a fire, a life threatening injury or woman with a pram being attacked by a group of youths. The obstructions are not traffic calming devices. They are installed at the public expense, cause traffic to slow or stop and are a nuisance.

 

There is the added liability to the authority, presumably the parish commissioners if these obstructions cause injury or damage to someone.

 

The question to raise is, does the responsible authority have adequate public liability insurance and is the insurance valid because it might not be if they are committing an illegal act. After all if you're a rate payer in that parish, not only are you paying for the premiums, you'd also be made to contribute to any liabilty claims if the insurance wasn't valid!

 

Ill-concieved, misguided, dangerous, nuisance and a complete waste of money.

 

Stav.

[Cret]

Ill-concieved, misguided, dangerous, nuisance and a complete waste of money.

 

Stav.

 

I agree, but, doesn't this bit mean they're entitled to, as I would assume that they do have 'lawful authority'?

 

Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 makes it an offence for a person, without lawful authority, to wilfully obstruct a highway.

 

I think the worst thing is the way they keep moving them round without warning. These things are indeed a nuisance, but understandable to an extent. The problem is that whilst I'm happy to go 20 in these areas, hitting one of those things at 20 would be really bad, and in poor conditions whilst they're obviously visible, they're almost camouflaged being pretty much road coloured. If memory serves, they have a white bit marked on them but I'm sure they've actually marked the same thing on the road beneath too. It all seems really badly thought out.

 

Now for a conspiracy about whoever is in charge of the roads having shares in a suspension company or owning a garage....

[Cret]

Ill-concieved, misguided, dangerous, nuisance and a complete waste of money.

 

Stav.

 

I agree, but, doesn't this bit mean they're entitled to, as I would assume that they do have 'lawful authority'?

 

Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 makes it an offence for a person, without lawful authority, to wilfully obstruct a highway.

 

I think the worst thing is the way they keep moving them round without warning. These things are indeed a nuisance, but understandable to an extent. The problem is that whilst I'm happy to go 20 in these areas, hitting one of those things at 20 would be really bad, and in poor conditions whilst they're obviously visible, they're almost camouflaged being pretty much road coloured. If memory serves, they have a white bit marked on them but I'm sure they've actually marked the same thing on the road beneath too. It all seems really badly thought out.

 

Now for a conspiracy about whoever is in charge of the roads having shares in a suspension company or owning a garage....

[Stavros]

I would suspect that the situation is the same as in the UK. A local council was ordered to remover the obstructions that they called "Traffic Calming devices" beacuse they were in breach of the Highways Act. The same rule applies to any Government Agency or even the Commissioners.

 

Unless there's a provision in the law for the depositing of obstructions on a Public Highway, it'll be an illegal act.

 

As it happens, it doesn't really bother me because I hardly ever go through Ballasalla and even when I do, I take evasive action

 

Stav.

[Cret]

Know what you mean. The discovery can pretty much straddle those things anyway but I still think there are far better ways & means of making traffic stick to a speed limit.

 

I bet, like Arnie, they'll be back...

[Uni]

I'm glad they're now gone. What is going on with the road though, they have made the pavement wider and road small - Now, as Cret said; you get cars parked on both sides, it's an instant traffic jam. They need to put double-yellows down the side that they made the huge pavement on. That way, traffic can always flow in both directions and allow parking in the designated area.

 

Fix that bloody bump on the first left out of the bridge south, must be like an inch high. Safe on a wet corner...

[ccm]

The latest DoT 'cock-up' (according to my boyfriend) is painting all the white lines at quarterbridge. He rides a motorbike and he says riding over them in the wet is like riding on ice, there's no grip at all. Which should be intetesting if it's a wet TT race

[doofus]

The latest DoT 'cock-up' (according to my boyfriend) is painting all the white lines at quarterbridge. He rides a motorbike and he says riding over them in the wet is like riding on ice, there's no grip at all. Which should be intetesting if it's a wet TT race

 

the slightest bit of damp affects them, so it's nice to see they've not only done the quarter bridge but significant parts of the mountain road as well

[Cret]

Fix that bloody bump on the first left out of the bridge south, must be like an inch high. Safe on a wet corner...

 

Not to mention the camber being the opposite way to what it should be. I know it's in a 30 zone but it's still not good.

[Frances]

They need to put double-yellows down the side that they made the huge pavement on. That way, traffic can always flow in both directions and allow parking in the designated area.

- I always understood double yellow lines meant that only Manx registered cars could park there so doesn't sound very tourist friendly

[stookie]

Anyone else noticed that beaten up old shitheaps (like most taxis for example) can go over these 'speed bumps' at unabated speed? Anyone with a decent or properly maintained car (in other words someone more likely to be interested in decent driving, or put another way 2% of the driving population) has to slow down to a crawl to avoid unnecessary damage and risk of increasing the misalignment of wheels, already seriously deranged by the potholes, ruts and manholes everywhere!

[WTF]

it could be the case that after the TT period the humps go back?? when the traffic lights first went up at ballagarey, it was because of the difficulty in exiting the ballagarey estate with increased traffic on the roads at the time. i could not understand then or now why the lights were covered up for the first TT period after when getting out would have been at its hardest??

the ballasalla humps may go back by 'request' so people can get in and out of properties and feel safe?

[spanna]

The latest DoT 'cock-up' (according to my boyfriend) is painting all the white lines at quarterbridge. He rides a motorbike and he says riding over them in the wet is like riding on ice, there's no grip at all. Which should be intetesting if it's a wet TT race

 

I think they have out done even that one. With the new lights at the junction of the nsc road (dunno its name ) and the road going to the quarterbridge.

I have only been there 3 times and every time there has been someone not understanding that there is two lights for coming from quarterbridge and if ur going straight on u cant go when the left arrow is lit only.

Each time I have come out of the nsc road turning left to be met by a car tottling thru from quarterbridge.

Obviously its not just one daft driver its another DOT mess. It can be quite confusing seeing a bright green light right in front of u i bet.

why they needed to improve traffic flow from that way into the nsc road i will never know.

[stookie]

Each time I have come out of the nsc road turning left to be met by a car tottling thru from quarterbridge.

Obviously its not just one daft driver its another DOT mess. It can be quite confusing seeing a bright green light right in front of u i bet.

why they needed to improve traffic flow from that way into the nsc road i will never know.

 

I think it's an improvement, because no longer is a traffic lane completely wasted on right turn only for a few residents of a cul-de-sac. Fact is, if the light for you is red then you shouldn't go through - that has to be 100% the driver's fault for not paying attention, as it's not exactly a new concept.

 

It's a sorry state of affairs, but I wouldn't expect the majority of drivers over here to be sufficiently observant to get this

[WTF]

Fact is, if the light for you is red then you shouldn't go through - that has to be 100% the driver's fault for not paying attention, as it's not exactly a new concept.

 

 

but it's a change, and locals can't deal with change for quite a while. i still see people coming from south to QB in the right hand lane, then cutting accross between the 2 mini roundabouts to go towards bray hill.