Snudger:
I don’t understand how a minimum speed can be maintained on a motorway when e.g. traffic in all lanes is stationary.
I can see no reason why a minimum speed limit is applicable, let alone enforceable, when it is impossible to maintain the minimum speed safely in a particular lane.
I’ve checked some legal databases and cannot find any judicial authority on minimum speed limits. The law of England and Wales is built on the doctrine of precedent - the courts stand by previous decisions unless the facts differ, there was an error in the previous decision or two authorities conflict. If this was not followed, there would be much less certainty about what the law is, so people would be unsure whether or not they were committing an offence.
The lack of authority on minimum speed limits is not surprising, as there are so few minimum limits. There appears to be no express exception in the relevant law, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 88(1)(b), for circumstances where it is impossible or unsafe to maintain the minimum speed in the prevailing traffic conditions.
However, the law is subject to the principles of statutory interpretation, which offer various alternative approaches to taking the law literally when it is appropriate to do so. The so-called golden rule would seem particularly appropriate here - under this approach, the law is interpreted in such a way that avoids an ‘inconsistency, or an absurdity or inconvenience so great’ to justify ‘other signification, which, though less proper, is one which the Court thinks the words will bear’ (River Wear Commissioners v Adamson). It would be absurd to require someone to travel at an unsafe speed merely because there is a minimum speed limit.
As with all legal arguments, there are two opposed views - it either is or isn’t an offence to drive below a minimum speed limit when it is unsafe or impossible to maintain a minimum speed. The law isn’t certain unless a court rules on this point, though I believe it is likely not to be an offence as I have explained.
In practice, I cannot see anyone being charged with failing to observe a minimum speed limit if it was unsafe to travel at that speed, bearing in mind how unlikely a conviction would be. If a person was charged, I would expect the CPS not to proceed with the case, as it fails both limbs of their test to proceed, with a conviction being unlikely and proceeding is clearly not in the public interest.
Before anyone checks, I know s.88 RTRA 1984 is about temporary speed limits. In practice, exceptions from general speed limits are imposed under s.88 temporarily before the temporary order is made indefinite. Indeed, the 70 motorway / 60 dual carriageway / 50 single carriageway national speed limits were initially imposed by a temporary order which was subsequently made indefinite.
Snudger:
As for the woman in the BBC link, she was banned from driving for 7 days and yet had to take another driving test. How was she allowed to drive again when she was clearly an accident in waiting, with little chance of passing a test? Someone at work was behind her once, and as well as the signs in the rear of her car, he mentioned that if he got within a few car lengths of her she would keep braking to force him to maintain a ridiculously larger than normal distance between them.
It looks as if she did pass her retest - A&M School of Motoring’s graduate page shows “Stephanie Cole, Brislington Driving Test Centre, 11th February 2008”. She would have had to drive without undue hesitation to pass this test.
Clearly she was unfit to be on the road in the state she drove on the M32 in 2007. Any driver who is so scared they can only maintain 10mph on a motorway and is under medical treatment for fear of driving is a hazard to themselves and to others. It sounds from Snudger’s description as if she was so scared that she kept taking inappropriate evasive action, forcing others to give her inappropriately large room.
A sympathetic driving instructor can do so much for drivers who are scared of particular road types or conditions. This has been seen on television programmes such as Channel 5’s Dangerous Drivers School. When the driver is matched with an instructor who understands their fears and the driver is willing to accept instruction, the changes in the driver’s driving ability and comfort levels can be remarkable. Hopefully this is what happened to Ms Cole.
I understand the desire to retain a driving licence when you have limited mobility. I have health problems that limit my mobility and know what a difference my licence makes to me, but I recognise too that I have a responsibility to everyone else on the roads. If I was advised by my doctors to stop driving, I would immediately surrender my licence to DVLA and stop driving.
After extensive investigation last year, I was allowed to keep an unrestricted pre-1997 car licence. I had been warned to expect a limited period licence and/or removal of C1 / C1E / D1 / D1E, but I kept all my categories with 10 year validity. I wish now that I’d applied for provisional C and D entitlement as part of this process, to test whether DVLA would allow me to hold vocational entitlement. I so want to have a go at category C and believe my neurologist would write a report saying that, in his opinion, I meet the vocational driving requirements as my condition does not interfere in any way with my ability to control a vehicle.
Maybe I should have a word with my neurologist when I see him later this month, though the last thing I want to do is approach DVLA again only to find that I finish up with a more restricted licence than I currently have.