"road Closed" Signs - Legality.

[squidgelet10]

Greetings each.
I expect this question has been posed many times!
During the recent flooding it appears the police have been dishing out £60 fixed penalty tickets (+3 penalty points) to drivers who they have caught passing "Road Closed" signs on roads where there was flooding.
I am also advised that passing said signs invalidates one's insurance too.
Does anyone know the true legal position here please?
Be good!
Cheers.

[boxtops]

I don't know, but why would anyone drive down a road which has a closed sign on it?

[Frank97]

You might live half way down it, before the flooded bit!

[boxtops]

True....

[Prudie]

Because they think they know better boxy. Only a couple of weeks ago local to me someone with a child in the car went down a road that had been signed closed due to flooding for 3 days already. It was 5.30pm and the fire brigade had to come and rescue them. Mindless.

[boxtops]

There was a clip on the local news last night about drivers on the school run driving on the pavements "to avoid the traffic"- they've been done for it.

[TWR]

If the signs say "road Closed" Signs" That's exactly what the notice means, regards legality, its a STOP sign! "road Closed" I'm sure if a person ignores this sign and causes further problem, they can get prosecuted.

[heathfield]

As far as I'm aware, a 'Road Closed' sign comprising white letters on a blue background has the same legal authority as a policeman standing there with his arm raised. Where the sign has white letters on a red background, it can only be legally effective if a Traffic Restriction Order has been applied for and granted, e.g. by the local Council, and notice of the closure given in a local newspaper. If a TRO is in force, passing that sign is an offence under Road Traffic Acts of 1984 and 1988. With no TRO, there's no offence. Mind you, knowing the plod, they'd probably opt for the 'without due care and attention' route.

[Answerprancer]

I thought square signs give advice/information and signs in circles give orders.

[Hymie]

This article, published in the Guardian in 2010 gives a legal perspective on the subject.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/11/police-road-block-rights

If you are planning to challenge such a penalty ticket, I suspect it will fail for the reasons given in the article.

[New Judge]

However, committing such an offence will certainly not invalidate one's insurance (any more than speeding would).

[TWR]

The way the Insurance Companies are going now Judge, If you Fart they will penalise you.

[jake-the-peg]

As far as I can see that article refers to directions given by a police officer or the like. Not regarding temporary signs left by ...well goodness knows who

Why would someone ignore them?

Well close to me is a road that floods and people are forever being towed out of there.

It's a rural area and some of us drive 4x4s that are more than able to ford it, doing so saves a considerable detour.

Also they can be slow in removing the sign leaving several days where the road is bone dry and drained.

But then maybe I am just one of those people who know better?

[Buenchico]

NJ:
I fully agree that the statutory 3rd part cover can't be invalidated by disobeying any traffic sign.

However there's usually a condition within the terms of comprehensive cover which allows the insurer to refuse to pay out if the driver acts negligently. (e.g. An insurer probably wouldn't pay out for the theft of a car if the driver left it unlocked with the keys in the ignition). I have little doubt that if a car is swept away in the floods after a driver ignores clear warning signs (or prohibitions), the insurer won't pay out a single penny!

[tonywiltshire]

The legal position is probably covered by The Traffic signs regulations & general directions 2002, study provision 53.

[squidgelet10]

Greetings each.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this question, although I think 'tonywiltshire' has come up with the most plausible answer.
To 'TWR', 'Buenchico' and 'New Judge' I will say it now appears that it is the act and not the offence which might invalidate insurance cover should one try to make a claim as a result. To 'heathfield' and 'Hymie' I point out that the sign was not a blue police one, but white letters on a red background: Also I am not appealing anything as I wasn't there. :-)
As an aside: A friend was having a similar discussion in a local pub near the area. As he is a neighbourhood watch co-ordinator I got him the ring 101, which is the non-emergency police number, to ask their opinion.
Guess what? The official line is, "We wouldn't do a thing like that BUT, if we did the offence would be driving without due regard to other road users".
So now we know.
Many thanks.
Stay good!
Cheers.