Bus Lane infringement, Threads merged |
Bus Lane infringement, Threads merged |
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 20:23
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,771 |
Evening folks,
Ok. Not sure of my chances on this one but it's always worth a try right?! Last week I drove through a Bus Lane. No doubt I did. Circumstances are as follows; It used to be a road some while ago, that was exclusively for buses only, now, weirdly, there are no no entry signs at the start of the road so I drove down it. About 2/3rds of the way down there is a forced U turn road markings arrangement- presumably to allow for access to parking bays and the Cathedral. To me it's a bit of an unusual arrangement so much so that it took me a few seconds to work out what all signs meant. By this time I had passed the point of no return and carried on to the end of the road which wasn't far. Afterwards I did feel that maybe I'd contravened but wasn't 100% sure. Last week I got the PCN. It was totally an honest genuine error. I gained no advantage over other cars in the road, there weren't any. Also a few hours earlier I'd found out that an old good friend had passed away unexpectedly early after a terminal illness. To be frank I was really morose and down and not concentrating at my peak as I was preoccupied with those sad thoughts. I can prove to the council about this. So my question is what representation approach should I use. Can they cancel a PCN for extenuating circumstances and an unusual layout? Many thanks. Links below https://flic.kr/p/Y1fVpa Dropped pin near 1 Bishop Crispian Way, Portsmouth PO1 3HJ https://goo.gl/maps/gE8Zb3CZ9tP2 Other PCN pages https://flic.kr/p/XXTxSN https://flic.kr/p/Y1CGAv I know I made a contravention but would really appreciate any strategy for making formal reps. This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 21:47 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 20:23
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 19:35
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 934 Joined: 25 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,319 |
The motorist loses a discount in any appeal while there are no costs payable by the councils if it goes to appeal. Not true. Authorities are charged a fee for each appeal registered at a tribunal. Last I heard it was around £43 per appeal. They are also charged a percentage fee on the pcns issued. See London Councils' web site. |
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 21:36
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,771 |
Hi guys,
Just a quickie. I'm challenging a Bus Lane PCN and have been looking at the signage. The entrance to the 'Bus Gate' has blue sign 953 and the 953.2 'Only' plate underneath. That is not compliant usage in TSRGD 2016. The authorising TRO is dated months after TSRGD become legal. I asked the local Road Engineer about it's compliance. Response; "Good morning, I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of the parking team having advised them as to the correct signage to use for Bus lane enforcement. The sign to diagram 953 with supplementary plate to diagram 953.2 was the prescribed signage for this type of road/facility under the TSRGD 2002. This was the current guidance when the bus gate was installed at Bishop Crispian Way. The TSRGD has since been revised and re-released in 2016 and has made the changes to the permitted supplementary plates as you detail in your email. The guidelines are not retrospective however; Local Authorities are not required to update all signage that may be affected by changes in the TSRGD as clearly this could prove to be extremely costly. It is instead expected that any new facility/traffic order be installed as per the latest directions and adjustments or refurbishments to existing facilities/signage be brought up to date at that point. I hope this answers your enquiry. Kind regards" So he's saying the 953.2 is legal with the 953 sign as it was erected before TSRGD 2016 was released. The TRO PO63B refers to TSRGD 2016 and is signed 19th July 2016. TSRGD 2016 was released on 22nd April. Questions; Is the 953.2 sign compliant considering above dating? Is TSRGD 2016 statutorily obligatory or can signs predating the new version of TSRGD be used Ashe suggests? Thank you |
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 21:53
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Hi guys, Just a quickie. I'm challenging a Bus Lane PCN and have been looking at the signage. The entrance to the 'Bus Gate' has blue sign 953 and the 953.2 'Only' plate underneath. That is not compliant usage in TSRGD 2016. The authorising TRO is dated months after TSRGD become legal. I asked the local Road Engineer about it's compliance. Response; "Good morning, I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of the parking team having advised them as to the correct signage to use for Bus lane enforcement. The sign to diagram 953 with supplementary plate to diagram 953.2 was the prescribed signage for this type of road/facility under the TSRGD 2002. This was the current guidance when the bus gate was installed at Bishop Crispian Way. The TSRGD has since been revised and re-released in 2016 and has made the changes to the permitted supplementary plates as you detail in your email. The guidelines are not retrospective however; Local Authorities are not required to update all signage that may be affected by changes in the TSRGD as clearly this could prove to be extremely costly. It is instead expected that any new facility/traffic order be installed as per the latest directions and adjustments or refurbishments to existing facilities/signage be brought up to date at that point. I hope this answers your enquiry. Kind regards" So he's saying the 953.2 is legal with the 953 sign as it was erected before TSRGD 2016 was released. The TRO PO63B refers to TSRGD 2016 and is signed 19th July 2016. TSRGD 2016 was released on 22nd April. Questions; Is the 953.2 sign compliant considering above dating? Is TSRGD 2016 statutorily obligatory or can signs predating the new version of TSRGD be used Ashe suggests? Thank you Fair questions Yes he is correct the 2016 regs are not retrospective so unless a direction requires they update they do not have to until signs are replaced. If the TRO post dates TSRGD 2016 then there may well be an argument re conformity. This can be nullified it the order you quote is an amendment order and possibly by SC GSV suggests that an order was in force in 2015 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8000972,-...3312!8i6656 Is the PCN compliant You have the regs. Pay attention to the right to view the video. Many councils get this wrong -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,771 |
Hi guys, Just a quickie. I'm challenging a Bus Lane PCN and have been looking at the signage. The entrance to the 'Bus Gate' has blue sign 953 and the 953.2 'Only' plate underneath. That is not compliant usage in TSRGD 2016. The authorising TRO is dated months after TSRGD become legal. I asked the local Road Engineer about it's compliance. Response; "Good morning, I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of the parking team having advised them as to the correct signage to use for Bus lane enforcement. The sign to diagram 953 with supplementary plate to diagram 953.2 was the prescribed signage for this type of road/facility under the TSRGD 2002. This was the current guidance when the bus gate was installed at Bishop Crispian Way. The TSRGD has since been revised and re-released in 2016 and has made the changes to the permitted supplementary plates as you detail in your email. The guidelines are not retrospective however; Local Authorities are not required to update all signage that may be affected by changes in the TSRGD as clearly this could prove to be extremely costly. It is instead expected that any new facility/traffic order be installed as per the latest directions and adjustments or refurbishments to existing facilities/signage be brought up to date at that point. I hope this answers your enquiry. Kind regards" So he's saying the 953.2 is legal with the 953 sign as it was erected before TSRGD 2016 was released. The TRO PO63B refers to TSRGD 2016 and is signed 19th July 2016. TSRGD 2016 was released on 22nd April. Questions; Is the 953.2 sign compliant considering above dating? Is TSRGD 2016 statutorily obligatory or can signs predating the new version of TSRGD be used Ashe suggests? Thank you Fair questions Yes he is correct the 2016 regs are not retrospective so unless a direction requires they update they do not have to until signs are replaced. If the TRO post dates TSRGD 2016 then there may well be an argument re conformity. This can be nullified it the order you quote is an amendment order and possibly by SC GSV suggests that an order was in force in 2015 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8000972,-...3312!8i6656 Is the PCN compliant You have the regs. Pay attention to the right to view the video. Many councils get this wrong Thanks for the reply. I should've been clearer in one of my questions. I meant if a TRO post dates the release of TSRGD is it legally compelled to comply with the new directions. You've answered anyway! Why does GSV suggest a bus gate in operation in 2015? TRO https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc...tWIOZtVRPAiv_TL This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:02 |
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:25
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Hi guys, Just a quickie. I'm challenging a Bus Lane PCN and have been looking at the signage. The entrance to the 'Bus Gate' has blue sign 953 and the 953.2 'Only' plate underneath. That is not compliant usage in TSRGD 2016. The authorising TRO is dated months after TSRGD become legal. I asked the local Road Engineer about it's compliance. Response; "Good morning, I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of the parking team having advised them as to the correct signage to use for Bus lane enforcement. The sign to diagram 953 with supplementary plate to diagram 953.2 was the prescribed signage for this type of road/facility under the TSRGD 2002. This was the current guidance when the bus gate was installed at Bishop Crispian Way. The TSRGD has since been revised and re-released in 2016 and has made the changes to the permitted supplementary plates as you detail in your email. The guidelines are not retrospective however; Local Authorities are not required to update all signage that may be affected by changes in the TSRGD as clearly this could prove to be extremely costly. It is instead expected that any new facility/traffic order be installed as per the latest directions and adjustments or refurbishments to existing facilities/signage be brought up to date at that point. I hope this answers your enquiry. Kind regards" So he's saying the 953.2 is legal with the 953 sign as it was erected before TSRGD 2016 was released. The TRO PO63B refers to TSRGD 2016 and is signed 19th July 2016. TSRGD 2016 was released on 22nd April. Questions; Is the 953.2 sign compliant considering above dating? Is TSRGD 2016 statutorily obligatory or can signs predating the new version of TSRGD be used Ashe suggests? Thank you Fair questions Yes he is correct the 2016 regs are not retrospective so unless a direction requires they update they do not have to until signs are replaced. If the TRO post dates TSRGD 2016 then there may well be an argument re conformity. This can be nullified it the order you quote is an amendment order and possibly by SC GSV suggests that an order was in force in 2015 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8000972,-...3312!8i6656 Is the PCN compliant You have the regs. Pay attention to the right to view the video. Many councils get this wrong Thanks for the reply. I should've been cleared in one of my questions. I meant if a TRO post dates the release of TSRGD is it legally compelled to comply with the new directions. You've answered anyway! Why does GSV suggest a bus gate in operation in 2015? TRO https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc...tWIOZtVRPAiv_TL The image is dated 2015 and the signs are present. It is a consolidation order so what is it consolidating -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:48
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,768 |
TSRGD 2016
Transitional and savings provisions 14.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a sign— (a) where the sign is in place immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations; or (b) where the sign is referred to in paragraph (4) and is placed within a period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which these Regulations come into force. The order was made after the 12 weeks, if my fingers are right, and came into force on 2 August 2016. s18 LATOR Traffic signs 18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure— (a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road; (b) ...; ©in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions. So, my thinking is that, the new order means that the new signage should be in place as it was made after the 12 week period, although the signage was probably in place beforehand if would need to be amended. The motorist loses a discount in any appeal while there are no costs payable by the councils if it goes to appeal. Not true. Authorities are charged a fee for each appeal registered at a tribunal. Last I heard it was around £43 per appeal. They are also charged a percentage fee on the pcns issued. See London Councils' web site. I didn't know Portsmouth was a London suburb. |
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:07
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,771 |
Hi guys, Just a quickie. I'm challenging a Bus Lane PCN and have been looking at the signage. The entrance to the 'Bus Gate' has blue sign 953 and the 953.2 'Only' plate underneath. That is not compliant usage in TSRGD 2016. The authorising TRO is dated months after TSRGD become legal. I asked the local Road Engineer about it's compliance. Response; "Good morning, I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of the parking team having advised them as to the correct signage to use for Bus lane enforcement. The sign to diagram 953 with supplementary plate to diagram 953.2 was the prescribed signage for this type of road/facility under the TSRGD 2002. This was the current guidance when the bus gate was installed at Bishop Crispian Way. The TSRGD has since been revised and re-released in 2016 and has made the changes to the permitted supplementary plates as you detail in your email. The guidelines are not retrospective however; Local Authorities are not required to update all signage that may be affected by changes in the TSRGD as clearly this could prove to be extremely costly. It is instead expected that any new facility/traffic order be installed as per the latest directions and adjustments or refurbishments to existing facilities/signage be brought up to date at that point. I hope this answers your enquiry. Kind regards" So he's saying the 953.2 is legal with the 953 sign as it was erected before TSRGD 2016 was released. The TRO PO63B refers to TSRGD 2016 and is signed 19th July 2016. TSRGD 2016 was released on 22nd April. Questions; Is the 953.2 sign compliant considering above dating? Is TSRGD 2016 statutorily obligatory or can signs predating the new version of TSRGD be used Ashe suggests? Thank you Fair questions Yes he is correct the 2016 regs are not retrospective so unless a direction requires they update they do not have to until signs are replaced. If the TRO post dates TSRGD 2016 then there may well be an argument re conformity. This can be nullified it the order you quote is an amendment order and possibly by SC GSV suggests that an order was in force in 2015 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8000972,-...3312!8i6656 Is the PCN compliant You have the regs. Pay attention to the right to view the video. Many councils get this wrong Thanks for the reply. I should've been cleared in one of my questions. I meant if a TRO post dates the release of TSRGD is it legally compelled to comply with the new directions. You've answered anyway! Why does GSV suggest a bus gate in operation in 2015? TRO https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc...tWIOZtVRPAiv_TL The image is dated 2015 and the signs are present. It is a consolidation order so what is it consolidating Mine says 2017 for the image. TSRGD 2016 Transitional and savings provisions 14.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a sign— (a) where the sign is in place immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations; or (b) where the sign is referred to in paragraph (4) and is placed within a period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which these Regulations come into force. The order was made after the 12 weeks, if my fingers are right, and came into force on 2 August 2016. s18 LATOR Traffic signs 18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure— (a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road; (b) ...; ©in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions. So, my thinking is that, the new order means that the new signage should be in place as it was made after the 12 week period, although the signage was probably in place beforehand if would need to be amended. The motorist loses a discount in any appeal while there are no costs payable by the councils if it goes to appeal. Not true. Authorities are charged a fee for each appeal registered at a tribunal. Last I heard it was around £43 per appeal. They are also charged a percentage fee on the pcns issued. See London Councils' web site. I didn't know Portsmouth was a London suburb. Yep it is, just outside the suburb of East Proctor lol Cheers for the Info Nark This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:08 |
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:24
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
TSRGD 2016 Transitional and savings provisions 14.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a sign— (a) where the sign is in place immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations; or (b) where the sign is referred to in paragraph (4) and is placed within a period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which these Regulations come into force. The order was made after the 12 weeks, if my fingers are right, and came into force on 2 August 2016. What relevance is 12 weeks when (a) appears to apply? and the effect and point you've left out entirely? This post has been edited by Neil B: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:25 -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 00:12
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,768 |
TSRGD 2016 Transitional and savings provisions 14.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a sign— (a) where the sign is in place immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations; or (b) where the sign is referred to in paragraph (4) and is placed within a period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which these Regulations come into force. The order was made after the 12 weeks, if my fingers are right, and came into force on 2 August 2016. What relevance is 12 weeks when (a) appears to apply? and the effect and point you've left out entirely? Assimilate the information. |
|
|
Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 00:27
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,771 |
I guess the TRO referring to 'consolidation' is imparting that bus Lane upgrades are an on-going process across the city. The TRO is dated outside the 12 week period as you mentioned so it appears that the sign is non compliant if the TRO pertains to the first instance of this sign there.
It used to be buses only for the whole road until they put spaces in for the Cathedral. |
|
|
Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 00:54
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
TSRGD 2016 Transitional and savings provisions 14.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a sign— (a) where the sign is in place immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations; or (b) where the sign is referred to in paragraph (4) and is placed within a period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which these Regulations come into force. The order was made after the 12 weeks, if my fingers are right, and came into force on 2 August 2016. What relevance is 12 weeks when (a) appears to apply? and the effect and point you've left out entirely? Assimilate the information. someone who wants to keep putting forward points that are likely doomed to failure and have no basis in law and poor old OP falls for it hook, line and sinker. You carry on; keep banging away misquoting legislation, i.e. the convenient omissions as well as the backward interpretations to make a non-existent point. Quote legislation against OP and tell him it's in his favour? Not nice. and you've OP doing it too now! When told GSV is 2015, misreads it and persuades himself his shows 2017, because that suits better. You can't just keep making things up to suit any point you want to make. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 03:01
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,771 |
TSRGD 2016 Transitional and savings provisions 14.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a sign— (a) where the sign is in place immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations; or (b) where the sign is referred to in paragraph (4) and is placed within a period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which these Regulations come into force. The order was made after the 12 weeks, if my fingers are right, and came into force on 2 August 2016. What relevance is 12 weeks when (a) appears to apply? and the effect and point you've left out entirely? Assimilate the information. someone who wants to keep putting forward points that are likely doomed to failure and have no basis in law and poor old OP falls for it hook, line and sinker. You carry on; keep banging away misquoting legislation, i.e. the convenient omissions as well as the backward interpretations to make a non-existent point. Quote legislation against OP and tell him it's in his favour? Not nice. and you've OP doing it too now! When told GSV is 2015, misreads it and persuades himself his shows 2017, because that suits better. You can't just keep making things up to suit any point you want to make. Hi, I didn't persuade myself or misread about the GSV date, I made an error on finding the date. I haven't conducted a date search before. It is indeed dated May 2015. I just read the 2017 Google copyright and made the wrong assumption. The image is 2.5yrs old. Why don't you add something constructive to the discussion instead of criticising the other contributor, however well intentioned. What's your take? As sign 953.2 was in place prior to the new 2016 TSRGD directions it is compliant now as there is no statutory compulsion to amend/upgrade it now as the engineer said? Ie it is compliant. I'm not certain what the 2016 TROs purpose is then if the bus Lane was there over a year before! This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 03:13 |
|
|
Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 13:13
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Why don't you add something constructive to the discussion instead of criticising the other contributor, however well intentioned. I was a bit direct and reacting to this kind of misplaced arrogance. Assimilate the information. Already constructive since you now realise you were misadvised. What's your take? As sign 953.2 was ----------- I just read the section of legislation. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 17:33
Post
#74
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,771 |
Why don't you add something constructive to the discussion instead of criticising the other contributor, however well intentioned. I was a bit direct and reacting to this kind of misplaced arrogance. Assimilate the information. Already constructive since you now realise you were misadvised. What's your take? As sign 953.2 was ----------- I just read the section of legislation. Thanks for the input. Guess I'll cough up as the most pragmatic option to me now. I'll email the road engineer and ask for an explanation of the TRO too. This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 17:34 |
|
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:00
Post
#75
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,771 |
I coughed up on this one guys.
I secured a cancellation on my other one though! Merry Xmas! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:05 |