TRO and Bus Lanes legalities Options

[plonka]

I would appreciate advice or knowledge of legalities.

I have a 10 seater vehicle, which can go into any bus lane (so long as it doesn't say local). I have been having a fight with my local council about this and they have eventually accepted that the legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/made clearly defines a bus as follows:-
“a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted to carry more than eight seated passengers in addition to the driver.”

Also
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...ulation/23/made
which clearly states:-
“Bus lane” in the signs referred to in paragraph
(1) means a traffic lane reserved for—
(a)motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);

In other words, the sign of a "BUS" on a bus lane automatically allows (so long as it doesn't say "local") any vehicle above 8+ passenger seats, or 9 passenger+1 driver, which is a minimum of 10 seats.


My question is as follows. The current TRO of the BUS LANE is one that is based on one created in 1997, prior to the legislation clarifying about the signage which can be found HERE , therefore in the TRO where it states who can use the Bus Lane, "a school bus. a stage carriage. a contract carriage or a works bus, any other vehicle constructed or adapted to carry 12 or more passengers", which would mean that a sign of a normal BUS which allows 8 or more passengers would mean that the signage is inadequate, as it is not in-line with their own TRO.

Would that invalidate the Bus Lane altogether?

This post has been edited by plonka: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:36

[Advertisement]

[Wretched Rectum]

From what I gather, as Bury is outside London the relevant parent legislation is this.

section 144(5) may be relevant to your question.

This post has been edited by Wretched Rectum: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:08

[DancingDad]

TSRGD 2016 is the ruling interpretation re bus lane signs/definition
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made
But does say 8 passengers

So I would say that if your vehicle fits that, safe to use bus lanes.
Council cannot rely on a TRO that says 12 or more without signage to suit else they are failing in their duty to clearly sign restrictions.
And definitions relating to signs can only come from TSRGD.
Which would IMO mean you would win at adjudication should a council push the 12 or more without signage to suit.


It would not invalidate the bus lane except for vehicles that fall into the relevant area, common understanding of the sign would apply, ie, a two seater convertible is not a bus and never will be, nor will the average family saloon with 5 seats.

[PASTMYBEST]

From what I gather, as Bury is outside London the relevant parent legislation is this.

section 144(5) may be relevant to your question.

Also TSRGD 2016

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made

I suspect that the ability to limit the use is lawful, but what about the signs. If the vehicle meets the requirement of TSRGD as a bus, and also the C & U regs then the restriction needs be signed so that a driver is aware

[plonka]

Thanks for the responses.

From what I gather, as Bury is outside London the relevant parent legislation is this.

section 144(5) may be relevant to your question.

That sounds right, however the way this TRO has been set up, seems as though it is not a "bus Lane" as the, as the order they are using is the old TRO order from 1984, and are not using the powers a council have as you have quoted.

Does that mean its not enforceable, as its not a "BUS LANE", its a standard regulation order of specific vehicles, which have its own appropriate signage?

Even if their TRO is legal, there doesnt seem to be any type of signpost which would limit to "12 passengers+", so I don't think it's even possible to enforce

My question is, do the council now have to refund all vehicles that they have incorrectly charged, or since the TRO is valid, they have rights to charge, but a user has rights to appeal? Also the reason why I query if the bus lane is legal altogether is because it doesnt comply with the required signage provision http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/24...ulation/18/made

[PASTMYBEST]

Post up a GSV of the bus lane in question

[plonka]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5225076,-...3312!8i6656

[DancingDad]

So a standard 654 style bus lane sign. (then) Now a 959
No problem until you go back to the TRO which specifies Road Traffic Sign Regulations 1981 to which the TRO refers.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/85...19810859_en.pdf
Page 73 shows the sign and uses the same words as the TRO, School Buses, express services, works buses etc and defines those as more then 12 passengers (amongst other things)
So this is where the wording and signage came from.
The 1981 sign regulations were updated and consolidated in 1994 regulations.
That amended the definitions in regulation 22 so that from dec 1996 seat requirements was dropped from 12 to 8.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/15...ulation/22/made
1994 regs were revoked by TSRGD 2002 which in turn revoked by TSRGD 2016.


Which to me means that the meaning of the sign was correct when the TRO was created but has been altered over time and subsequent regulations.
The original regulations and meanings cannot apply as those were specifically changed.
TRO does not use the word bus specifically so the 8 seat requirement is not automatically applied by the changes, only that the common interpretation (and specification) of the sign meaning since 1996 has been 8 passenger seats.


So I stick with my original position, TRO valid but cannot be applied to vehicles with over 8 passenger seats as that is what the sign shows.
If the council wish to enforce on 12 seats or more, they must use non standard signs which would need approval.

[The Rookie]

Does that mean its not enforceable, as its not a "BUS LANE", its a standard regulation order of specific vehicles, which have its own appropriate signage?

Even if their TRO is legal, there doesnt seem to be any type of signpost which would limit to "12 passengers+", so I don't think it's even possible to enforce

In my opinion, no, it’s both unreasonable and non sensical to ask councils and the highways agency to change every affected TRO when legislation changes, the council are required to convey the limit, they have done so using normal BUS LANE signs, as such they can only apply the normal restriction conveyed by them. They could get special authorisation for a ‘12 seater’ limit but that’s pretty pointless and likely to cause more issues.

So in my opinion, no matter how many times you ask, the BUS LANE TRO is enforceable save for the 10-12 seater where the signage does not match the TRO.

[PASTMYBEST]

So a standard 654 style bus lane sign. (then) Now a 959
No problem until you go back to the TRO which specifies Road Traffic Sign Regulations 1981 to which the TRO refers.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/85...19810859_en.pdf
Page 73 shows the sign and uses the same words as the TRO, School Buses, express services, works buses etc and defines those as more then 12 passengers (amongst other things)
So this is where the wording and signage came from.
The 1981 sign regulations were updated and consolidated in 1994 regulations.
That amended the definitions in regulation 22 so that from dec 1996 seat requirements was dropped from 12 to 8.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/15...ulation/22/made
1994 regs were revoked by TSRGD 2002 which in turn revoked by TSRGD 2016.


Which to me means that the meaning of the sign was correct when the TRO was created but has been altered over time and subsequent regulations.
The original regulations and meanings cannot apply as those were specifically changed.
TRO does not use the word bus specifically so the 8 seat requirement is not automatically applied by the changes, only that the common interpretation (and specification) of the sign meaning since 1996 has been 8 passenger seats.


So I stick with my original position, TRO valid but cannot be applied to vehicles with over 8 passenger seats as that is what the sign shows.
If the council wish to enforce on 12 seats or more, they must use non standard signs which would need approval.

Yep

[plonka]

So a standard 654 style bus lane sign. (then) Now a 959
No problem until you go back to the TRO which specifies Road Traffic Sign Regulations 1981 to which the TRO refers.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/85...19810859_en.pdf
Page 73 shows the sign and uses the same words as the TRO, School Buses, express services, works buses etc and defines those as more then 12 passengers (amongst other things)
So this is where the wording and signage came from.
The 1981 sign regulations were updated and consolidated in 1994 regulations.
That amended the definitions in regulation 22 so that from dec 1996 seat requirements was dropped from 12 to 8.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/15...ulation/22/made
1994 regs were revoked by TSRGD 2002 which in turn revoked by TSRGD 2016.


Which to me means that the meaning of the sign was correct when the TRO was created but has been altered over time and subsequent regulations.
The original regulations and meanings cannot apply as those were specifically changed.
TRO does not use the word bus specifically so the 8 seat requirement is not automatically applied by the changes, only that the common interpretation (and specification) of the sign meaning since 1996 has been 8 passenger seats.


So I stick with my original position, TRO valid but cannot be applied to vehicles with over 8 passenger seats as that is what the sign shows.
If the council wish to enforce on 12 seats or more, they must use non standard signs which would need approval.

Yep

Thats my understanding too.

So would I be right to say this would be a normal TRO, not a Bus Lane contravention, which would mean if the council send out a PCN as a "Bus Lane" contravention, that would be the incorrect contravention (and would be a £50 penalty instead of £60)?

[The Rookie]

So would I be right to say this would be a normal TRO, not a Bus Lane contravention, which would mean if the council send out a PCN as a "Bus Lane" contravention, that would be the incorrect contravention (and would be a £50 penalty instead of £60)?

Eh? the Traffic Regulation Order is just that, a contravention is contravening and order and as this is a bus lane TRO it would be a bus lane contravention. You can't get a 'normal TRO'!

In my opinion it is still a bus lane contravention, the only effect of the discrepancy is that they can't enforce against smaller busses as they haven't adequately conveyed the restriction, everything else is as it was.

[PASTMYBEST]

Post up the PCN

[plonka]

So would I be right to say this would be a normal TRO, not a Bus Lane contravention, which would mean if the council send out a PCN as a "Bus Lane" contravention, that would be the incorrect contravention (and would be a £50 penalty instead of £60)?

Eh? the Traffic Regulation Order is just that, a contravention is contravening and order and as this is a bus lane TRO it would be a bus lane contravention. You can't get a 'normal TRO'!

In my opinion it is still a bus lane contravention, the only effect of the discrepancy is that they can't enforce against smaller busses as they haven't adequately conveyed the restriction, everything else is as it was.

I think that's incorrect (I am not a pro at this, but done a little investigation). There is a specific PCN for bus lanes and a specific one for not following a traffic signs. In this case, its not a bus lane, as this is a regular TRO which has been created to avoid specific vehicles from driving in that particular lane which is not in line with a standard Bus Lane.

[plonka]

See attachment.

I have appealed it and won, however I think all their PCN's may have been illegal

Attached File(s)

 pcn.pdf ( 1.31MB ) Number of downloads: 47

 

[The Rookie]

I think you are wrong to be honest.
This order by Leicester carries similar wording, it excludes all bar busses from the bus lane.

https://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/181011/tro-bus-lane.pdf

[plonka]

I think you are wrong to be honest.
This order by Leicester carries similar wording, it excludes all bar busses from the bus lane.

https://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/181011/tro-bus-lane.pdf

Sorry, that is completely different! They have done it correctly! That is completely as per legislation, it doesnt go above and include only work busses and exclude below 12 passenger seats. The bus it refers to, would be anything which is refereed to in the legislation. It also refers to the correct legislation which has been created for bus lanes!

This post has been edited by plonka: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:59

[The Rookie]

I don't think it is, the fact the Bury has a broader description doesn't change the fact it can be summarised as 'busses'. By all means take it to a tribunal next time......

[plonka]

I don't think it is, the fact the Bury has a broader description doesn't change the fact it can be summarised as 'busses'. By all means take it to a tribunal next time......

I may do. They don't use the term "Bus", they use every other term to individually include particular vehicles and exclude anything below 12 passenger seats, which would mean its not a Bus lane, its a new type of TRO.

Any idea how to force a council to review and have to refund all PCN's?

[DancingDad]

......….I think that's incorrect (I am not a pro at this, but done a little investigation). There is a specific PCN for bus lanes and a specific one for not following a traffic signs. In this case, its not a bus lane, as this is a regular TRO which has been created to avoid specific vehicles from driving in that particular lane which is not in line with a standard Bus Lane.

I think you are clutching at historical format v more modern ones.
At the time, bus lane TROs didn't have the specific definition of bus to use so had to use the more archaic wording from TSR1981. And the sign at the time reflected it.
That makes the TRO valid in the sense that when it was created it used the legal framework available.
It hasn't moved with the times but they don't need to.
If later legislation alters a part, that doesn't invalidate it, only makes that part unenforceable.
It is very difficult to invalidate a TRO unless there is any inherent fault with the legality behind the creation.
Even then is difficult.

Some examples come to mind.
First is where a yellow line is painted beyond where the TRO allows.
This does not invalidate the TRO or indeed the effect of the yellow line up to the point designated within the TRO.
But does mean that if someone is parked on the extra bit of yellow line and can show that, they win.

Councils may change their name, Isle of Sheppey in Kent has recently done this.
Doesn't mean that the new council cannot enforce Isle of Sheppey TROs

Some older TROs still include that it is a criminal offence to break any of the rules.
If council have signed up to decriminalised enforcement that part cannot apply.
But it only changes how the TRO is enforced, not that it cannot be.

In your case, the council have a lawfully created TRO that sought to restrict use to the class of vehicles that we now know as buses.
That this is a newer definition and indeed less onerous then the one at the time only means that they have to use the present day understanding of the signs or create new ones to reflect.
The latter IMO will not happen, even if they did, they would have to have a very good reason to stick with the 12 or more for the Sec of State (dept of Transport) to approve signs when perfectly good bus lane signs (for 8 or more) exist and work across most of the country.