PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane infringement, Threads merged
Bluff cove
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 74)
Advertisement
post Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 20:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
spaceman
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 19:35
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 545
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,319



QUOTE (copper's nark @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 09:17) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluff cove
post 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 smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 21:53
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,179
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 21:36) *
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 smile.gif


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluff cove
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,771



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 21:36) *
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 smile.gif


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:25
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,179
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:10) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 21:36) *
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 smile.gif


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:48
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
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.

QUOTE (spaceman @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 19:35) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 09:17) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluff cove
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:07
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,771



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:25) *
QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:10) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 21:36) *
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 smile.gif


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.

QUOTE (copper's nark @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:48) *
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.

QUOTE (spaceman @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 19:35) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 09:17) *
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 biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:24
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,048
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (copper's nark @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:48) *
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


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 00:12
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,768



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:24) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:48) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluff cove
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 00:54
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,048
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 00:12) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:24) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:48) *
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.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 10:04) *
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.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluff cove
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 03:01
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,771



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 01:54) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 00:12) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:24) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 22:48) *
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.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 10:04) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 13:13
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,048
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 03:01) *
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.
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 00:12) *
Assimilate the information.

Already constructive since you now realise you were misadvised.
QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 03:01) *
What's your take? As sign 953.2 was -----------

I just read the section of legislation.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluff cove
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 17:33
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,771



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 14:13) *
QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 03:01) *
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.
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 00:12) *
Assimilate the information.

Already constructive since you now realise you were misadvised.
QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 03:01) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluff cove
post 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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 19th February 2018 - 03:58
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.