PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TRO and Bus Lanes legalities
plonka
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 16:00
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2013
Member No.: 61,656



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 16:00
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:33
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,456
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



there is a specific PCN for bus lanes. The one you show is an example of it. No PCN's for moving traffic other than bus lanes outside London but a different one for parking.

The regulations used to enforce by being different.

What was the reason given for allowing the appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
plonka
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:53
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2013
Member No.: 61,656



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:15) *
QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:13) *
......….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.

Very interesting read and good points mentioned.

I may be poking a little too much here, but would the yellow lines situation be a little different, as in this case here there is actually no term of "Bus" within the TRO which would even be able to refer back to the legislation as a definition, however the yellow lines case scenario, there clearly is a defined area where the TRO would apply to, there is just extras which is disregarded.

So if the TRO would have said (I have added the word BUS)
"Save as provided in Articles ~ and 5 of this Order no person shall. except upon the direction or with the permission of a constable in uniform or of a traffic warden. cause or permit any vehicle other than a scheduled express carriage. a school bus. a stage carriage. a contract carriage or a BUS, works bus. any other vehicle constructed or adapted to carry 12 or more passengers. any other vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the carriage of disabled persons and those accompanying them and which is being used for the carriage of such persons"
That would have been a different story, however it says above all
"school bus ... "scheduled express carriage .. and ·'works bus .. has the same meaning as in the 1981 regulations"
which once again does not refer to the vehicle as "bus" which would then include "bus" as per legislation and just exclude the rest.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:33) *
there is a specific PCN for bus lanes. The one you show is an example of it. No PCN's for moving traffic other than bus lanes outside London but a different one for parking.

The regulations used to enforce by being different.

What was the reason given for allowing the appeal?

Absolutely, however I believe that it's the wrong PCN.

I have a 10 seater and it took alot of head banging till they realised that they dont have a leg to stand on due to their signage.

I have also threatened to sue for harassment if they continue sending the PCN's, as i have received thus far 4 PCN's and I have to appeal each time. They have advised me to avoid driving on the bus lane in order to avoid getting the PCN's!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:16
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,356
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:53) *
………. as in this case here there is actually no term of "Bus" within the TRO which would even be able to refer back to the legislation as a definition, however the yellow lines case scenario, there clearly is a defined area where the TRO would apply to, there is just extras which is disregarded.

So if the TRO would have said (I have added the word BUS)…………...


It could have.
Would have had to define BUS in a meaningful manner as at the time, there was no definition within TRS1981, may not have been within Construction and Use or any other relevant legislation but don't know without trawling through original enactments.
However, even if it had said bus, that definition would have changed with the times, same as the sign has.
They used the wording available at the time and made no effort to be more demanding then the legislation at the time.
Bus Lanes were not prevalent back then though had existed from late 60s and modern bus lane legislation (outside London) has only existed in a since the 2005 regs came out.


QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:53) *
.........I have also threatened to sue for harassment if they continue sending the PCN's, as i have received thus far 4 PCN's and I have to appeal each time. They have advised me to avoid driving on the bus lane in order to avoid getting the PCN's!



Complaint to council demanding they cease and desist unlawful PCNs plus demand for your costs in fighting said PCNs plus compensatory gesture
Don't threaten...do, use the complaints procedure.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
plonka
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:44
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2013
Member No.: 61,656



Fair points there. If it would have said Bus, then it would have referred to whatever the legislation refers to, so would be a variable item within the TRO which would change when the legislation changes.

The system of TRO's were different then, and they have updated the times of the TRO since, however surely they should bring them up to date somewhat. The original TRO was simply a "TRO", when councils can do as they wish, then it would have to change.

I cant find any other bus lane besides for this one prior to 2002 (outside of London)!

I will try writing to the council as an official complaints, but I imagine as its a self regulatory business, they can just ignore this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 17:19
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,557
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 16:44) *
I imagine as its a self regulatory business, they can just ignore this

It’s not a business. Local Government Ombudsman.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 20:43
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,468
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Local govt ombudsman tend to be interested in resolving your complaint. If they've cancelled your ticket I can't see them really going for speculatively reviewing all tickets. No cost in trying if that is what you want.

The best way would be to find someone with an active ticket for driving a car and see if you can get that cancelled. If you can do that then the local rag will happily pick up the "council can't even get a bus lane right, thousands of motorists overcharged" angle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 20:59
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,456
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (plonka @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:00) *
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?



QUOTE
Would that invalidate the Bus Lane altogether?


Not for a car or van IMO but if the signage says bus, and you are driving a vehicle that fits the definition of bus in TSRGD 2016 and TA 2000 then yes, as you have been mislead

I ask again what was the reason for the adjudicator allowing your appeal. This will make a difference to any action you take

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:14
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,356
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 16:44) *
...........I will try writing to the council as an official complaints, but I imagine as its a self regulatory business, they can just ignore this


No no no no no !
And NO
Councils cannot ignore official complaints.
There is a set procedure that progresses from okay for some oik in relevant department can answer to must be higher management to Local Gov Ombudsman.
If it goes through stages (or ignored) with their resolution offered to "stop driving in bus lanes" LGO will uphold your complaint and if nothing else, that leaves the council really behind the 8 ball should they issue another PCN.

First bus lane in UK was Reading (1968) according to Wikipedia... take that for what it is worth.
Like CPZs, they didn't exist when I started driving but now blight the landscape.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:35
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,557
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:13) *
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.

Is there a specific authority for a council to create a “bus lane TRO” or is it the same as a “regular TRO” (using your terminology there)?


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
plonka
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 23:33
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2013
Member No.: 61,656



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 18:19) *
QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 16:44) *
I imagine as its a self regulatory business, they can just ignore this

It’s not a business. Local Government Ombudsman.

Thanks for that, seems to be the last option

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:59) *
I ask again what was the reason for the adjudicator allowing your appeal. This will make a difference to any action you take

It didn't get to adjudication, however the council accepted my appeal eventually after convincing them that they hadn't read up the legislation what the signposts mean

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 22:14) *
No no no no no !
And NO
Councils cannot ignore official complaints.
There is a set procedure that progresses from okay for some oik in relevant department can answer to must be higher management to Local Gov Ombudsman.
If it goes through stages (or ignored) with their resolution offered to "stop driving in bus lanes" LGO will uphold your complaint and if nothing else, that leaves the council really behind the 8 ball should they issue another PCN.

First bus lane in UK was Reading (1968) according to Wikipedia... take that for what it is worth.
Like CPZs, they didn't exist when I started driving but now blight the landscape.

Re first bus lane, will have to look into that, but an interesting fact.

I agree with your point in regards to advising me to avoid bus lanes or get the PCN's, but that is what the have replied! unbelievable really! I tried to explain to them the onus is on them to make sure they dont harass, however they didn't seem to buy that! If it was a company, they would get sued for all sorts of things, but they seem to think they are above the law. I also pointed out to them about the highway code 160!

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 22:35) *
Is there a specific authority for a council to create a “bus lane TRO” or is it the same as a “regular TRO” (using your terminology there)?

Yes and No. They are both a TRO, but the there is a specific Bus Lane contravention, so that would need to be mentioned as their power to create the TRO, and the other thing would need to be mentioned is that the TRO allows for a "bus" only, and that term would refer back to the legislation.

A council can ban anything, (including pedestrians I believe) in a TRO, so they could be specific who they are banning, however that would be down do that particular TRO, but they probably would find it impossible to actually action, as they would need to somehow get some signage to go along with their TRO which don't exist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 23:49
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,760
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
I also pointed out to them about the highway code 160!


Huh?

Highway Code Rule 160

Once moving you should


  • keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road
  • keep well to the left on right-hand bends. This will improve your view of the road and help avoid the risk of colliding with traffic approaching from the opposite direction
  • drive with both hands on the wheel where possible. This will help you to remain in full control of the vehicle at all times
  • be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer
  • select a lower gear before you reach a long downhill slope. This will help to control your speed
  • when towing, remember the extra length will affect overtaking and manoeuvring. The extra weight will also affect the braking and acceleration.


This post has been edited by peterguk: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 23:50


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
plonka
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 23:54
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2013
Member No.: 61,656



QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:49) *
QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
I also pointed out to them about the highway code 160!

Huh?
.....
keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road
.............

keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road
My point I was making was, besides for being ridiculous and advising me to avoid the bus lane, if I am entitled to do so I should keep in the left lane, ie use the bus lane

This post has been edited by plonka: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 23:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 09:08
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,356
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
............Yes and No. They are both a TRO, but the there is a specific Bus Lane contravention, so that would need to be mentioned as their power to create the TRO, and the other thing would need to be mentioned is that the TRO allows for a "bus" only, and that term would refer back to the legislation.
………...


Without a time machine, they cannot include legislation in the TRO that did not exist at the time.
And legislation, Transport Act 2000 then TMA 2004 and Bus Lane Regs 2005 allow then to apply a penalty to a bus lane contravention where:-
QUOTE
6
(1)A bus lane contravention is a contravention of any provision of a traffic order relating to the use of an area of road that is or forms part of a bus lane.
(2)An area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used—
(a)only by buses (or a particular description of bus), or
(b)only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7
Which seems to include the area of road defined by the TRO
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
plonka
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 09:47
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2013
Member No.: 61,656



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:08) *
QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
............Yes and No. They are both a TRO, but the there is a specific Bus Lane contravention, so that would need to be mentioned as their power to create the TRO, and the other thing would need to be mentioned is that the TRO allows for a "bus" only, and that term would refer back to the legislation.
………...


Without a time machine, they cannot include legislation in the TRO that did not exist at the time.
And legislation, Transport Act 2000 then TMA 2004 and Bus Lane Regs 2005 allow then to apply a penalty to a bus lane contravention where:-
QUOTE
6
(1)A bus lane contravention is a contravention of any provision of a traffic order relating to the use of an area of road that is or forms part of a bus lane.
(2)An area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used—
(a)only by buses (or a particular description of bus), or
(b)only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7
Which seems to include the area of road defined by the TRO

Thanks for that. Of course they cant have a time machine, however they can only send a PCN for a standard contravention not one made by a later date, as it isnt really a bus lane. They have a TRO for specific vehicles, which they at the time called it what they wanted to which I imagine would have had the effect of a contravention of "not following signposts" and that should have stayed. The fact they are sending out PCN's and claiming its the a bus lane that the council has power to create is false and deceiving.

The second point that you mentioned, once again, in their TRO, the current TRO does not include "only buses", they include a "for work vehicle" only and then include other vehicles, which are not there by class, such as the 12+ passenger vehicle, so I doubt they would have anything to stand on
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:37
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,356
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



It is a lane created for school buses, works buses and other vehicles over 12 seats
Vehicles over 12 seats fall in line with modern definition of buses even if numbers are different.
I have little doubt that school and work buses fall into particular description of bus or that an adjudicator (or judge) could be persuaded that a 12 seater (or more) did not fall into the description of bus.
"only by buses (or a particular description of bus)"
What the TRO provides for falls into the modern descriptions of bus lane and bus lane legislation.
Sorry mate, I know this is important to you but you are clutching at straws and trying to make something out of nothing with the TRO.
Signage is a different matter but as already said, that only provides relief for the difference between 8 seats (or more) and 12 seats (or more)
I have little doubt that you would win any PCN issued due to that alone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 12:18
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,557
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 22:35) *
Is there a specific authority for a council to create a “bus lane TRO” or is it the same as a “regular TRO” (using your terminology there)?

Yes and No. They are both a TRO, but the there is a specific Bus Lane contravention, so that would need to be mentioned as their power to create the TRO, and the other thing would need to be mentioned is that the TRO allows for a "bus" only, and that term would refer back to the legislation.

A council can ban anything, (including pedestrians I believe) in a TRO, so they could be specific who they are banning, however that would be down do that particular TRO, but they probably would find it impossible to actually action, as they would need to somehow get some signage to go along with their TRO which don't exist.

So, there isn’t such a thing as a “bus lane TRO” then, other than as a descriptor of a particular TRO and its effect. I seem to recall they are all made under the same enabling legislation, primarily the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 12:25
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,356
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:18) *
........So, there isn’t such a thing as a “bus lane TRO” then, other than as a descriptor of a particular TRO and its effect. I seem to recall they are all made under the same enabling legislation, primarily the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.


Yup
compare enabling legislation between Bury TRO and more modern bus lane TRO.
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...gham/BM109B.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
plonka
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:10
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2013
Member No.: 61,656



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 12:37) *
.....
What the TRO provides for falls into the modern descriptions of bus lane and bus lane legislation.
...

Lets get to the basics of a Bus lane, which I think is quite important

Please see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2335/article/3/made , which is a legislattion made prior to the Bury one which is being discussed presently

QUOTE
(3) In this article—

(a)“bus” means:—before 1 January 1997
(i)a public service vehicle used for the provision of a local service or a scheduled express service,
(ii)a school bus, and
(iii)a work bus;
after 31 December 1996
(i)a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver), and
(ii)a local bus not so constructed or adapted; and

The definition of a Bus was changed on 1st January 1997, which is prior to this TRO. That clearly shows that this is indeed NOT a bus lane, as they did not define it within the terms of the legislation

If you look through that legislation it clearly shows the correct way of writing it, which would be as follows
QUOTE
(2) The controls specified in paragraph (1) of this article do not apply in respect of:—

(a)a bus;
(b)a taxi as defined in regulation 4 of theTraffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994(1); or
©a pedal cycle.


Remember, that was 1996!

The basics is, there was no Bus Lane at the time, and the TRO was just a TRO, not an enforceable Bus Lane, therefore how can they charge anyone for driving is the current Bus lane Act, when there was none at the time of being made, and the terminology is incorrect anyway!

This post has been edited by plonka: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:23
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,356
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 14:10) *
……….
The basics is, there was no Bus Lane at the time, and the TRO was just a TRO, not an enforceable Bus Lane, therefore how can they charge anyone for driving is the current Bus lane Act, when there was none at the time of being made, and the terminology is incorrect anyway!



There is an old saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
The order title includes "Reserved Bus Lane"
The order descriptions include various types of buses that except in a minor matter of numbers of seats, accords with modern legislation.
That the draughtsman screwed up and missed a relatively recent part of legislation and referenced what had been the relevant legislation does not invalidate it.
It's still a duck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
plonka
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 14:06
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2013
Member No.: 61,656



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 14:23) *
There is an old saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
The order title includes "Reserved Bus Lane"
The order descriptions include various types of buses that except in a minor matter of numbers of seats, accords with modern legislation.
That the draughtsman screwed up and missed a relatively recent part of legislation and referenced what had been the relevant legislation does not invalidate it.
It's still a duck.

I find it strange to say that the council can create a TRO and then afterwards just fit it into the legislation and send a PCN as though it is a Bus Lane! This must be against any legal logic, besides for messing up and not using the correct terminology.

The other issue is, the question here is, is it a Bus Lane or just a TRO without the Bus Lane. The text, because it was messed up and doesnt include the right powers means that it is a legally enforceable document with the correct procedure . The PCN's need to be in line with the standard TRO contravention as empowered to the local councils. This one looks and acts like a duck, but the TRO one, not the bus lane one!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: Tuesday, 18th September 2018 - 16:29
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.