PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Review of Adjudicator's Decision, Nelson Mandela Bus Gate
NELSON MANDELA
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



Hi all,
was snapped by Glasgow City Council (GCC) in 2016 going through the alleged Bus Gate at West George Street into Nelson Mandela Place. Subsequently went to appeal where my main argument was the signage used and its position. The Adjudicator decided against me and I have since requested a review of the Adjudicators decision which has been granted. Almost at the stage where the case will be sent to the reviewing Adjudicator, would be happy to post the details and previous decision notice if it is of interest and wouldn't prejudice my case.

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
4101
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:44
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:26) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:19) *
........complete nonsense. The sign must convey the restriction. Period.

........


Explain how a DYL conveys the whole restriction then please?
Or the big Red C on London Congestion Charge.
Or Red Route signs in respect of Disabled Badge Holders

They all include exemptions and those are not shown but no one damns the sign because they are not fully detailed.

Here the sign includes a phrase that may not be 100% clear.
But does it make the sign unclear in its intent.... that only certain vehicles can go past it ?



Read the HC, DYL is covered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:52
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:21) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:10) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 21:25) *
This is basic stuff.

Seriously; get a life. That is so insulting to respected members.
It is a pathetic argument.
It's common sense, in all walks of life, for an individual to know if they are not permitted in a certain area or not to pass
a specific a point.

And on that, I'd really like to hear how the OP managed to drive past this quite clear restriction, irrespective its legality?



For it to have insulted me Neil, I would need to see evidence of a basic understanding of how this works not how a member here thinks it should. No adjudicator will find that sign inadequate or unlawfully placed. So to try and argue that it doesn't say Bob can go through on a Thursday only in a kilt just makes me wonder what is the agenda , with other peoples money

And Nelson. I don't understand this bit about to and fro. There is a time limit to apply for review. Have you done so?


It was originally scheduled for a hearing on the 6 th of February but they gave me time to submit further evidence, when I looked at it again I felt that the adj was wrong to say that RTRA 1967 applied also I felt that the adj had not answered my questions on what a bus lane / bus gate was, so I replied citing evidence in the Oxfordshire and Nottingham bus lane cases. GCC replied that they had no more evidence to supply and that they agreed with the Adj previous decision but should the review adj consider there were further points they would like to be informed and given the opportunity to reply. I replied back saying they had plenty of time to rebut my evidence and they should be allowed no more time. Each time someone send a letter the proper officer sets a new deadline.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:59
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



I think the 1967 Act is irrelevant. Its all the 1984 Act.

I suggest you concentrarte the Review on Authorised vehicles.

What does it mean? How can you understand it at 30mph?

What is the authorisation process for becoming an authorised vehicle? etc.

Also consent was given to use the sign, but not with the camera sign and one way arrow sign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:04
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:59) *
I suggest you concentrarte the Review on Authorised vehicles.

What does it mean? How can you understand it at 30mph?

Yep. A driver would have to be very, very thick.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:06
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:59) *
I think the 1967 Act is irrelevant. Its all the 1984 Act.

I suggest you concentrarte the Review on Authorised vehicles.

What does it mean? How can you understand it at 30mph?

What is the authorisation process for becoming an authorised vehicle? etc.

Also consent was given to use the sign, but not with the camera sign and one way arrow sign.


are you allowed to introduce new evidence in Scotland?


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:09
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



2130578309



The Appellant attended in person together with a witness Mr Jennings. The Authority did not attend and it was not represented. The Appellant said that she was not familiar with the location and the signage was unclear in particular with the use of the no motor vehicle sign in conjunction with the road layout, but also because of the number of signs at the location. While the location and its associated issues are not unknown to most Adjudicators, the Appellant has drawn my attention to a decision of the Culture and Environment Scrutiny Committee. It would appear that following consultation and a meeting of the Committee in August 2013, the Committee has agreed that the signage needs to be changed to make it clearer. I am not bound by the Committee's views and my brief consideration of the minutes of the meeting did not enable me to learn why the Committee felt that the signage was unclear, save by reference the number of PCNs issued. However, the point had been made by the Appellant and the Authority has not addressed the matter. I do not feel that I am able to find in favour of the Authority on a signage point when one of its own Committees concluded that improvements are needed and the Authority has not sought to qualify or explain the significance of the Committee's findings. I am allowing the appeal.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:06) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:59) *
I think the 1967 Act is irrelevant. Its all the 1984 Act.

I suggest you concentrarte the Review on Authorised vehicles.

What does it mean? How can you understand it at 30mph?

What is the authorisation process for becoming an authorised vehicle? etc.

Also consent was given to use the sign, but not with the camera sign and one way arrow sign.


are you allowed to introduce new evidence in Scotland?



Probably not, but what is 'evidence' he is putting a new legal argument. Will the PA consider it? Dont know.

Did OP turn left or right into Mandela Place?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:23
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:09) *
Did OP turn left or right into Mandela Place?

Who knows?
OP declines to answer how he/she drove past such a plethora of signs indicating the restriction.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 01:16
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:44) *
.........Read the HC, DYL is covered.


Rubbish.
You are trying to damn a sign on two words, Authorised Vehicles.
And trying to raise "what ifs"
What if it is an electric vehicle? What if it is a Bulgarian Taxi?

When all it means is that in addition to Buses, Taxis and Cyclists being able to pass the sign there is another class, that of "Authorised Vehicles"
That this may not be 100% clear does not damn the sign, it only opens possible loopholes.
If anyone believes that they are authorised by virtue of whatever, they can make the case.
And IMO stand a chance of winning if their case is credible.... I was delivering to ??? so really had to be authorised and there was no information to say how I could get authority.

But only if you can make a case that "Authorised Vehicles" somehow dilutes the main message that the route is restricted can you hope to win on unclear signage.

My opinion.
I accept you probably won't agree but OP can see both sides and decide which helps him put forward a credible case.

Sign clutter or obstruction to signs is more tenable but still IMO iffy.
Additional signs not authorised, forget it, plenty of examples of multiple signs around, only relevant if they mislead or confuse.
Whether or not TRO actually covers the route taken open to question.
Whatever the previous adjudicator said irrelevant, the review has been granted, it is accepted that there may be errors.
What the council say and whether that can be construed as misleading or short on veracity or simply wrong is IMO something to concentrate on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 01:26
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 01:16) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:44) *
.........Read the HC, DYL is covered.


Rubbish.
You are trying to damn a sign on two words, Authorised Vehicles.
And trying to raise "what ifs"
What if it is an electric vehicle? What if it is a Bulgarian Taxi?

When all it means is that in addition to Buses, Taxis and Cyclists being able to pass the sign there is another class, that of "Authorised Vehicles"
That this may not be 100% clear does not damn the sign, it only opens possible loopholes.
If anyone believes that they are authorised by virtue of whatever, they can make the case.
And IMO stand a chance of winning if their case is credible.... I was delivering to ??? so really had to be authorised and there was no information to say how I could get authority.

But only if you can make a case that "Authorised Vehicles" somehow dilutes the main message that the route is restricted can you hope to win on unclear signage.

My opinion.
I accept you probably won't agree but OP can see both sides and decide which helps him put forward a credible case.

Sign clutter or obstruction to signs is more tenable but still IMO iffy.
Additional signs not authorised, forget it, plenty of examples of multiple signs around, only relevant if they mislead or confuse.
Whether or not TRO actually covers the route taken open to question.
Whatever the previous adjudicator said irrelevant, the review has been granted, it is accepted that there may be errors.
What the council say and whether that can be construed as misleading or short on veracity or simply wrong is IMO something to concentrate on.



What is the scheme for getting 'Authorised' is there an exam? LOL

This is a discussion forum, you are free to disagree. The OP will decide his next step.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 01:55
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 01:26) *
......What is the scheme for getting 'Authorised' is there an exam? LOL

This is a discussion forum, you are free to disagree. The OP will decide his next step.


If there is an exam I think the council failed it.
Or at least failed to explain.

RTR Act 1984 S64 provides the legislative authority for signs to be used that either conform to regulations or are authorised by appropriate national body.
Nothing within TSRGD 2002 or 2016 restricts that
Exact process and whether council followed may be open to question but unless someone can show that Scottish Ministers exceeded their powers to authorise the sign, stuffed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 06:37
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:23) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:09) *
Did OP turn left or right into Mandela Place?

Who knows?
OP declines to answer how he/she drove past such a plethora of signs indicating the restriction.


Thanks for the help but I'm not declining, just didn't give me much time to answer back.
On the night in question I drove down West Nile Street parking somewhere near the advanced warning signs in order to purchase some cycling parts at a nearby cycling store. On returning to my vehicle I most likely walked underneath the sign. As I took of again down West Nile street I noticed some carriageway markings, but they were obscured by parked traffic (as they are allowed to after 6 pm). As I turned left into West George Street and proceeded down the one way system I caught site of the signs which had been obscured by the traffic lights infront of them.
If it was just me then I'd just accept it, however last year this site issued over 22,000 tickets. The AA is calling for any site producing more than a couple of hundred per year to be stopped pending review/ investigation as they are being used as traps to generate income. In the first years of operation this one site was responsible for around 7,000 tickets per month, as I recall, making it the highest grossing bus lane outside London. As can be seen from the authorisation the signs are the same signs now, so the same problems that exhisted before are still there only most local people know about them now. I'm seldom in town and did not know about it.
My main issue is with the position of the signs behind the traffic lights and that both are staggered and not in line with the road markings, the question I asked specifically was in relation to general directions in TSRGD 2002 and TSRGD 2016, were the signs as near as practically possible to the start of the restriction/prohibition. The answer can be either yes it is or no it is not, the answer I received from the expert adjudicator was that in accordance with TS authorisation they could be placed anywhere within 5 m of the approved plan.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 07:11
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:09) *
2130578309



The Appellant attended in person together with a witness Mr Jennings. The Authority did not attend and it was not represented. The Appellant said that she was not familiar with the location and the signage was unclear in particular with the use of the no motor vehicle sign in conjunction with the road layout, but also because of the number of signs at the location. While the location and its associated issues are not unknown to most Adjudicators, the Appellant has drawn my attention to a decision of the Culture and Environment Scrutiny Committee. It would appear that following consultation and a meeting of the Committee in August 2013, the Committee has agreed that the signage needs to be changed to make it clearer. I am not bound by the Committee's views and my brief consideration of the minutes of the meeting did not enable me to learn why the Committee felt that the signage was unclear, save by reference the number of PCNs issued. However, the point had been made by the Appellant and the Authority has not addressed the matter. I do not feel that I am able to find in favour of the Authority on a signage point when one of its own Committees concluded that improvements are needed and the Authority has not sought to qualify or explain the significance of the Committee's findings. I am allowing the appeal.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:06) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:59) *
I think the 1967 Act is irrelevant. Its all the 1984 Act.

I suggest you concentrarte the Review on Authorised vehicles.

What does it mean? How can you understand it at 30mph?

What is the authorisation process for becoming an authorised vehicle? etc.

Also consent was given to use the sign, but not with the camera sign and one way arrow sign.


are you allowed to introduce new evidence in Scotland?



Probably not, but what is 'evidence' he is putting a new legal argument. Will the PA consider it? Dont know.

Did OP turn left or right into Mandela Place?



There are quite a few points going on and lots of paper work so its easy to loose sight of certain facts. But just on two points of the Adj decision, the Adj believes there may be a presumption of regularity. If the Adj can not hear the case on the evidence before her then what is the point of the Bus Lane Adjudication scheme, would be as well as to stop pretending that the motorist has any chance. Why is it that others in their cases are able to question the signage and i am prevented ?

With regard to the other point, the Adj states as fact that 84 E (as i recall) of RTRA 1967 prevents any challenge of the validity or substance of the non-prescribed sign authorisation after 6 weeks. This isn't just a administrative error that can be corrected by the proper officer it is an error in law. Can't just say meant to say RTRA 1984, because this section is completely different in RTRA 1984. In RTRA 1967 it mentions all instruments made under the act ie sign authorisation made under 64 and 65 however in the 1984 act it is more specific. The time bar relates only to certain sections e.g. section 1, orders outside London. From this I can question the validity or substance of a non-prescribed sign authorisation and in this respect the Adj was wrong.

With regard to the TRO I can not challenge the validity or substance of the order and thats a different matter, but I had a reasonable expectation that the bus lane Adj could answer my questions on what a bus lane/gate was and whether the order established it. On the point of whether I can enter new evidence I'm not sure if I can, the review Adj has made it is a review and not a rerun of the appeal, however he also says words to the effect anything already decided by the previous Adj is not open to question. I have submitted "new evidence" only on the basis it relates to points I have previously stated so its only by way of clarifying what a reasonable Adj would have decided.

If I'm wrong about RTRA 1967 and 1984 then please let me know, in the meantime I will sort out clearer versions of the TRO and post tonight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:13
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



TRO Ammendment 9



TRO Ammendment 9 Sch 44 a pg 1



TRO Ammendment 9 Sch 44 a pg 2

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:38
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



This is not a discussion forum as far as I am aware. If we want to discuss matters, the Flame Pit's the place. Aren't we here to get the optimum advice to an OP in as concise a way as possible and doesn't this mean that once a point has been offered it should not be repeated ad nauseam until it's the last entry as if in some way the last comment standing must be correct!

We're beyond the initial hearing, so what is the legal position on the permitted grounds for a review, the procedure, what may be argued and how etc?

It is not a rehearing of the case.

At no time has the OP made reps on the basis that they saw the sign but believed they were an 'authorised vehicle'.
'Authorised vehicle' is not defined in Schedule 1 of the 2016 regs or the RTRA, however it is a term used in quotes which occurs in the Part 2 Sign Table (column 5, para 17 of Part 3). 'Authorised vehicles' is not unique to this location, it is a permitted term on specified sign plates across the country(ies).

Are all the terms used in Part 3 defined in the Interpretation Schedule? I don't think so.

So how does the law view this matter (not how should it or how we would like it, but how does it)? IMO, in the absence of a definition, then plain English is imported AND the principle which has been held by adjudicators and courts regarding the balance to be struck between clear signs and administrative burden (attaching a Special Events date plate on a CPZ sign but only making reference to unspecified Special Events in parking bays) is applied.

Is it practical to list all the classes and uses which comprise 'authorised vehicles'?

No. Therefore IMO the argument would fail even if it was germane to the issues which I'm not certain it is.

Did the OP believe they met the criteria of 'authorised'? No.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:41
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:38) *
This is not a discussion forum as far as I am aware. If we want to discuss matters, the Flame Pit's the place. Aren't we here to get the optimum advice to an OP in as concise a way as possible and doesn't this mean that once a point has been offered it should not be repeated ad nauseam until it's the last entry as if in some way the last comment standing must be correct!

We're beyond the initial hearing, so what is the legal position on the permitted grounds for a review, the procedure, what may be argued and how etc?

It is not a rehearing of the case.

At no time has the OP made reps on the basis that they saw the sign but believed they were an 'authorised vehicle'.
'Authorised vehicle' is not defined in Schedule 1 of the 2016 regs or the RTRA, however it is a term used in quotes which occurs in the Part 2 Sign Table (column 5, para 17 of Part 3).

Are all the terms used in Part 3 defined in the Interpretation Schedule? I don't think so.

So how does the law view this matter (not how should it or how we would like it, but how does it)? IMO, in the absence of a definition, then plain English is imported AND the principle which has been held by adjudicators and courts regarding the balance to be struck between clear signs and administrative burden (attaching a Special Events date plate on a CPZ sign but only making reference to unspecified Special Events in parking bays) is applied.

Is it practical to list all the classes and uses which comprise 'authorised vehicles'?

No. Therefore IMO the argument would fail even if it was germane to the issues which I'm not certain it is.

Did the OP believe they met the criteria of 'authorised'? No.


I see, so after that essay, your advice is, nothing, genius. Bound to succeed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:47
Post #76


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The other point I would make at Review is that camera enforcement is suspect in this case.

There has to be separate approval for bus lane cameras but a MTC is different and since the Order relates to a prohibition of entry the use of specific bus lane cameras is not permissible IMO and thereby such "photographic evidence" is inadmissible.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:49
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I've set out my advice in earlier posts where I have argued that the adjudicator's decision was unsound because the legal framework against which it was made is unclear. If the adj is relying on the 2016 regs for support then they must establish that these are relevant which means identifying the savings link between the previous regs under which authorisations were given and the 2016 version. (It is not for the appellant to deduce or assume this, it is for the adj to state it with reasons. One paragraph would do, but without this we don't know that this was even considered).

IMO, the decision cannot be sound if one doesn't know what 'TSRGD' means.

A better approach in my mind than trying to take on the establishment and challenge the fundamentals of national regs.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:53
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 08:49) *
I've set out my advice in earlier posts where I have argued that the adjudicator's decision was unsound because the legal framework against which it was made is unclear. If the adj is relying on the 2016 regs for support then they must establish that these are relevant which means identifying the savings link between the previous regs under which authorisations were given and the 2016 version. (It is not for the appellant to deduce or assume this, it is for the adj to state it with reasons. One paragraph would do, but without this we don't know that this was even considered).

IMO, the decision cannot be sound if one doesn't know what 'TSRGD' means.

A better approach in my mind than trying to take on the establishment and challenge the fundamentals of national regs.



and what are the grounds for cancelling the pcn? That is the point of the OP asking for help, is it not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:03
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Do you have a copy of the Scottish Appeals Procedures to hand?

Why is cancellation of the PCN at the review stage the only option?

As regards the Appeals Regs the range is:

4) Having reviewed the decision the adjudicator may direct that it be confirmed, that it be revoked or that it be varied.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 12:49
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



In the early part of my appeal I was unsure whether TSRGD 2016 or TSRGD 2002 was the relevant legislation, when I thought it was TSRGD 2016 I said this

"With regard to TSRGD 2016 Part 3

PART 3
Legends for plates associated with circular signs
1. “One way”.
2. “Dual carriageway”.
3.—(1) Subject to sub‑paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), “Except” and any of, or a combination of, the following:
(a)
“buses”;
(b)
“local buses”;
©
“taxis”;
(d)
“cycles”;
(e)
“authorised vehicles”;
(2) “buses” and “local buses” must not be used together.
(3) “and” or “&” must be inserted before the last legend where more than one is used.
(4) “Except” must be varied to “except” when preceded by the legend described in paragraph 8.
4. “For” and a distance.
5. “End”.
6. “Ice” or “Snowdrifts”.
7. “Ice for” or “Snowdrifts for”, and a distance.
8. A time period.
9. “Give way to oncoming vehicles”.
10. “Give way to oncoming vehicles for” and a distance.
11. “Except” and “trams”, “buses”, “local buses”, “cycles”, “buses and cycles” or “local buses and cycles”; “and” may be varied to “&”.
12. “Play Street except for access”.
13. “Play Street” and a time period and “except for access”.
14. “No vehicles”.
15.—(1) Subject to sub‑paragraphs (2) and (3), “Except” and any of, or a combination of, the following—
(a)
“buses” or “local buses”;
(b)
“taxis”;
©
the disabled badge holder symbol;
(d)
“permit holder” or “permit holders”, and, where appropriate, a permit identifier;
(e)
one of—
(i)
“for access”;
(ii)
“for loading”;
(iii)
“for loading by” and the lorry symbol shown in the diagram at item 1 of the table in Part 2 of Schedule 8;
(iv)
“for access to off-street premises”.
(2) “and” or “&” must be inserted before the last legend where more than one is used.
(3) “Except” must be varied to “except” when preceded by the legend described in paragraph 8 or 12.
16. “No explosives” or “No inflammables or explosives”.
17. “and authorised vehicles”.

Therfore to be a prescribed sign and lawful, the Diagram 953 sign can only be used with 8. A time period or 17. “and authorised vehicles”. On inspection of the traffic sign as evident by the councils photograph, the council has chosen to use “Authorised vehicles” which is not a permitted variant. In addition the council has combined the sign with the plate saying Bus lane Cameras and also a directional one way sign, which are again not a permitted variant. "

At the time I looked the plate (e) "authorised vehicles" was a plate but one that General Direction in TSRGD 2016 prevented to be displayed with the 953 roundel as only only 8 and 17 were allowed.
I have't challenged the Scottish governments legal right to authorise a non-prescribed sign of another character or issue special direction in a case by case basis to alter general direction in a particular case. In the signs for Nelson Mandela place the sign "authorised vehicles" from the 1571 is the 953.2 "only" varied however there are no words in the authorisation to explain that this is done. This sign is incorporated into the 1634 sign authorisation with the addition of a new time plate which wasn't authorised in TSRGD 2002 to be used with the 953 sign or the 953.2 sign so varied. My point again is that similar authorisations for near identical sign authorisation in England by the DFT use a combination of authorisation and directions (special directions) which allow this to happen when TSRGD 2002 prevents it. General direction 20 and 21 prevent the 953 roundel and the 953.2 sign being used with any sign other than each other and there are no directions in either authorisations that allow that. The general formula in DFT sign authorisation is to say something like - General direction 20 and 21 of TSRGD 2002 do not apply in this case, then say something like this is not a regulatory sign it is for information only.
So my point is not to take on the system and say they have no power to authorise such a sign, its more to say they have the power but have not done so, it is a challenge of the substance of the order. even if this is all good the signs used are not just the signs approved, so even if they were approved to be used together in the order the other signs are not part of the order, so this is not a challenge of the order. Its a statement that General Directions 20 and 21 prevent the 953 sign and the 953.2 sign being used with any other sign. The Adj has sided with TSM but TSM makes clear it is a guide and does not overrule any mandatory requirements of TSRGD.

All that aside one of the things I'd like to know from the order is if it creates a bus lane, signs are required to show the prohibition, although the requirement is slightly different between the Scotland and England because in this case the law is different. If I could understand whether the order creates a bus lane that would help. I'll post tonight the bus lane order of which the earlier Schedule 44 a (Nelson Mandela Place) is not a part. However from the various definitions of a bus lane in TSRGD 2002 or the Transport Act, the general description is of a road to be used only by Buses, or taxis or cycyclist and other classes. In the Oxfordshire bus gate it was ruled that a bus lane was at all times a bus lane, in that case how is it that during the hours 7 am to 7 pm its is a bus lane contravention to go through this section but in the hours 7 pm until 7 am it is not. The only way I could see that a vehicle could pass at night would be if it was a class specified in the order i.e all vehicles between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am. This suggest to me that it is not a bus lane but a prohibition of entry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:44
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here