Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: No Entry Except Buses
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
ianbannerman
This is my first post on this forum, and so far I have been impressed with the wealth of information available.

I was stopped recently in The Jewel area of Edinburgh for Not Obeying a No Entry sign. I was stopped by the police and given 3 points and a £60 fine.

The sign in question is a No Entry sign with "Except Buses" written below. I was surprised to receive 3 points for an offence which I cannot see as dangerous. This BBC new article looks promising for my case - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/720691.stm - where the case was dropped as the two signs carry different chrages, but I have so far been unable to confirm this. Does anyone have any knowledge on this, or similar cases?

Another possibilty is the Road Marking accompanying the sign reads "Buses Only". Road Marking diagram 1048.3 specifies "Bus Only" with no variants. If this were the case would it be possible to contest on the grounds the sign wasn't valid?

Thanks,

Ian
bama
got pics ?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autoco...ticle&id=16
ianbannerman
Yes, hope this link works...

http://picasaweb.google.com/ibannerman/NoE...key=pt9cwhwL63Y

That photo was taken a few days after the offence - the right sign was aligned correctly on the night.
bama
I haven't checked the TSRGD but it seems that this applies

""A 'no Entry' sign, where some vehicles are allowed, should be a white circle with a red border."

in your pic it is not a white circle with a red border
Gaza
QUOTE (ianbannerman @ Wed, 20 Feb 2008 - 01:01) *
This BBC new article looks promising for my case - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/720691.stm - where the case was dropped as the two signs carry different chrages, but I have so far been unable to confirm this. Does anyone have any knowledge on this, or similar cases?


I remember that case. IIRC the signs are still the same. At the time the lawyer agruged that the two signs could not be used together. According to the BBC report she won. I was going to suggest that you contact her to see if she would take on your case but you may find that she holds a different view these days. wink.gif wink.gif

A check of the Scottish Law Society website reveals that the contact details for the only Laura Irvine:-

QUOTE
Laura Jane Irvine
Date of Admission: 04 Aug 1999

Contact Details

Procurator Fiscal Service,
Crown Office,
25 Chambers Street,
EDINBURGH,
Scotland,
EH1 1LA,
0131 2262626,
0131 2266910,
laura.irvine@copfs.gsi.gov.uk


tongue.gif laugh.gif biggrin.gif

If you are feeling cheeky why not drop her an email asking if she is the same person in the BBC story and if she is does she still hold the same view? tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif
ianbannerman
Thanks Gaza - I had been looking for the contact details of Laura Irvine. Obviously in the hope she could represent me! but I will maybe drop her an email anyway...
jeffreyarcher
Generally, a 'No Entry' signs is allowed to have an 'except buses' plate.
In the BBC article, the supplementary plate said 'except buses cycles & taxis', which, generally is not allowed.
In the BBC article, Ms Irvine (representing the accused) seems to have managed to ambush the PF, because, although a 'No Entry' sign is not generally permitted to have an 'except buses cycles & taxis' plate, it is in Edinburgh, because the SoS for Scotland has issued a special permission under S64 (or S65?) of the RTRA 1984 to allow it.
So, since the plate said 'except buses', you are stuffed.
Somebody posted something about the Traffic Signs manual saying that they shouldn't use 'No Entry' signs where there is no danger, as in the presnet case, but that doesn't have the force of law.

Also, I think that you'll have hard job with the wrong 1084.3, because;
1) It is not a requirement of a 'Except Buses' plate, and
2) Skeen v Smith. SvS is a perverse Scottish case, out of line with England, where it was held that road markings are not traffic signs [#]. The case involved a 'Stop' sign, where the 'Stop' markings were badly worn. Despite 'Stop' markings being mandatory with a 'Stop' sign, it was held that the accused should be convicted.
[#] Quite how that squares with, say, a double white line, I've no idea. How you can commit a traffic sign offence something that isn't a traffic sign escapes me, but then, I'm not a Scottish High court judge.
A pair of 'No Entry' signs is required, so if they were at that angle on the night, and you can prove it, you should have a defence.

QUOTE (bama @ Wed, 20 Feb 2008 - 11:27) *
I haven't checked the TSRGD but it seems that this applies
""A 'no Entry' sign, where some vehicles are allowed, should be a white circle with a red border."

Give us a clue, in amongst the millions of printed publications, not to mention billions of web pages, did you find that quote? rolleyes.gif
bama
quote from bbc paged linked at the top of thread
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/720691.stm
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (bama @ Thu, 21 Feb 2008 - 15:57) *
quote from bbc paged linked at the top of thread
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/720691.stm

icon_redface.gif
Not strictly true, then. See my post above (and the TSRGDs).
ianbannerman
Thanks jeffryarcher for clarifying the above. Looks like I'll have to have to give them my £60 and get the three points on my licence in return!

Ian
saracengb
So would there be any mileage in challenging the FPN anyway? I mean if you thought the signage/road markings were wrong according to the TSRGDs - you wouldn't necessarily know about the Scottish case law - or is that a bit naughty? huh.gif

:awaits public flogging:
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (saracengb @ Thu, 21 Feb 2008 - 22:58) *
you wouldn't necessarily know about the Scottish case law

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

As to the general point about just ignoring the COFP, if it was me, I would.
Unlike with speeding, they can't give you more than three points for this traffic sign offence. So, all you are risking is an increased fine (no costs in Scotland).

Also, there was an article in the Glasgow Herald some years ago, that said, basically, you had a 75% chance of not being taken to court, in Edinburgh, for minor motoring offences, if you ignored the COFP (and the COFP that the PF may issue). Now, it was a few years ago, so may no longer be the case, but, as I said, if it was me, I'd ignore the COFP(s).
ianbannerman
Thanks for all the advice.

I've decided to ignore the COFP and will wait and see what happens next. I will definitely come back to this forum for advice for the next stage.

Thanks Again,

Ian
sharewatcher
In the meantime why not apply for the relevant Traffic Regulation Orders for the signs, if nothing else it will make a good bedtime read.

I am going through something similar with the LED no entry signs at the grassmarket,

You may want to follow up that the Traffic Regulation Orders Edinburgh appear to be unsealed
sharewatcher
You may want to follow up that the Traffic Regulation Orders Edinburgh issue appear to be unsealed

PS I can't seem to edit my posts?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.