Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Penalty Points?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
bidderman1969
Up at Heathrow at minute, and used the Seaford Road as a turning point, as have been for a while now, and was stopped by a chap saying that the I now run the risk of 6 points if I did it again, as on the main road on a red sign says "authorised vehicles only", and another sign he was blabbering on about which he says will mean the 6 point penalty next time as there is now an ANPR camera on the gantry now, so far do's if it's correct, so all I need to know is, is this correct? Or is it just the freight company getting it's knickers in a twist? Or is like the McDonalds/supermarket camera thing?

Cheers
Aretnap
Contravening certain signs (eg No Entry) will get you three points if they're on a public road, or at least one with a traffic regulation order. "Authorised vehicles only" is not such a sign - I'm not even sure that there's such a sign in the TSRGD at all. What was the other sign?

There's no road sign which you'll get six points for contravening. So I suspect the guy was talking bollox. That doesn't necessarily mean it's OK to turn there though.
bidderman1969
QUOTE (Aretnap @ Wed, 7 Mar 2012 - 17:31) *
Contravening certain signs (eg No Entry) will get you three points if they're on a public road, or at least one with a traffic regulation order. "Authorised vehicles only" is not such a sign - I'm not even sure that there's such a sign in the TSRGD at all. What was the other sign?

There's no road sign which you'll get six points for contravening. So I suspect the guy was talking bollox. That doesn't necessarily mean it's OK to turn there though.


cheers chap, he said there was 2 signs that i "ignored" the "no unauthorised vehicles" one was one of them, cant remember the other one, and it was three points for each one.

big question that i thought was, how would the "ANPR" type camera know i WAS an "unauthorised vehicle", a) being a taxi for one, and b) "someone" may have ordered it and i was picking them up at the time?????????????

dont even know if its a public road or private, if it was private, i'd have thought they would install some sort of barrier if they really didnt want people turning there

so far, the nearest i can get to this, is this bit here

http://www.nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk/ethics.asp

but this seems to cover parking

so far, the nearest i can get to this, is this bit here

http://www.nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk/ethics.asp

but this seems to cover parking
bidderman1969
right, managed to get some pics, apologies for the quality as they were taken "on the move"

first sign says "no left turn", fair enough........


next says left turn ahead........... eh?


then says "authorised vehicles only"

however, from the other way, there is "no right turn" sign at all!




cant see how you can have conflicting signs tbh
jobo
il try to rehash what you were told above


some signs are endorsable, some are a fines and some are just bollux

a no left turn sign is a fine, a no entry sign is points, a no unauthorised vehicles sign is bollux, unless it a gives some indecation of what is a aurthosised vehicle, meets the requirements of the regs and is subject to an order at the coucil, you cant get a 3 points for each sign you ignore even if it is an endorable sign your ignoring just 3

what proberbly going on here is the airport are putting up their own signs as it is their propety despite also being a public road and as such id doubt that any of them are enforable, but if you want to know for sure, contact the council and ask for the traffic regulation order for that road, if there isnt one or it doesnt show those signs then you can ignore them with impunity, if it shows some of the signs then just comply with those
bidderman1969
Thanks Jobo, that's a huge help, much appreciated. Think I will indeed go down the route of contacting the council
bidderman1969
jeeeeeeez, trying to get info on this road is a nightmare!
bidderman1969
this is ridiculous, been told this is a BAA road, but cant get anyone to talk to
bidderman1969
apparently, this road IS owned by BA, (southern perimeter road), according to BA, and the signs, etc are run by a company called "First and Last", and the person to ask is a Vicky Sutton, cant find it at present though.............

progress i suppose................

this is sounding like unenforceable to me, but we shall see.............

p.s., unable to find them
Johnxxx
To the OP :
The whole of Heathrow is private land, mostly owned by BAA (not BA - but they do own some parts) but Road Traffic Act laws apply and BAA pays the Metropolitan Police to provide policing (BAA used to have their own police force many years ago). However, this doesn't preclude BAA putting up their own / additional signs which are not in TSRGD and I believe that the police are authorised to enforce these private signs also. (BAA security will normally call the police to enforce any contravention rather than deal with it themselves).

There are very small white signs (with red letters) at all entry points to the BAA land (but unreadable from inside a vehicle and pedestrians are in danger of being run over if they try to read them) which say that access is restricted to vehicles on airport business only and a bunch of other bye-laws stuff. In your case this would have been back at the roundabout where the Southern Perimeter Road meets the A3044 / A3113)

Seaford Road provides access to the fuel terminal and to the Sandringham Road Cargo Terminal buildings. "Authorised Users" means people and vehicles needing access to the relevant buildings or facilities. This could only be determined by someone (usually the police or BAA security) stopping you and asking why you were there and whether you have documents or other evidence to support your reason. There is no registration or permit scheme for controlling access - members of the public can legitimately visit any of the cargo agents to deliver or collect air freight or make enquiries etc or just to pick up / drop off friends and relatives working or visiting there.

ANPR camera cannot check "authorisation" in these circumstances, and also couldn't detect a vehicle turning round (but there might be other cameras that could). ANPR is used at these points to check registration numbers for security purposes. Parking in the Cargo terminal areas is for "cargo related business" only (see separate signs - no sleeping, no dumping of trailers, 4hrs max etc but rarely enforced) and a PPC has recently put up their own non-sensical signs with the usual dire warnings. Whether they also intend / expect to use ANPR to enforce the non-sensical parking notices remains to be seen.

Can you say "who" the person was who told you about points etc ? Did he have any logo or markings on his hi-viz vest (assuming that he was wearing one) or did he say who he worked for ?

I don't really understand the "no left turn" sign. There IS a left turn, with a green left filter on the traffic light but it is also a dead end and could be "For access only" but the signs don't say this. Coming the other way, there is NOT a "No right turn" sign (as you said) and there is a Right Turn lane with its own green filter on the traffic light.

I'd be inclined not to worry - my guess is that this "helpful citizen" has seen the ANPR cameras go up and put two and two together to add up to six points. I'll keep my eyes and ears open and let you know if I find out anything else (I was possibly driving the Goldstar lorry in front of you in your photo).

bidderman1969
Cheers for that John, it's much appreciated, and a very interesting read, what really gets up my nose, tbh, is that it isn't hurting anyone at all, never caused a jam of any sorts, and we are bringing and taking away their (BAA) customers!

And I didn't see any markings as such, he did have Hi-vis vest on, and I should have asked who he was really but was "caught cold", won't happen again tho, lol
jobo
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Wed, 14 Mar 2012 - 05:30) *
To the OP :
The whole of Heathrow is private land, mostly owned by BAA (not BA - but they do own some parts) but Road Traffic Act laws apply and BAA pays the Metropolitan Police to provide policing (BAA used to have their own police force many years ago). However, this doesn't preclude BAA putting up their own / additional signs which are not in TSRGD and I believe that the police are authorised to enforce these private signs also. (BAA security will normally call the police to enforce any contravention rather than deal with it themselves).


id love to know how you think the police can enforce through the courts signs that arnt inTSRGD ?

op your going the hard way about this, do what i suggest and ring the council if there isnt a RTO for that sign then it isnt enforcable.. that wouldnt i admit stop the police from TRYING to inforce it, but you cant be convicted
sans john producing some law that im unaware of that you can
Aretnap
I have a vague recollection that airport roads are subject to bylaws, similar to railway bylaws in station car-parks. If my vague recollection is correct then signs may be enforceable under these bylaws, even if backed by a TRO and/or not-compliant with the TSRGD. not enforceable to the extent of getting points on your licence, but possibly to the extent of a fine.
bidderman1969
QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 15 Mar 2012 - 13:15) *
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Wed, 14 Mar 2012 - 05:30) *
To the OP :
The whole of Heathrow is private land, mostly owned by BAA (not BA - but they do own some parts) but Road Traffic Act laws apply and BAA pays the Metropolitan Police to provide policing (BAA used to have their own police force many years ago). However, this doesn't preclude BAA putting up their own / additional signs which are not in TSRGD and I believe that the police are authorised to enforce these private signs also. (BAA security will normally call the police to enforce any contravention rather than deal with it themselves).


id love to know how you think the police can enforce through the courts signs that arnt inTSRGD ?

op your going the hard way about this, do what i suggest and ring the council if there isnt a RTO for that sign then it isnt enforcable.. that wouldnt i admit stop the police from TRYING to inforce it, but you cant be convicted
sans john producing some law that im unaware of that you can


honestly chap, i ended up ringing around 5 different councils/others to finally get to BAA, of which i was told its enforced through a company called "First and Last", of which i can find no details about sad.gif

QUOTE (Aretnap @ Thu, 15 Mar 2012 - 14:05) *
I have a vague recollection that airport roads are subject to bylaws, similar to railway bylaws in station car-parks. If my vague recollection is correct then signs may be enforceable under these bylaws, even if backed by a TRO and/or not-compliant with the TSRGD. not enforceable to the extent of getting points on your licence, but possibly to the extent of a fine.


hhhhhhhhhmmmm, this sounds like a nightmare

if i go into one of the offices, do you think someone would know what i was on about, asking about sign legalities? lol
Aretnap
Heathrow Byelaws

QUOTE
3(28) Fail to comply with signs etc
No person whether on foot or whilst driving or propelling a vehicle shall neglect, fail or refuse to comply with an indication or direction given by a Constable or Airport Official or sign exhibited by or on behalf of the Airport Company or by a notice.
jobo
did you ask the council for the TRO ?
jobo
seems i may be wrong, i forgot about the independent state of hearthrow, but it wouldnt be endorsable, im not at all convinced they can put up random unaproved signs and then inforce them through the courts and of course they have no 172 rights so unless its the police they would have noway of IDing the driver
Johnxxx
QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 15 Mar 2012 - 13:15) *
... but you cant be convicted sans john producing some law that im unaware of that you can

I said that "I believed..." and it appears from subsequent posts that the Heathrow Byelaws contain the necessary authorisations. What is probably not so clear is the exact nature / extent of whatever contract is used between BAA and the Met to cover the policing responsibilities for the Airport, especially in relation to fines, endorsements, convictions etc. I also don't know which law enables "Road Traffic Enactments" to be enforced on the Airport - this might also include associated fines, endorsements, convictions, TSRGD applicability and NIP / S.172 procedures etc.

If anyone is interested then this might be worthy of a separate topic, but shouldn't be a trigger for hijacking this OPs thread.

QUOTE (bidderman1969 @ Wed, 14 Mar 2012 - 12:45) *
... what really gets up my nose, tbh, is that it isn't hurting anyone at all, never caused a jam of any sorts, and we are bringing and taking away their (BAA) customers!

I suspect that your new-found friend is nothing to do with BAA. Don't lose any more sleep over this - just let us know if anything else comes up on this matter. I will do likewise if I see or hear anything while chugging around the airport.
bidderman1969
yes, Jobo, i did indeed ask each one i phoned and was just fobbed off onto the next one.

cheers John, will appreciate knowing if you do hear anything, last thing i need is fines/points as im just about to have a clean licence, biggrin.gif
jobo
yes john you were correct on a minor point, but the rest is misleading, the police have the legal aurthority to prosicute by laws irrespective of any contract, but the police can chose not to unless they get paid,, but a by law that suggests any sign or notice, relating to anything at all, of any size or colour combination in any location on a public road is punshible with a thousand pound fine is optimistic id say and either there is proper info in the actual document or they are largely unenforcable. they could only prosicute it under the bylaw and not the RTA and therefore it would be non endorsable
bidderman1969
what possible value of fine under the bylaw would be expected?
jobo
well if i read the bylaw correctly its a level 3, which is a max of a grand, but would work out more like 200 quid in the real world
Johnxxx
QUOTE (bidderman1969 @ Tue, 13 Mar 2012 - 15:14) *
apparently, this road IS owned by BA, (southern perimeter road), according to BA, and the signs, etc are run by a company called "First and Last"... p.s., unable to find them

a) It would be useful to know whether the "Public Roads" on the airport have been "adopted" by the local authority (LB of Hounslow ?) or remain under BAA. What would be the TRO implications in the latter case and the use of non-TSRGD signage etc ?
b) I couldn't find any relevant "First and Last" on Google or Companys' House but then I remembered that BAA has a Dept or Campaign called "First and Last Impressions" or similar. This is responsible for ensuring that customers only have positive impressions and experiences at all BAA airports, and includes responsibility for all facilities seen or used by the public - which would presumably include roads and signage etc. Need to dig deeper into BAA's org charts and annual reports.
bidderman1969
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Mon, 19 Mar 2012 - 04:45) *
QUOTE (bidderman1969 @ Tue, 13 Mar 2012 - 15:14) *
apparently, this road IS owned by BA, (southern perimeter road), according to BA, and the signs, etc are run by a company called "First and Last"... p.s., unable to find them

a) It would be useful to know whether the "Public Roads" on the airport have been "adopted" by the local authority (LB of Hounslow ?) or remain under BAA. What would be the TRO implications in the latter case and the use of non-TSRGD signage etc ?
b) I couldn't find any relevant "First and Last" on Google or Companys' House but then I remembered that BAA has a Dept or Campaign called "First and Last Impressions" or similar. This is responsible for ensuring that customers only have positive impressions and experiences at all BAA airports, and includes responsibility for all facilities seen or used by the public - which would presumably include roads and signage etc. Need to dig deeper into BAA's org charts and annual reports.


be great if you could, thats where i came up against a brick wall really,

i suppose though best no risk it really as it seems atn a decision could go either way with regards to the original signage
Johnxxx
QUOTE (bidderman1969 @ Tue, 20 Mar 2012 - 18:49) *
... it seems atn a decision could go either way with regards to the original signage

I don't think so. The "No left Turn" sign seems to be a mistake, and there would normally be a similar "No Left Turn" sign on the traffic light, but there isn't. In fact there is a left turn arrow on the traffic light which confirms that this turn is allowed (so far as "Road Traffic Enactments" are concerned) - which means that normal NIPs, S.172 obligations to identify the driver, CoFP, Awareness Courses, points/endorsements etc should not be an issue at these lights.

So far as the "Authorised Vehicles Only" sign is concerned, this appears to be a BAA "private" sign which could invoke a hefty fine under the byelaws (but no points/endorsement). The lawyers need to say whether this could be prosecuted using NIPs, S.172 obligations etc or whether it would be a "criminal" fine / penalty or a "civil" charge. It is also uncertain whether / where / how the criteria for an "Authorised Vehicle" are documented - it's not mentioned anywhere in the Heathrow Byelaws.

To my mind it is also not clear whether a u-turn would not be an "Authorised" manoeuvre, since there are no signs to prohibit it at this junction (did you do the u-turn within the junction or actually go down to Sandringham Road and turn around there - not that it really makes much difference IMHO ?)
Johnxxx
QUOTE (jobo @ Sat, 17 Mar 2012 - 17:30) *
yes john you were correct on a minor point, but the rest is misleading...

I'm glad that I was correct on something (but not sure what). I don't understand "misleading" because I said that the rest of the issues were unclear. Anyway, what seems to be the substantive questions are :

a) All roads at Heathrow appear to be subject to "Road Traffic Enactments" unless there is a sign saying otherwise. Who determines these designations and under what authority or procedures, given that it is private land ?

b) The police are apparently responsible for enforcing the "Road Traffic Enactments" in the same way that they do elsewhere (based on identifying the driver) - whether BAA pays them or not. However, somebody must presumably generate TRO's (or equivalent) and someone has to design, engineer and maintain the junctions, traffic lights, road markings and signage in accordance with RTA, TSRGD and other DfT guidance / directives or any prosecutions might fail in court. Who does this for Heathrow - BAA (possibly the "First and Last Dept"), the local borough, TfL, or Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all ?

c) Since de-criminalisation of parking and some moving traffic offences, local authorities and boroughs have taken on "Civil Enforcement" responsibilities. Does this also apply to Heathrow - and who does it ? I believe that this would include improper left or right turns, box junction infringments etc but would result in Penalty Charge Notices ("real" PCNs) rather than NIPs etc. These penalties are payable by the owner / keeper rather than the driver, who therefore does not need to be identified. Has the local borough "adopted" any of the "public roads" at Heathrow and therefore able to carry out these functions ?

d) The police can also enforce the Heathrow byelaws (whether they are paid to or not) but where would they get their authority from (e.g. to determine what an "Authorised Vehicle " is in any particular situation). Which procedures would they use to impose a fine or initiate a prosecution ( e.g Fixed Penalty Notice) and would it include S.172 obligations, or would they just prosecute the owner / keeper (presumably via CPS) and at who's expense (CPS or BAA) ?

e) Would a "Private Parking Contractor" engaged by BAA or one of its tenants be enforcing the Parking Byelaw, issuing real FPNs or PCNs or just be doing what they do everywhere else and issuing "fake" PCNs ? This has all the makings of a Northern Rail situation where they try to use both approaches to ensure "success"

I don't believe that the OP will hear anymore about this one, but if someone does manage to fall foul of the rules at Heathrow it has all the makings of a dogs breakfast and should keep this forum going for quite some time. Does SgtDixie have any chums at Heathrow Police Station who might know the answers to some of the above ?
Johnxxx
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Wed, 21 Mar 2012 - 02:10) *
... but if someone does manage to fall foul of the rules at Heathrow it has all the makings of a dogs breakfast and should keep this forum going for quite some time.

It didn't take long - this one has come along and has the initial appearances of being a dog's breakfast with some or all of the above issues etc
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=69173
Maybe there'll be another one or two along soon. It would be good to work on the "BAA doesn't want these matters discussed in Pepipoo" angle to see what leverage we can apply.

If someone at BAA reads Pepipoo in their spare time perhaps they would like to answer the questions above (or not as the case may be - it could be a career limiting move)
jobo
jonh im getting rather towards the end og my knowledge on the subect

but il say what i know/suspect

airports are regutary aurthorities, that is like councils they can make there own laws under deligated powers geven them in legislation, there could quite conviecably be a power in some aieport act orto set the road laws on their land and enforce these through the courts they may even be a traffic aurthority under the act and able to write their own TROs

however they cant have it bothways, if they can write their own then they need to comply with the signage requirements and make the TRO available to the public on request etc

that its private land wouldnt stop it being a public road and substanial parts of the RTA would apply as far as the police were concerned, but crucialy signs apart from traffic lights wouldnt be one of them, sans a TRO, they couldnt as in the other case say this is a clearway and not bother signing it and they couldnt as in this case take a non aproved sign and include it
they could as you say have decrim powers, but there still the TRO/signage would need to be compliant to do so. which as far as this sign is concerned only leaves the very general condition in the bylaw for them to go at

even more of a dogs dinner is the getting the owners/drivers details, they would have no power to do so for a bylaw3 offence which would be the responsibility of the driver, but could hold the owner responsible for a decrimed one, but thepolice would not have any 172 power to demand name and address for a bylaw offence and quite possibly not for a TRO offence depending on what it was, there may be 112 powers for this but id need to read it again to check
Johnxxx
Thanks jobo. I suspect that Heathrow continues to thrive on these matters because it's beyond most peoples knowledge, and they hide behind the confusion in a world of their own.

Note to mods - I suggest that we should close this topic (unless Bidderman comes up with new info re his own predicament) and put any further contributions into the other Heathrow topic, which is live with an actual FPN issued. It might also be relevant to put jobo's "last post" into that topic since he is primarily discussing the "stopping on a clearway" FPN.

We can then all proceed from there to see how we can help the other OP to sort out their situation.
bidderman1969
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Wed, 21 Mar 2012 - 01:34) *
QUOTE (bidderman1969 @ Tue, 20 Mar 2012 - 18:49) *
... it seems atn a decision could go either way with regards to the original signage

I don't think so. The "No left Turn" sign seems to be a mistake, and there would normally be a similar "No Left Turn" sign on the traffic light, but there isn't. In fact there is a left turn arrow on the traffic light which confirms that this turn is allowed (so far as "Road Traffic Enactments" are concerned) - which means that normal NIPs, S.172 obligations to identify the driver, CoFP, Awareness Courses, points/endorsements etc should not be an issue at these lights.

So far as the "Authorised Vehicles Only" sign is concerned, this appears to be a BAA "private" sign which could invoke a hefty fine under the byelaws (but no points/endorsement). The lawyers need to say whether this could be prosecuted using NIPs, S.172 obligations etc or whether it would be a "criminal" fine / penalty or a "civil" charge. It is also uncertain whether / where / how the criteria for an "Authorised Vehicle" are documented - it's not mentioned anywhere in the Heathrow Byelaws.

To my mind it is also not clear whether a u-turn would not be an "Authorised" manoeuvre, since there are no signs to prohibit it at this junction (did you do the u-turn within the junction or actually go down to Sandringham Road and turn around there - not that it really makes much difference IMHO ?)


yup, spot on fella, down Seaford Road, then turned in Sandringham Road, and back out.

very good info and discussion points made on this thread too, much appreciated, off to see the other thread now, lol
Chas820
QUOTE
down Seaford Road, then turned in Sandringham Road, and back out


Yep vehicles do this all the time,drivers who have taken a wrong turn for the terminals.I used to work in one of the sheds at the bottom of the slope and it happened several times an hour.As an aside do you realise that the Stanwell Moor Rd heading for Staines may have an unenforceable speed limit (50)on it?As you exit the airport there is a pair of national speed limit signs but as you travel towards Staines, all there is, are a couple of 50mph repeaters.There are no 50mph signs at all at the start of the limit.Coming from Staines it is properly signed.Sorry mods a bit off topic.
Sangamoura
Here's hoping plod don't see your photos and use them do you for driving without due care and/or using you mobile phone dry.gif
bidderman1969
Me? Well, it was in a cradle at the time....... besides, can't think of how to take pics of it otherwise

Johnxxx
QUOTE (bidderman1969 @ Tue, 3 Apr 2012 - 21:18) *
Me? Well, it was in a cradle at the time....... besides, can't think of how to take pics of it otherwise

Ummm ... you could park your car at the Esso garage or down in Sandringham Road, and walk to the signs to take pictures. Or you could have a passenger taking the pictures - or you could be a passenger with someone else driving.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether "taking pictures" constitutes "using a mobile phone".

Using a real camera doesn't count as using a mobile phone (but might still be liable to a "due care and attention" or "not in proper control" charge - as in eating an apple or a sandwich, or re-tuning the radio, changing a CD, or changing gear, etc).
localdriver
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 21 Mar 2012 - 13:49) *
even more of a dogs dinner is the getting the owners/drivers details, they would have no power to do so for a bylaw3 offence which would be the responsibility of the driver, but could hold the owner responsible for a decrimed one, but thepolice would not have any 172 power to demand name and address for a bylaw offence and quite possibly not for a TRO offence depending on what it was, there may be 112 powers for this but id need to read it again to check


Could they claim that s.172(1)© 'any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads') applies to airport bylaws?
bidderman1969
seems a bleeding nightmare this scenario, lol
jobo
QUOTE (localdriver @ Wed, 4 Apr 2012 - 17:07) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 21 Mar 2012 - 13:49) *
even more of a dogs dinner is the getting the owners/drivers details, they would have no power to do so for a bylaw3 offence which would be the responsibility of the driver, but could hold the owner responsible for a decrimed one, but thepolice would not have any 172 power to demand name and address for a bylaw offence and quite possibly not for a TRO offence depending on what it was, there may be 112 powers for this but id need to read it again to check
Could they claim that s.172(1)© 'any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads') applies to airport bylaws?


i wouldnt have thought so, as far as i know, they can only 172 if there is an accusation of an offence under the RTA
if they sent aq 172 saying,, airport bylaw, it wouldnt be an offence not to repply

if they could used a reply to prosicute a bylaw im not sure, but suspect not
bidderman1969
anything new turned up yet chaps?

im thinking of going into that road and ask around, see who it was and what written documentation they have to back up what i was told
Gan
I can't find any companies called First & Last that could have anything to do with airport traffic

The only site I can find with copies of the Heathrow byelaws needs permissions.
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.