Tribunal brands Park Way bridge signs illegal Options

[MontyPython]

Let's hope the NWN haven't got over excited and misreported the story.

But you don't really care as long as the motorists get screwed!

[Strafin]

Have reluctantly bought the paper now. (75p!!! )

Am struggling to get my head around this though, "the alleged contravention did not occur because the carriageway warning is sited so that the drivers have already entered the forbidden area by the time they have seen it." What? What does that mean?? The photo on the front page makes that sound just a daft statement...

It's at the start of the road. Where else is the marking meant to go? Holographic images projected onto the line of sight?


(the photo on the NWN front page is clearer than this one from their website)

And there's this statement.. "the signs are not adequately clear and give insufficient opportunity to understand where the restriction begins and how to avoid it." eh? It's a roundabout!! You go round the roundabout to avoid it.
Just a suggestion.

If you're going at it head on it is obvious, but if you are turning left into it, not so much. Doesn't matter anyway, if the signs have been deemed illegal thru are just graffiti until rectified.

[spartacus]

Given the close scrutiny this has been given over the couple of years it's been in place, with multiple articles in the paper and no doubt numerous appeals to the Tribunal from unhappy motorists and additional pressure from Councillors demanding that it is watertight if they are going to give a statement in support, I'd be very surprised indeed if the bus lane wasn't adhering to every single aspect of traffic regulations to the letter.

I'll say again that Tribunal adjudicators are not all fully conversant with every minute detail of the heavy volume that makes up the Traffic Signs Regulations and it's associated legislation. Having dealt with them myself over the years while working for London authorities I can vouch for the fact that they are not generally from a traffic law background and few if any have any experience of implementation of traffic schemes.

The interpretation of the regulations by this adjudicator may be that, in their opinion, the signs or road markings are faulty, but a team I worked for have previously twice successfully appealed an initial ruling by the Tribunal on the basis that the opinion of the adjudicator was irrelevant as it was stated traffic law and the strict compliance with the traffic sign regulations that should be the basis for a decision, not the gut feeling from an adjudicator.

Decisions are normally final and not subject to further appeal and normally it's not worth the hassle for councils to appeal Tribunal decisions they think are incorrect despite the traffic law to the contrary. But with high profile cases which are a bit of a newsworthy item locally it is something that has to be challenged to the lead adjudicator at the Tribunal occasionally.

I doubt we've heard the last of this.

[Andy Capp]

Just put the signs at the beginning of the area they refer to and put an 'escape' into the carpark would be my suggestion.

[spartacus]

Just put the signs at the beginning of the area they refer to and put an 'escape' into the carpark would be my suggestion.

Looking at the photo on the front page of the paper that's what is already in place.

Don't want to go forward past the signs? Well 'escape' into The Wharf car park and use that as an area to turn your car around, or turn around on the roundabout and escape back the way you've come.

The signs also seem to be at the start of the bridge ramp and at the exit from that roundabout. Might need to see it on the ground as the photo might be giving a distorted view, but I don't see a great need to move anything. Moving them forward would make them more awkward to see as you come out of The Wharf car park I suspect.

[spartacus]

Duplicate - where's the 'delete entry' button?

[On the edge]

Given the close scrutiny this has been given over the couple of years it's been in place, with multiple articles in the paper and no doubt numerous appeals to the Tribunal from unhappy motorists and additional pressure from Councillors demanding that it is watertight if they are going to give a statement in support, I'd be very surprised indeed if the bus lane wasn't adhering to every single aspect of traffic regulations to the letter.

I'll say again that Tribunal adjudicators are not all fully conversant with every minute detail of the heavy volume that makes up the Traffic Signs Regulations and it's associated legislation. Having dealt with them myself over the years while working for London authorities I can vouch for the fact that they are not generally from a traffic law background and few if any have any experience of implementation of traffic schemes.

The interpretation of the regulations by this adjudicator may be that, in their opinion, the signs or road markings are faulty, but a team I worked for have previously twice successfully appealed an initial ruling by the Tribunal on the basis that the opinion of the adjudicator was irrelevant as it was stated traffic law and the strict compliance with the traffic sign regulations that should be the basis for a decision, not the gut feeling from an adjudicator.

Decisions are normally final and not subject to further appeal and normally it's not worth the hassle for councils to appeal Tribunal decisions they think are incorrect despite the traffic law to the contrary. But with high profile cases which are a bit of a newsworthy item locally it is something that has to be challenged to the lead adjudicator at the Tribunal occasionally.

I doubt we've heard the last of this.

To be honest, whatever the outcome, I really do wish WBC would come out fighting and heavily defend its position. Not doing so means we are squittering away thousands of pounds on signs and other stuff which just winds up the public and makes the Council look incompetent and unskilled. That would take some real leadership though; having a Councillor go red and splutter away, and another (apparently responsible) say nothing at all does make it look as if they have something to hide - remember, this isn't the only example round here, some off street parking signage has also been challenged.

So WBC Leaders and Executive, where are your guts? Will you vigorously defend your policies and strongly back your in in house expertise? Real leadership would mean this was second nature.

[Biker1]

This sort of thing happens on a regular basis these days.
People getting away with misdemeanors on a "technicality" when they have obviously committed an offence.
Of a more serious nature are those that get away with drink driving and dangerous driving offences because of minor irregularities in their prosecution case.
There are even solicitors who specialise, and have made a healthy living from, this type of evasion.
It is obvious in this case what the road and post signs mean but those who chose to ignore them are now trying to seek recompense for their misdemeanor by investigating minor technicalities.
If they couldn't see the signs or couldn't understand what they meant then maybe they should question their driving abilities?

[Strafin]

I couldn't disagree more! If the signage and "technicalities" aren't correct and in place, then they are not committing an offence, it's not about evading laws, it's about those putting the laws in place doing it properly.

[Biker1]

I couldn't disagree more! If the signage and "technicalities" aren't correct and in place, then they are not committing an offence, it's not about evading laws, it's about those putting the laws in place doing it properly.

Maybe in this case it is not so important, but if say a relative of yours was killed or injured by a drunk driver and they got off on a "technicality" would you feel the same?
It's the same principal.

[Andy Capp]

Looking at the photo on the front page of the paper that's what is already in place.

If the start of the restriction is where the sign post is, then you have a section of road that is accessible but no means of easily turing away from, except for maybe a three point turn.

As for getting away with things on a technicality, this is precisely what happens to Simon Kirby when someone from the NTC was called before court. Simon had exceeded the amount of time you could call for the case to be listened to. If it's good enough for 'them' (authority), then it's good enough for the plebs.

This sort of thing happens on a regular basis these days.
People getting away with misdemeanors on a "technicality" when they have obviously committed an offence.
Of a more serious nature are those that get away with drink driving and dangerous driving offences because of minor irregularities in their prosecution case.
There are even solicitors who specialise, and have made a healthy living from, this type of evasion.
It is obvious in this case what the road and post signs mean but those who chose to ignore them are now trying to seek recompense for their misdemeanor by investigating minor technicalities.
If they couldn't see the signs or couldn't understand what they meant then maybe they should question their driving abilities?

If we are to be penalised, then these things should be nailed shut, otherwise it is like extortion, or taking money under false pretence.

[Andy Capp]

Maybe in this case it is not so important, but if say a relative of yours was killed or injured by a drunk driver and they got off on a "technicality" would you feel the same?
It's the same principal.

Emotions have no bearing on guilt. Whether someone feels aggrieved or not doesn't change someone's guilt.

[Andy Capp]

So WBC Leaders and Executive, where are your guts? Will you vigorously defend your policies and strongly back your in in house expertise? Real leadership would mean this was second nature.

I'd rather they just tried to make things right, rather than this bodged road system we have in town.

[On the edge]

I'd rather they just tried to make things right, rather than this bodged road system we have in town.

Couldn't agree more. However it seems that there is a belief that it is right, if so, no issue, just prove it! WBC as a law enforcement body ought to be whiter than white, so a legally constituted tribunal chair, saying in clear and public terms that they've got if wrong must be treated very seriously indeed. Either vigorously challenge or put if right. That last option should result in some very heavy internal action if chosen, because it would demonstrate the Council really doesn't know how to instal statutory signage.

[Berkshirelad]

Andy is absolutely right.

The restriction begins at the signs. Once you are at the signs, it is too late to enter the car park.

Beware though that one adjudicator's opinion does not set precedent (ie another adjudicator may rule differently)

The signs can easily be fixed by either moving them to the immediate exit of the mini roundabout or erecting a extra sign further back on the road warning of the restriction N metre ahead

Strafin is also absolutely right, whatever the intention or how obvious the restriction may be, if the signs do not conform exactly to the regulations,then they do not - in law - exist and since they must exist to enforce the traffic order, it follows that the traffic order is unenforceable.

WBC were sailing very close to the wind over the issues around lighting of these signs. All fines should have been repaid as the signs were invalid rather than only the ones at night

[motormad]

Have reluctantly bought the paper now. (75p!!! )

Am struggling to get my head around this though, "the alleged contravention did not occur because the carriageway warning is sited so that the drivers have already entered the forbidden area by the time they have seen it." What? What does that mean?? The photo on the front page makes that sound just a daft statement...

It's at the start of the road. Where else is the marking meant to go? Holographic images projected onto the line of sight?


(the photo on the NWN front page is clearer than this one from their website)

And there's this statement.. "the signs are not adequately clear and give insufficient opportunity to understand where the restriction begins and how to avoid it." eh? It's a roundabout!! You go round the roundabout to avoid it.
Just a suggestion.

Yup

It's perfectly clear

Bloody idiots should know how to drive.

[The Optimist]

Some more details and a few quotes in today's NT article.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/pressur...r-illegal-fines

[On the edge]

........
Beware though that one adjudicator's opinion does not set precedent (ie another adjudicator may rule differently)
.........

Not much point in having an adjudicator then. The Council have very strong grounds for appeal if that's the case. Certainly, this would not prevent them launching civil actions against miscreants.

[On the edge]

Some more details and a few quotes in today's NT article.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/pressur...r-illegal-fines

As past posts demonstrate, I'm no fan of Keith Woodhams, but his motion is spot on. At last, some real challenge.

[Andy Capp]

This sort of thing happens on a regular basis these days.
People getting away with misdemeanors on a "technicality" when they have obviously committed an offence.
Of a more serious nature are those that get away with drink driving and dangerous driving offences because of minor irregularities in their prosecution case.
There are even solicitors who specialise, and have made a healthy living from, this type of evasion.
It is obvious in this case what the road and post signs mean but those who chose to ignore them are now trying to seek recompense for their misdemeanor by investigating minor technicalities.
If they couldn't see the signs or couldn't understand what they meant then maybe they should question their driving abilities?

Yup It's perfectly clear Bloody idiots should know how to drive.

Not much point in having an adjudicator then. The Council have very strong grounds for appeal if that's the case. Certainly, this would not prevent them launching civil actions against miscreants.

If we are to permit a certain amount of flexibility with these things, what is to stop councils creating glorified 'traps'. Of course you do get the idiots, but to strangers, some road layouts can be confusing the first time they are experienced.

It seems to me that some of the members of WBC are just being contemptuous of its constituents.

"Mr Betts declined to comment further, saying his views were “unprintable.”

However the current highways and transport portfolio holder, Pamela Bale (Con, Pangbourne) has so far not responded to repeated requests for a comment.

Mr Woodhams said: “This is just shocking…quite extraordinary. This Conservative administration has a history of complacency over poor signage and a relaxed attitude to fining people inappropriately.

“The whole things leads to a lack of public confidence in the system. We offered to arrange a free peer review of the system but the Conservatives voted us down.”"