For those who moan about signs at Parkway bridge Options

[spartacus]

Just how many gaffs can you have in a month........priceless! :

You mean 'gaffes'.....

..or did you really mean gaff? In which case I'll have five please


As you say.... pricelesss

[Berkshirelad]

It's OK folks, despite the obvious signs it's legal to use Parkway Bridge.
"Tribunal finds council failed to impose legal restriction"
The semi-blind motorist who got away with driving over the bridge without a fine said..
“The tribunal ruling states there has never been a restriction, legally imposed, on that bridge.”
Should bring some relief to Newbury's traffic congestion now that we can all use it??

Can you quote the details from where this statement has come

[Berkshirelad]

Parkway Bridge is enforced by CCTV, just the same as all the bus lanes in Reading. I asked to see the evidence when my father-in-law was caught. Bang to rights - he was even on his mobile phone!!

It seems odd that the CHIEF Adjudicator for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal has looked at this before, as have other adjudicators when previous appeals have ended up in their Court and have found in favour of the Council. Are those previous adjudicators (including the Top Dog Adjudicator) all incompetent?

Or is it the fact that this specific appeal has won on a technicality which probably doesn't apply unless you happen to be driving through at ten past midnight, in reverse, with your wipers going and your passenger's playing ukulele and singing the Swedish National Anthem? All other times you're booked... It's odd that previous appeals have been thrown out

There is no and under the present law cannot be any appeals in Court,

Traffic appeals are dealt with by a tribunal where one person (usually a solicitor, not a judge) makes the decision

I well remember the fiasco over the signs not being lit (as required by the regulations). WBC only refunded those caught at night whilst the failure to have the sign lit meant that the restriction was totally unenforceable at any time

[Berkshirelad]

It appears that it does not matter what the signage states as there was no legal restriction order in place therefore the signage is worthless and meaningless.

Not only appears so, but is fact.

The Law is even-handed.

If a council wishes to impose and enforce restrictions then they must also follow the law/regulations in imposing and signing those restrictions.

WBC have patently failed to do so on a number of occasions

There is settled case law that signage must be as per the regulations or it ceases to have effect, even where the restriction is obvious to a reasonable man

[On the edge]

Not only appears so, but is fact.

The Law is even-handed.

If a council wishes to impose and enforce restrictions then they must also follow the law/regulations in imposing and signing those restrictions.

WBC have patently failed to do so on a number of occasions

There is settled case law that signage must be as per the regulations or it ceases to have effect, even where the restriction is obvious to a reasonable man

It's rather serious isn't it; law maker consistently wrong?

Coupled with all the other 'officer errors' that have come to light surely we now need a thorough investigation into the management and competence of the Council's administration?

[Cognosco]

It's rather serious isn't it; law maker consistently wrong?

Coupled with all the other 'officer errors' that have come to light surely we now need a thorough investigation into the management and competence of the Council's administration?

In light of all the so called "Officer Errors" surely there can not be many Officers left ?

Is it not time for a certain Supreme Leader to put their head above the parapet and take the blame instead of "Over the top lads I am right behind you" attitude? Or will an internal investigation be taking place, again, and of course be behind closed doors as usual.

[Exhausted]

Just had a look at the NWN for this Thursday past to note that the Head of Highways and Transport for West Berks District Council, has paced a large advert or notification dated 28th April 2016.

This has 3 schedules.

Schedule 1 shows all the pedestrianised areas in Newbury and is for a prohibition of motor vehicles 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Schedule 2 is for various bus lanes (length of road, permitted vehicles and direction (if appropriate). No1. on that list is Park Way and Park Way bridge. [the space is as per the printed order, not mine] -from a point 30 metres north of its junction with Wharf Street to a point 167 metres further north. Buses, Taxis and cycles only.

Schedule 3 is for one way traffic. Newbury Bartholomew Street in a northerly direction from its junction with Market Street to its junction with Mansion House Street. Mansion House street, Market place, Wharf Street, Kings Road, Park Street and Pelican Lane. Order revokes all previous orders.

The notice also is a validation order for which they have no orders and have been in place for a number of years, Park Street, Pelican Lane and Kings Road.

It also states that the description and length of road for the Park Way [their spacing] has been for clarity and the reference to direction of travel removed.

The Orders effective 22nd April 2016.

Objections to the proposals and the grounds for objection no later than 19th May 2016.

[Note the date conflict.]

[spartacus]

No1. on that list is Park Way and Park Way bridge. [the space is as per the printed order, not mine].

It also states that the description and length of road for the Park Way [their spacing]

The Orders effective 22nd April 2016.

Objections to the proposals and the grounds for objection no later than 19th May 2016.

[Note the date conflict.]

'Park Way' is the name of the road. 'Parkway' is the name of the shopping area. The space is deliberate.

Looking on the Web page the advert started on 28 April and runs for 21 days (which is a standard consultation period across the country) so would end on 19 May. Not sure what you mean by date conflict.

[spartacus]

The Orders effective 22nd April 2016.

I've seen what you're referring to now. The statement on the pdf you're looking at on the WBC website says "The Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2016 referred to in the Order and come into effect on 22 April 2016".

That's a reference to the new national regulations on all things traffic related. The previous Traffic Regulations from 2002 have been revised by DfT and it is now the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 which govern issues related to signs, lighting, road marks etc.

That went before Parliament on 22 March 2016 and came into force 22 April 2016.
TSRGD 2016

There's no date conflict as this is just clarifying that the new regulations have come into force. Not sure there's a real need to make reference to the regulations anyway as obviously it would be the current regulations and legislation which would determine what goes on site.

[Berkshirelad]

Not sure there's a real need to make reference to the regulations anyway as obviously it would be the current regulations and legislation which would determine what goes on site.

Obviously??

For our lot at WBC??