IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

28 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Tribunal brands Park Way bridge signs illegal
The Optimist
post Mar 13 2014, 06:22 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 9-May 12
Member No.: 8,721



http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/tribuna...e-signs-illegal

I'm sure this will provoke no reaction from the board members here at all laugh.gif

Does the tribunal have any actual power to force a change though? Seems WBC are quite happy with the status quo?

Has anyone here been issued a fine and now intends to take action as a result of this?

Any WBC workers care to weigh in (on the grounds of anonymity of course)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Mar 13 2014, 06:34 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,928
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



I think that if the council are happy that it works, then that is one thing. If they expect to carry on issuing fines, that is another entirely. I do think it seems sensible that if it doing the desired job the signage in place should be kept. But I suspect it won't continue to do its job now that the legality of the signs is in the public domain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Mar 13 2014, 07:25 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



That does mean that anyone crossing the bridge can safely ignore any penalty notice sent out by the Council. I'd also hazard an observation that if the Council could find itself in serious trouble with DVLC if it was using vehicle ownership database to get the addresses.



--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nothing Much
post Mar 13 2014, 07:41 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,690
Joined: 16-July 11
Member No.: 6,171



"the Council could find itself in serious trouble with DVLC if it was using vehicle ownership database to get the addresses"

I would have thought the DVLC was the least of their problems,considering DVLC,NHS,GOOGLE,probably even NWN,have all sold their souls to the devil. I can't do anymore acronyms as my caps lock has stuck biggrin.gif
ce
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Mar 13 2014, 08:22 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



The bit of the story we see at the moment does not say what the matter the Tribunal ruled on was.
If the lighting, then I suspect that is over and done with, but there may be grounds now for the drivers who paid to ask for their payment back.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Mar 13 2014, 08:22 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



However, if something new......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Mar 13 2014, 08:22 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,829
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 13 2014, 07:25 PM) *
I'd also hazard an observation that if the Council could find itself in serious trouble with DVLC if it was using vehicle ownership database to get the addresses.

DVLC is no more, other than the name of the actual building that houses the DVLA.

But I don't know why you'd think Councils could get into trouble for accessing DVLA databases. How do you think London Authorities manage the Congestion Charge and enforce abuses? They use CCTV capture to log the registration and any vehicle which hasn't paid will be sent a penalty notice to the address of the registered keeper, from the DVLA database.

There are strict protocols for use of the information and councils are regularly audited by DVLA and given suspension where they've used the information for incorrect purposes ( BBC linky thing ) but councils can use it to track down abandoned vehicles and serve notice on the registered keepers, can use it to serve notice of owners refusing to pay parking fines and like the Congestion Charge where no ticket is issued, bus lane enforcement is generally CCTV evidence based and tickets automatically sent using the DVLA database.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Mar 13 2014, 08:30 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,829
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Mar 13 2014, 08:22 PM) *
The bit of the story we see at the moment does not say what the matter the Tribunal ruled on was.
If the lighting, then I suspect that is over and done with, but there may be grounds now for the drivers who paid to ask for their payment back.

It seems odd that an adjudicator has stated it's illegal when previous adjudicators have investigated and declared that is legal and complies with legislation. I haven't read the paper so don't know if there's an odd set of circumstances that mean that this specific case had grounds to be let off. Are NWN being selective with their journalistic quotes? The TPT wbsite doesn't publish results of cases so you can't corroborate what's being printed in the paper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Mar 13 2014, 08:44 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,829
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 13 2014, 07:25 PM) *
That does mean that anyone crossing the bridge can safely ignore any penalty notice sent out by the Council.

Not a wise move. By all means cross the bridge and contest any ticket issued through the Penalty Tribunal, as they (if what is being reported is correct) have made this latest judgement and brought the legality into question. But from my experience elsewhere the adjudicators are not infallible and aren't necessarily fully conversant with every aspect of traffic law and what is/what is not required under the strict and very tightly regulated terms of traffic sign regulations. Their default position is always that the motorist is right and it's for the council's to prove their case so perhaps the council haven't presented their case well enough in this instance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Mar 13 2014, 08:46 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (spartacus @ Mar 13 2014, 08:22 PM) *
DVLC is no more, other than the name of the actual building that houses the DVLA.

But I don't know why you'd think Councils could get into trouble for accessing DVLA databases. How do you think London Authorities manage the Congestion Charge and enforce abuses? They use CCTV capture to log the registration and any vehicle which hasn't paid will be sent a penalty notice to the address of the registered keeper, from the DVLA database.

There are strict protocols for use of the information and councils are regularly audited by DVLA and given suspension where they've used the information for incorrect purposes ( BBC linky thing ) but councils can use it to track down abandoned vehicles and serve notice on the registered keepers, can use it to serve notice of owners refusing to pay parking fines and like the Congestion Charge where no ticket is issued, bus lane enforcement is generally CCTV evidence based and tickets automatically sent using the DVLA database.


Data Protection, simply the Council would be asking for personal details for a purpose they know to be illegal.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 13 2014, 08:46 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I've read the paper; it's a TPT brought by a Reading motorist.

  • The carriageway warning is sited so that one has already committed themselves into the forbidden area.
  • The signs are not adequately clear.
  • Give insufficient opportunity to understand where the restriction begins and how to avoid it.
  • There is no marking on the roundabout.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Mar 13 2014, 08:51 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (spartacus @ Mar 13 2014, 08:44 PM) *
Not a wise move. By all means cross the bridge and contest any ticket issued through the Penalty Tribunal, as they (if what is being reported is correct) have made this latest judgement and brought the legality into question. But from my experience elsewhere the adjudicators are not infallible and aren't necessarily fully conversant with every aspect of traffic law and what is/what is not required under the strict and very tightly regulated terms of traffic sign regulations. Their default position is always that the motorist is right and it's for the council's to prove their case so perhaps the council haven't presented their case well enough in this instance.


It seems that the 'traffic experts' at our local council aren't fallible either. Isn't it odd that neither of the Council spokesmen denied that the scheme was illegal? Equally, if they do, why are they not reporting an appeal is in progress. No, the Council clearly haven't presented their case, well or at all!

What's wrong with the default position, isn't everyone innocent until proved guilty?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Mar 13 2014, 09:15 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,829
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 13 2014, 08:51 PM) *
Isn't it odd that neither of the Council spokesmen denied that the scheme was illegal? Equally, if they do, why are they not reporting an appeal is in progress.

Don't know about you, but I would think that NWN wouldn't have provided TOO many opportunities for the Council to spoil their nice big front page splash. It's going to get some extra people buying the paper (people that have got a ticket presumably) They probably made an enquiry to WBC ten minutes before going to press..


QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 13 2014, 08:51 PM) *
What's wrong with the default position, isn't everyone innocent until proved guilty?

hmmm... maybe. But my money's still on the Oscar Pistorius prosecuting lawyers tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Mar 13 2014, 09:36 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (spartacus @ Mar 13 2014, 09:15 PM) *
Don't know about you, but I would think that NWN wouldn't have provided TOO many opportunities for the Council to spoil their nice big front page splash. It's going to get some extra people buying the paper (people that have got a ticket presumably) They probably made an enquiry to WBC ten minutes before going to press..



hmmm... maybe. But my money's still on the Oscar Pistorius prosecuting lawyers tongue.gif

Well, they might also be trying out a new promotion, if you have their sticker in your car and they take a picture, you don't get petrol, they just pay your fine! laugh.gif


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 13 2014, 09:50 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (spartacus @ Mar 13 2014, 09:15 PM) *
Don't know about you, but I would think that NWN wouldn't have provided TOO many opportunities for the Council to spoil their nice big front page splash. It's going to get some extra people buying the paper (people that have got a ticket presumably) They probably made an enquiry to WBC ten minutes before going to press..


When asked yesterday, Mr Betts said his comments were unprintable. Ms Bale had not responded by the time the paper went to press.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Mar 13 2014, 09:51 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,829
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



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

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? blink.gif 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? blink.gif It's a roundabout!! You go round the roundabout to avoid it.
Just a suggestion. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Mar 13 2014, 09:55 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,829
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 13 2014, 08:46 PM) *

[*]The carriageway warning is sited so that one has already committed themselves into the forbidden area.
[*]The signs are not adequately clear.
[*]Give insufficient opportunity to understand where the restriction begins and how to avoid it.

[*]There is no marking on the roundabout.

You don't mark roundabouts for this type of restriction and wouldn't have had room to do so anyway on a mini roundabout like the one here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 13 2014, 09:58 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (spartacus @ Mar 13 2014, 09:51 PM) *
Have reluctantly bought the paper now. (75p!!! rolleyes.gif )

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? blink.gif 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? blink.gif It's a roundabout!! You go round the roundabout to avoid it.
Just a suggestion. rolleyes.gif

My guess is that the signs should be at the beginning of the road and not 10 foot back. The illegal zone doesn't have a clear start position. It could be immediately after the roundabout, or where the signs are, that is to say, the signs are in the wrong place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Mar 13 2014, 10:03 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



Let's hope the NWN haven't got over excited and misreported the story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 13 2014, 11:06 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 13 2014, 10:03 PM) *
Let's hope the NWN haven't got over excited and misreported the story.

Let's hope they have so that we are less likely to pay for the apparent error by the council.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

28 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th August 2020 - 08:00 AM