Have you seen the Reading Chronicle?



Bus lane fines total £2.5m as drivers call for better signage
http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/139...better_signage/

How are drivers meant to be able to read, assimilate and act on this one sign which has so much writing in the subplate relating to the operational timing and type of vehicle it applies to, in a busy location where there might be all sorts of traffic, including pedestrians, buses, taxis and also with the other necessary traffic signs which are also in place in a town/city centre and need to be adhered to?

And they also need to be fully aware of what exact time it might be. Their watch might not be accurate (or may still be on BST )... but would you get a penalty for going through at 7:05 when your watch was a bit slow? (Presumably 'Yes').

£2,500,000 is quite a tidy sum to raise from one location. 11,600 drivers going through the area per year. 31 illegal vehicles a day. There's something wrong if that's happening.

And if the restriction is in place to make the area safer for pedestrians between 7am and 11am and also from 4pm to 7pm, then by allowing drivers to carry on through RBC are being complicit in allowing those drivers to endanger those pedestrians the restriction is meant to help protect.

Instead of rubbing their hands together and looking at the fines piling in through the cash registers their highways team should be doing something about preventing such a high level of non-compliance before someone knocks over a pedestrian who thought they were in a safe area..

It's certainly confusing, but try driving in Reading at night in the rain when you don't know the town - the lane markings just disappear in the shine - I didn't get a ticket but I bet plenty do.

I do exactly that and completely agree.

I got caught.

It's relatively clear IMO.
Any time you see a no entry sign then if you're at all unsure just slow down a second.

We all make mistakes but there's just pleading ignorance "the signs are out to get me"

But you have to realise by the time you get to that sigh you can't actually turn around, the previous sign is even more Wordy -https://goo.gl/maps/1PTCd6ytPeH2

PLus they have removed the traffic lights at Jacksons corner so you no longer get as much opportunity to slow and read the sighs as buses fly about from all directions

Also it is now the exact opposite of the previous instruction which was "no entry between 11am and 4pm" as can be seen by this sign (had to show other side of town as googlecar didnt get a good picture of the other site in 2009 https://goo.gl/maps/n5eUwomko332

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??

I would suggest that anybody fined for this immediately demand a return of funds illegally extorted by WBC.

I guess a video camera is being rushed to the site as we speak!

They have a legal team, I mean how difficult is it do get something like this right?

It seems their QA is like some companies I know: release the beta to the public and let them find all the snags.

I really don't know why anyone should be surprised.

Again and again our local authorities demonstrate that they simply aren't capable of delivering what is actually required for any given requirement. This is a Council that can't even get fundamentals like counting votes after an election right.

It is becoming even more obvious that the drain caused by the legal intellectual challenge of having duplicated administrations by an authority that is too small itself to attract first class talent has become irreparable. Unless we get this sorry mess sorted with a root and branch structural change it doesn't really matter who we vote for, the result will always be the same; brown and smelly.

What difference will that make if there is no lawful restriction?

Give it a try Andy and let us know how you get on.

I'm not sure I follow?

Well, have a drive over and let us know what happens.
Sort of tester just to make sure we can all get away with it.

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

Yes, the picture in this article shows the signage that the The Chief Adjudicator for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal apparently thinks is fine, and the picture in this article shows the signage that isn't fine according to a tribunal judge.

Yes, they are the same picture and yes it's exactly the same signage.

It is stated WBC had no legal right, so signage and CCTV are irrelevant. Muppets.

What is missing is the technical reason why WBC are considered to be running an extortion racket.

But........are these the same images that were presented at the tribunal?

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.

The only good thing about WBC and our local Town Council is they do keep us entertained with their fiascos. Just how many gaffs can you have in a month........priceless! Fawlty Towers, Vicar of Dibley, Yes Minister etc. can't hold a candle to these two shambles........if only it was not costing us so much I would be requesting more!

You mean 'gaffes'.....

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


As you say.... pricelesss

Can you quote the details from where this statement has come

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

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?

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.

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.]

'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.

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.

Obviously??

For our lot at WBC??