Author Topic: Newham - 33E use of restricted route  (Read 716 times)

0 Members and 53 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Newham - 33E use of restricted route
« Reply #15 on: »
This looks like the original Notice:-

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-55296-279

Take your pick as to bus clearway or prescribed route.

Mike


Re: Newham - 33E use of restricted route
« Reply #17 on: »
“No entry except buses”?

As far as I’m aware - and I’m willing to be corrected - that is not a legal combination of signs that councils can use or enforce. I believe the only “except” plate you can use with a no entry sign is “except cycles”.

“Buses only” is fine. “No motor vehicles except buses” is also fine. But not “no entry except buses”.

This raises two other technical points. Firstly, councils can’t enforce “no entry” signs. They can enforce you making a prohibited turn into a no entry road. They can enforce you failing to proceed in the direction of an arrow shown on a blue sign. But not a pure “no entry”.

Secondly, “no entry” just means you can’t physically pass the sign. It doesn’t mean you can’t *be* past the sign. Near my work, there’s a two-way road with a no entry sign at one end, to stop people using it as a rat run. It’s perfectly legal to drive down that road towards the back of the no entry sign, turn around, and drive back up the road. Because you didn’t pass the no entry sign. Just because you’re driving after a no entry sign doesn’t mean you passed the no entry sign.

Re: Newham - 33E use of restricted route
« Reply #18 on: »
@lexy the allegation is 33E, not sure how a no entry comes into it?

Anyway, the allegation is that the vehicle passed these signs: https://maps.app.goo.gl/P3V8qkH9NpsReoxYA

@ahsan one issue is that the location is wrong, the signs are wholly on Glen Road. Another issue is whether the road is even a road for the purposes of section 142 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1984, as the barrier suggests the hospital retains control over that land as a landowner, which is incompatible with the road being a road to which the public has a right of access.

Then we have the various TMO issues including The Newham (Prescribed Routes) (No. 5) Traffic Order 1998, which I have requested a copy of.

However ultimately the council could wake up and point out that the signs are section 36 signs that don't need a TMO at all (though in 99% of bus gate cases the council relies on a TMO for some reason or another), so while there is a fair chance the council might mess things up, the outcome cannot be guaranteed.

You therefore need to decide whether you want to carry on. I'll drop you a PM in case you'd like to be represented.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Re: Newham - 33E use of restricted route
« Reply #19 on: »
@ahsan I assume you've given up but for future reference here is The Newham (Prescribed Routes) (No. 5) Traffic Order 1998.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Re: Newham - 33E use of restricted route
« Reply #20 on: »
Sadly on this occasion I have paid the ticket.