Sign missing - so London bus lane illegal
Discussion
A bus lane that has taken more than has £2 million in fines over the last 12 months has been ruled illegal after a one-man crusade by a retired HGV driver succeeded in proving transport bosses acted illegally.
The fiasco came to light after 70-year-old William Barritt was fined £100 for driving in the lane in the lane in south London. He challenged the penalty, claiming he did not know the lane was active and produced a photograph proving that a sign stating the lane's hours of operation was missing.
Transport for London, who manage the lane, produced photographs claiming to show the sign was in place and insisted: "The onus is on the driver to be aware of the bus lane and its restrictions." But the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator backed Mr Barritt and cancelled the fine, a decision that raises the prospect of thousands of others demanding their money back.
The adjudicator said TfL's photographs dated from August last year but Mr Barritt's clearly showed that by April this year the sign was missing. He ruled: "I am not satisfied that this restriction was adequately signed." The adjudicator said that any drivers entering Camberwell New Road, a busy commuter route, from Foxley Road, would not be able to see any such signs in time.
Mr Barritt said "The sign is still missing: how can drivers tell they are breaking the law if there is no sign?"
The ruling comes days after the Motorists Forum, a government advisory body, attacked transport authorities for failing to ensure key signs were in place and fully visible. A National Parking Adjudications Service report also criticised authorities who failed to keep signs and lines in good condition.
Last year, 19,855 motorists were fined £100 for driving in the bus lane. At London's second highest-earning lane, in Vine Street, Uxbridge, 17,727 drivers were caught. Paul Watters, the AA Motoring Trust's head of roads and transport policy, said: "It would be nice if TfL now paid back money to people fined when they should not have been."
So TfL presented as evidence a photograph that was seven to eight months old. Fortunately. the accused had a more recent photograph. Also fortunately, the adjudicator believed the defendant. One wonders what many magistrates would have believed.
Will TfL pay the money back to motorists who fell victim? I doubt it. There is an increasing record of the authorities saying, "You paid the fine, so you accepted you were in the wrong, so hard cheese!" How can you be guilty of a "crime" that isn't a crime?
Streaky
The fiasco came to light after 70-year-old William Barritt was fined £100 for driving in the lane in the lane in south London. He challenged the penalty, claiming he did not know the lane was active and produced a photograph proving that a sign stating the lane's hours of operation was missing.
Transport for London, who manage the lane, produced photographs claiming to show the sign was in place and insisted: "The onus is on the driver to be aware of the bus lane and its restrictions." But the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator backed Mr Barritt and cancelled the fine, a decision that raises the prospect of thousands of others demanding their money back.
The adjudicator said TfL's photographs dated from August last year but Mr Barritt's clearly showed that by April this year the sign was missing. He ruled: "I am not satisfied that this restriction was adequately signed." The adjudicator said that any drivers entering Camberwell New Road, a busy commuter route, from Foxley Road, would not be able to see any such signs in time.
Mr Barritt said "The sign is still missing: how can drivers tell they are breaking the law if there is no sign?"
The ruling comes days after the Motorists Forum, a government advisory body, attacked transport authorities for failing to ensure key signs were in place and fully visible. A National Parking Adjudications Service report also criticised authorities who failed to keep signs and lines in good condition.
Last year, 19,855 motorists were fined £100 for driving in the bus lane. At London's second highest-earning lane, in Vine Street, Uxbridge, 17,727 drivers were caught. Paul Watters, the AA Motoring Trust's head of roads and transport policy, said: "It would be nice if TfL now paid back money to people fined when they should not have been."
So TfL presented as evidence a photograph that was seven to eight months old. Fortunately. the accused had a more recent photograph. Also fortunately, the adjudicator believed the defendant. One wonders what many magistrates would have believed.
Will TfL pay the money back to motorists who fell victim? I doubt it. There is an increasing record of the authorities saying, "You paid the fine, so you accepted you were in the wrong, so hard cheese!" How can you be guilty of a "crime" that isn't a crime?
Streaky
flemke said:
Can TfL possibly be either stupid enough to produce an old photo without checking that the sign is still in place, or unethical enough to produce an old photo because they know that the sign is now missing?
Is there a third possibility?
My guess is they deliberately used an old photo when they discovered the sign was missing.. After all, money talks...Does sound rather like an attempt at PCJ to me though... Would love an FOI request to find out IF they took a newer photo, and then ignored it...
combemarshal said:
toni896 said:
thought if there isn't a sign then it was considered a 24hr bus lane.
Thats what I thought too!
I bet it was pickies (how do you spell that!) that nicked it for scrap value, They went round here a couple of years back nicking manhole cover for scrap!
That may be, but then why would there be signs saying "Bus Lane...at any time"? If "at any time" were the statutory default, there would be no need for that sign.
Are there not other cases in which instructions painted on the road (such as an exclusive right-turn arrow) are only mandatory when they are reinforced by a mounted sign?
No that we could expect consistency from the people who rule us, but it would be nice.
james_j said:
Excellent. Now I wonder if the b@stards will send all their ill-gotten gains back... 
It will be as with all the other ones.. Too much admin to do so, BUT if people wish to send in a copy of their fine etc.. they will look at it, and issue a refund IF due.. I.e. hope that most people don't see this on the news and they get to keep the il gotten gains. Sort of like a Theft really.
jasandjules said:
james_j said:
Excellent. Now I wonder if the b@stards will send all their ill-gotten gains back...
It will be as with all the other ones.. Too much admin to do so, BUT if people wish to send in a copy of their fine etc.. they will look at it, and issue a refund IF due.. I.e. hope that most people don't see this on the news and they get to keep the il gotten gains. Sort of like a Theft really.
If TfL were a private business, and had been found guilty of cheating thousands of people, and if TfL possessed a record of each of the thousands of people whom it had cheated, would those people be required to have retained a normally trivial scrap of paper recording their having been cheated, or would a court expect the TfL to publicise its records so that the persons cheated could step forward and claim their redress?
flemke said:
If TfL were a private business, and had been found guilty of cheating thousands of people, and if TfL possessed a record of each of the thousands of people whom it had cheated, would those people be required to have retained a normally trivial scrap of paper recording their having been cheated, or would a court expect the TfL to publicise its records so that the persons cheated could step forward and claim their redress?
I would imagine the court would order them to return their ill gotten gains.. If someone who is required to send in their complaint for a refund were to take action in court, then it may be ordered to automatically issue refunds..
Nottingham City Council have been taking thousands of pounds for a parking bay infringement and over a period of many years. Now, they've conceded the road markings are wrong and they've had to tape up the ticket machines for that bay. Will they give any money back, will they heck? I've been asking them to pay up and check their records but they seem unable to do this.
How can I use the FIA to make them reveal how many fines/fixed penalties were paid in say a 5 year period?
Boosted.
How can I use the FIA to make them reveal how many fines/fixed penalties were paid in say a 5 year period?
Boosted.
Got this from the highway code.
>>>>>120: Bus and tram lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or stop in a tram lane or in a bus lane during its period of operation unless the signs indicate you may do so.
SO, as said, if there is no sign then you can't use it!
>>>>>120: Bus and tram lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or stop in a tram lane or in a bus lane during its period of operation unless the signs indicate you may do so.
SO, as said, if there is no sign then you can't use it!
combemarshal said:
Got this from the highway code.
>>>>>120: Bus and tram lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or stop in a tram lane or in a bus lane during its period of operation unless the signs indicate you may do so.
SO, as said, if there is no sign then you can't use it!
>>>>>120: Bus and tram lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or stop in a tram lane or in a bus lane during its period of operation unless the signs indicate you may do so.
SO, as said, if there is no sign then you can't use it!
Yes, but it says "shown by road markings and signs", not "road markings or signs.
Does this not suggest that if either is absent, it is not a legal BL?
Also, it say "You MUST NOT drive...during its period of operation...". In the absence of an indicating sign, how is one to know just when its "period of operation" is? In the absence of a declaration of a "period of operation", one could readily conclude that there is none - there's just some outdated paint on the road.
flemke said:
combemarshal said:
Got this from the highway code.
>>>>>120: Bus and tram lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or stop in a tram lane or in a bus lane during its period of operation unless the signs indicate you may do so.
SO, as said, if there is no sign then you can't use it!
>>>>>120: Bus and tram lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or stop in a tram lane or in a bus lane during its period of operation unless the signs indicate you may do so.
SO, as said, if there is no sign then you can't use it!
Yes, but it says "shown by road markings and signs", not "road markings or signs.
Does this not suggest that if either is absent, it is not a legal BL?
Also, it say "You MUST NOT drive...during its period of operation...". In the absence of an indicating sign, how is one to know just when its "period of operation" is? In the absence of a declaration of a "period of operation", one could readily conclude that there is none - there's just some outdated paint on the road.
I think that's correct
As far as I know, the sign MUST be in place (under TSRGD) for the lane to be enforceable. I am not sure about 24-hour bus lanes (we don't have any up here AFAIK) but otherwise, I know that the sign is definitely a requirement.
Some bus lanes show "except taxis or motorcycles or bikes etc" and I think THAT is the "unless signs indicating you may do so" referred to in the Highway Code.
I've had enough of these bus lanes.
There is more than enough to keep you occupied when driving in London without having to READ THE SMALL PRINT on every sign you pass, checking your watch and mentally calculating if you are inside or outside any of the restricted times.
It seems to me the authorities are trying to catch you out (and make a nice little earner).
The only safe thing to do is to not drive in them at all unless you happen to see an easily deciphered sign covering the next X metres of road that you would very much like to drive in.
I speak from bitter experience (how did you guess) having been fined for driving in a deserted bus lane in the middle of the day when I genuinely believed the restrictions applied only to rush hours.
There is more than enough to keep you occupied when driving in London without having to READ THE SMALL PRINT on every sign you pass, checking your watch and mentally calculating if you are inside or outside any of the restricted times.
It seems to me the authorities are trying to catch you out (and make a nice little earner).
The only safe thing to do is to not drive in them at all unless you happen to see an easily deciphered sign covering the next X metres of road that you would very much like to drive in.
I speak from bitter experience (how did you guess) having been fined for driving in a deserted bus lane in the middle of the day when I genuinely believed the restrictions applied only to rush hours.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff