Authorised Vehicles Only
Discussion
Hello
There's a layby near me that often has a Safety Partnership van parked in. It's a safe road, and as far as I know it has never been a black spot area. In my opinion it's merely a cash generator.
The layby has a sign that reads 'Police Notice - Layby for authorised vehicles only', but I've always thought it was a bit vague. Authorised by who? There are no double-yellow lines or anything.
I obviously have no intentions of doing this, but what would happen if someone parked a van or something there for a couple of days which had the consequence of stopping the Safety Partnership from using it?
Just wondering...
There's a layby near me that often has a Safety Partnership van parked in. It's a safe road, and as far as I know it has never been a black spot area. In my opinion it's merely a cash generator.
The layby has a sign that reads 'Police Notice - Layby for authorised vehicles only', but I've always thought it was a bit vague. Authorised by who? There are no double-yellow lines or anything.
I obviously have no intentions of doing this, but what would happen if someone parked a van or something there for a couple of days which had the consequence of stopping the Safety Partnership from using it?
Just wondering...
Dibble said:
Possibly get reported for obstruction (both types - of the highway and/or Police), possibly arrested for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
In reality, I think the van would probably just get towed and you'd be done for obstruction, and any associated costs of removal.
Obstruction of what, though? Other than the rather vague sign, surely it's just the same as parking on a side street?In reality, I think the van would probably just get towed and you'd be done for obstruction, and any associated costs of removal.
Mazdarese said:
Dibble said:
Possibly get reported for obstruction (both types - of the highway and/or Police), possibly arrested for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
In reality, I think the van would probably just get towed and you'd be done for obstruction, and any associated costs of removal.
Obstruction of what, though? Other than the rather vague sign, surely it's just the same as parking on a side street?In reality, I think the van would probably just get towed and you'd be done for obstruction, and any associated costs of removal.
I think the police would have difficulty in enforcing it to be honest. The white line is broken, so no offence to cross it. The layby doesn't have white lines or no parking signs. It is part of the road structure, and differs from similar signs on the motorway where offenders usually get done for driving on the hard shoulder, or using a road other than the carriageway (motorway regs IIRC).
StevenJJ said:
Self-certified authorisation tends to be the way forwards with these, particularly authorising oneself to connect to a back road shortcut using a motorway services' back exit.
From my experience of back road access to motorway service areas , it's not the police who object ,but the service area franchise holders using any excuse possible ,from whipping up objections from local villages to prevention of crime from parked vehicles .As far as the vans go - better parked in some well known spot than hidden behind a bus shelter .Sgt Bilko said:
I think the police would have difficulty in enforcing it to be honest. The white line is broken, so no offence to cross it. The layby doesn't have white lines or no parking signs. It is part of the road structure, and differs from similar signs on the motorway where offenders usually get done for driving on the hard shoulder, or using a road other than the carriageway (motorway regs IIRC).
This is what I was thinking, it's all rather vague.Scraggles said:
Mazdarese said:
'Police Notice - Layby for authorised vehicles only'
At a guess, I would say that the police authorised the layby to be used by them and other similar vehicles, why not test it and park your car there for a few days ?
What legislation is this "authority" granted under?
On motorways, under the relevant motorway legislation, it's an offence to use verges, etc other than the running carriageway, so I can see how these police laybys would be "for authorised vehicles only" under normal police powers.
On non-motorways, if these areas are part of the public road then by default, they are available for everybody. Normally, you would have to make a specific Traffic Regulation Order (similar to bus lanes for example) to restrict a particular part of the road to a particular use. That TRO would then have to be signed in accordance with TSRGD2002 to give effect and be enforceable.
TSRGD 2002 does not, as far as I am aware, have a sign for "authorised vehicles only". DfT are currently undertaking consultations on revisions to TSRGD, and that includes adding "Authorised vehicles only" as a permitted variant of Dia 829.6 "Police Patrol Vehicles Only". I do not think TSRGD2010 has been passed yet though, so I don't think that's legally in effect.
In any case, that sign does not require any specific regulation (TRO) however, and I am not sure what other legislation would make them enforceable.
On motorways, under the relevant motorway legislation, it's an offence to use verges, etc other than the running carriageway, so I can see how these police laybys would be "for authorised vehicles only" under normal police powers.
On non-motorways, if these areas are part of the public road then by default, they are available for everybody. Normally, you would have to make a specific Traffic Regulation Order (similar to bus lanes for example) to restrict a particular part of the road to a particular use. That TRO would then have to be signed in accordance with TSRGD2002 to give effect and be enforceable.
TSRGD 2002 does not, as far as I am aware, have a sign for "authorised vehicles only". DfT are currently undertaking consultations on revisions to TSRGD, and that includes adding "Authorised vehicles only" as a permitted variant of Dia 829.6 "Police Patrol Vehicles Only". I do not think TSRGD2010 has been passed yet though, so I don't think that's legally in effect.
In any case, that sign does not require any specific regulation (TRO) however, and I am not sure what other legislation would make them enforceable.
tvrgit beats me to the draw as usual. 
Page31 of this pdf refers
:inserts tongue in cheek:
Shock horror probe, are we saying that The Powers That Be are ignoring one set of rules in order to enforce to the letter another set of rules. Surely not.
Page31 of this pdf refers
:inserts tongue in cheek:
Shock horror probe, are we saying that The Powers That Be are ignoring one set of rules in order to enforce to the letter another set of rules. Surely not.
Sgt Bilko said:
tvrgit said:
Sgt Bilko said:
tvrgit said:
I do not think TSRGD2010 has been passed yet though, so I don't think that's legally in effect.
Correct. Vastly overdue as well since it was due in Feb 2010 and hasn't even been tabled yet. F i F said:
tvrgit beats me to the draw as usual.
Page31 of this pdf refers
:inserts tongue in cheek:
Shock horror probe, are we saying that The Powers That Be are ignoring one set of rules in order to enforce to the letter another set of rules. Surely not.
Isn't that to the letter +10%+2?Page31 of this pdf refers
:inserts tongue in cheek:
Shock horror probe, are we saying that The Powers That Be are ignoring one set of rules in order to enforce to the letter another set of rules. Surely not.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff