Safe Speed Forums

Hi all I was issued with a fixed penalty for being in a bus lane. I have the detail regarding the road markings and signage for a bus lane and this bus lane does not meet the required criteria form the start to finish.

My question is if I take it to court were is it written down that if the bus lane markings and signage do not meet the criteria it is not a proper bus lane. The offence was in Northern Ireland however our laws are much the same as England and Wales.

Some of the bus lane defects:

The first sign is set at 54m and the first arrow is set at 54.5m, the second arrow is at 24m. According to the criteria the first sign and arrow should be at 30m the second arrow should be at 15m

The bus lane is 3m wide so the taper should be 30m however the taper is 21.8m short by 8.2 m. they also used one of the existing lane separators as part of the taper. And the taper markings are 240mm rather than 250-300mm and the taper markings are not 1m long and 1m apart.

The bus lane is 3m wide and yet it is signed for cycles, motorcycles and permitted taxi. There is also no mention of motorcycles in the Statutory Rules. If it is signed for cycles, motorcycles should the lane width not be 4m?

Another section has the start of that section of bus lane starting in a pedestrian/pelican crossing, it also does not have the shorter taper marking from the kerb to the solid white line and the words BUS LANE are .5m in front of the commencement or solid white line. The sign for this section is also set away form the kerb by 3.2m all the other signs are .3-.5m form the kerb.

There is another section that has the words BUS LANE set back form the commencement of the solid white line by 4.5m.

The words BUS LANE are around 1.7m high rather than the 1.6 they should be, the gap between the words is less than 1m average is .9m

The are 3 left turns the first is a marked as a minor left turn, so it has the solid white line up to the junction. It is required to stop short of the junction by approx 10m however it stops 9m form the junction. The next 2 left turns are marked with broken white lines and arrows. These are required to start at approx 30m form junction however they start 36.6m and 25.1m respectively from the junction.

Please use the link below to view the bus lane and your views would be much appreciated. I have only 15 days to get in my appeal.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9717614@N02/

PePiPoo has a section for this Parking and Decriminalised Notices

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Thanks guys I found the information you both posted of great help. At this stage my local MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) is chairman of the Department Regional Development (DRD) who has the responsibility for roads here in Northern Ireland. I will be requesting a letter form my MLA to the Chief Executive of the DRD to state if this Bus Lane meets the criteria in Chapter 3 and 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

I will endever to keep you all posted as to how it goes.

Do you think the signage contributed to your inability to see that it was a bus lane?

But if the signs/road markings were wrong, it wasn't a bus lane.
And if it isn't a legal bus lane, then anyone can use it.
Have a look at the road markings that constitute a LEGAL box junction, then look at how many are NOT legal....there must be thousands across the country that are not box junctions.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I must say, that thought crossed my mind.

Are we looking at

1) The OP didnt realise it was a bus lane because of inadiquate signing!

2) He took a chance, knowing it was a bus lane, got caught and is now looking for a "Get out of gaol free" card

Now, if it is #1 then good luck to him! However If it is #2, I understand the technical arguments but... moraly the situation is quite clear!

For my own part I got a bit of a scare with situation #1 about a month back. Driving in the smoke in heavy rain and rush hour traffic. The heavy rain had completly obscured the road markings and monitoring the traffic ahead along with trying to find my way in poor weather and twilight conditions meant that I didnt notice the postage stamp sized bus lane signs mounted on the roadside poles above and to the left of my main field of concentration. I am not used to driving in london and only realised I had been driving in a bus lane after having covererd some distance in it.

Fortunatly there were no cameras at that particular point

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

I'm figuring number two.

I'm sure he didn't stop in front of it, get out of his car, measure up, decide it was not a legally enforcable bus lane, and then drive down it.

I concur. I hope you get fined if that's the case. One of my pet hates is people darting into bus lanes to avoid a queue. That and people who drive down the M602 in the middle lane past the normal 1-2 mile queue waiting to get on the M60 at rush hour, then try and indicate in at the last minute, usually causing another queue to form in the middle lane behind them as the people (rightly) don't let them in.

That sort of behaviour gets my goat too!

(Along with people who block side roads, driveways (with people waiting to emerge/enter) and roundabouts by queuing accross them in stop-start driving conditions because they think that "right of way" entitles them to willfully obstruct other traffic )

Back to the issue.

To my mind, It depends on whether the use of the bus lane was "wilfull"

I am a big believer in "Mens Rae" (and am concerned that modern "justice" (especially over driving issues) spends far too much time concentrating on the "Actis Rea" even when no clear "Mens Rae" exists!)

To my mind, even if the signage was technically incorrect the "Intent" to illegally use a bus lane should be sufficent to obtain a successful prosecution.

(Not that I am a great fan of bus lanes BTW, though I accept that in some cases they represent a usefull compromise in the use of road space. Wherever possible Bus lanes should be in addition to existing lanes rather than stealing them IYSWIM)

By analogy, I understand it is possible to be charged with "attempting to buy stolen goods" even when the goods are genuine. it is the defendents belief that the goods are hooky that defines the offence.

And quite right too!

(Ye Gods! Im agreeing with Weep! )

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

But it is a generally accepted principle that if signage does not conform to regulations, the restrictions cannot be enforced. If you break that principle and introduce a concept of "reasonable understanding" then you open up a legal minefield and basically give carte blanche to the authorities to proceed with all manner of unreasonable prosecutions.


So if a girl tells me she is fourteen and I go ahead enjoying a frisson of risk, I'm still committing an offence even if she turns out to be sixteen? Sounds very dubious to me. You need to have both mens rea and an actual offence.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Not if juries/Magestrates were given the power to decide that the authorities were being "unreasonable"!

Which I would, of course, support!



Damn right! (that you are guilty that is)

By contrast, if she is 14 and claims (and looks the part) that she is 18 you are NOT guilty!

Intent (to my mind) is 90% of the offence! (possibly even more)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Course it was.

My default behaviour is not not go into a bus lane unless I'm sure it outside of it's hours of operation. I have to make a concious decision to drive in a bus lane, it's not something I do lightly, and I will only do so if I'm sure I'm in possession of the facts, if I'm unsure I won't go in it, certainly not to steal a march on the traffic ahead.

But yes I agree, legally, it's got to be formed right for there to be a successful prosecution.

I guess I'd be happier if people that came up with the 'not legally enforcable' line were just honest that they were doubly immoral scallies trying to get away with it on technicalities.

Nothing wrong with technicalities - they prosecute on technicalities!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

But there is something wrong with diving down what is obviously a bus lane to steal a march on the people in front of you who are acting within the spririt of the law.

At the lowest level it's queue jumping.

The bus lanes signage is not always clear. I live near Reading, and often use my Honda motor scooter to go to the centre of town. There is a contraflow bus lane which allows me to ride the "wrong way" up Kings Road. There is a motor cycle icon on the sign which makes clear that it's OK for me to do this.

But on other signs for other bus lanes, the motor cycle icon is missing, for example the opposite direction bus lane on the Kings Road coming OUT of Reading. Does this mean it's been forgotten, or are motor cycles allowed in some bus lanes but not others? Because it seems odd that if I'm allowed to use the bus lane getting IN to Reading that I should not be allowed to use the one coming out. Actually, the first bit IS usable by motorcycles, but then the bus lane disappears altogether for a few hundred yards, then starts again - but with no motor cycle icon. I use the bus lane regardless, on my motor cycle, and have never received a penalty notice, despite the fact that Reading's bus lane usage has been enforced by cameras since 2006.

Pedal cycles are allowed in the bus lanes by default in some areas, so they don't bother putting a bicycle icon on the signs. This is the case in central London, for example. And since Boris became mayor, motor cycles are now allowed to use the bus lanes - but have all the signs been changed? Probably not.

The situation is black and white for cars, but not for other vehicles - cycles, motor cycles, taxis, disabled etc.

I hope it's possible for people like Weepej to see that the scope for committing a genuine error is large. Would the courts be sympathetic to someone who'd committed a genuine error? Probably not. They might argue that "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Well hey, it's a two way street. So I say stuff the moral argument, and if you CAN get away with it, you should. The law gives guidelines about the signage that must be observed for restrictions to apply. For example, with regard to speed limit signs, Section 85 of the 1984 Road Traffic Regulations Act states that
and goes on to say that


So there you have it. The signs must meet prescribed criteria, or else the restriction they denote does not apply.

My girlfriend and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, which makes for some interesting conversations about these matters. She was appalled when I contested a speeding charge (and won) - because she believes I knew what the speed limit was and was "morally in the wrong". But on that occasion I was on a road with a changed speed limit, and was able to prove that the signs had become obscured by foliage. In such a situation, it was very easy to forget that the limit had been changed. But of course,the were not interested in that. So I had no qualms about getting off on a technicality.

And Ranger1640 should adopt the same approach. Fight this if you can, sir - and to hell with the "moral argument".

Sorry to sound so bitter and twisted, but I've never forgiven the police for dragging me into court on such a piffling charge.

Just to clear up a couple of points. Firstly there is no such thing as getting away with it on a technicality. Its simply called justice. If all the checks and balances mandated, in order that justice be preserved, are not met and followed then there is no offence. Reductio ad absurdum; what if the police don't follow the rules about warranted searches and evidence collection, or the courts don't require any proof or evidence, just a token that something was attempted.

Secondly, in all but strict liability offences, both mens rea and actus reus are required for an offence to have been committed. In strict liability offences only actus reus is required. I know of no situation, and I do not believe there to be one, where mens rea without actus reus constitutes an offence.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Agreed. I was using the parlance of Weepej and others like him.

No, it is making full use of the road which is there.
The only time it needs to be clear is when a bus comes along!
I notice in Paris that bus lanes are separated in some places by kerbing, preventing drivers from crossing in and out of the lanes - and buses too, when they are baulked by cyclists!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Where do you draw the line (no pun intended) then on 'technical prosecutions'? On some of the photos IIRC, he's showing something about a line being 240mm when it should be 250mm. Does that mean that when a line is 249.998mm as measured by calipers then the whole thing should be unenforceable?

There should be a differentiation, as others have said - "Wilful intent" to misuse a restricted facility. We bang on about having common sense values, and it works both ways. If you knowingly drive into a bus lane to gain an advantage and then try and force a claim through that the bus lane is unenforceable to avoid the fine, then you're just morally taking the piss!

It's like parking in front of someone's driveway because you found out that in 1972, the paperwork to allow a right of way from the highway to the driveway was filled in in blue pen and not the stated black ink, technically rendering the passage unenforceable and therefore you have an absolute right to park there.