Can anyone confirm if a TRO is required to designate a pavement as a cycle lane or shared use. Is one always required?
Also does anyone know what the legal status of a sign indicating cars should park half on the footway? The footway is marked with a dashed line inicating how far in cars are expected to park and the there is a blue rectangular sign showing a car (end on) with one set of wheels on the the road and one on the footway. Is this an official sign. Would there need to have been a tro to allow the footway parking. Is it likely that the LA would have just done it without bothering to comply with regs?
In article <[email hidden]>, mt99999 @hotmail.com says...
Quoted message said:
Can anyone confirm if a TRO is required to designate a pavement as a cycle lane or shared use. Is one always required?
Also does anyone know what the legal status of a sign indicating cars should park half on the footway? The footway is marked with a dashed line inicating how far in cars are expected to park and the there is a blue rectangular sign showing a car (end on) with one set of wheels on the the road and one on the footway. Is this an official sign. Would there need to have been a tro to allow the footway parking. Is it likely that the LA would have just done it without bothering to comply with regs?
best wishes james
I may have responded if I knew what a TRO or an LA was! Then again, I'm not bright, I only have one degree.
LOL, ROTFL, RTFM, NIB, JAFA etc.
-- Mark (MSA) This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission
[email hidden] (james) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Can anyone confirm if a TRO is required to designate a pavement as a cycle lane or shared use. Is one always required?
Also does anyone know what the legal status of a sign indicating cars should park half on the footway? The footway is marked with a dashed line inicating how far in cars are expected to park and the there is a blue rectangular sign showing a car (end on) with one set of wheels on the the road and one on the footway. Is this an official sign. Would there need to have been a tro to allow the footway parking.
Don't know about the TRO but I suspect with council signs condoning it the chance of getting the police to do anyrhing about cars on the footway is zero.
Is it
Quoted message said:
likely that the LA would have just done it without bothering to comply with regs?
Yes. My town has a pedestrian precinct which is still legally a road 20 years after it was built meaning unauthorised vehicles driving through it can not be dealt with. Iain
Can anyone confirm if a TRO is required to designate a pavement as a cycle lane or shared use. Is one always required?
To convert to shared use the footway (pavement) has to be converted to a cycle track. For this to happen the relevant part has to be removed as a footway under Section 66(4) of the Highways Act 1980 and a cycle track created under Section 65(1) of the Act. If it is on a footpath the conversion to a cycle track is under the Cycle Track Act and Cycle Track Regulations 1984. For an on road cycle lane it requires a TRO if it is mandatory i.e. to bar motor vehicles from using it.
"iarocu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (james) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Can anyone confirm if a TRO is required to designate a pavement as a cycle lane or shared use. Is one always required?
Also does anyone know what the legal status of a sign indicating cars should park half on the footway? The footway is marked with a dashed line inicating how far in cars are expected to park and the there is a blue rectangular sign showing a car (end on) with one set of wheels on the the road and one on the footway. Is this an official sign. Would there need to have been a tro to allow the footway parking.
Don't know about the TRO but I suspect with council signs condoning it the chance of getting the police to do anyrhing about cars on the footway is zero.
Is it
Quoted message said:
likely that the LA would have just done it without bothering to comply with regs?
Yes. My town has a pedestrian precinct which is still legally a road 20 years after it was built meaning unauthorised vehicles driving through it can not be dealt with.
But all pedestrian zones are still legally roads - the TRO just prohibits certain vehicles from using them at certain times.
[email hidden] (james) writed in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
Can anyone confirm if a TRO is required to designate a pavement as a cycle lane or shared use. Is one always required?
Also does anyone know what the legal status of a sign indicating cars should park half on the footway? The footway is marked with a dashed line inicating how far in cars are expected to park and the there is a blue rectangular sign showing a car (end on) with one set of wheels on the the road and one on the footway. Is this an official sign. Would there need to have been a tro to allow the footway parking. Is it likely that the LA would have just done it without bothering to comply with regs?
I don't know but (hey this is a newsgroup and you don't *really* have to know anything to post) I beleive that in London a TRO is not required to permit pavement parking as you indicate. I'm not even certain that such parking is permitted outside of London at all. I've never seen a TRO making a pavement dual use.
Yes. My town has a pedestrian precinct which is still legally a road 20 years after it was built meaning unauthorised vehicles driving through it can not be dealt with.
But all pedestrian zones are still legally roads - the TRO just prohibits certain vehicles from using them at certain times.
I still remember with a certain amount of relish the day the part of central Birmingham became "pedestrianised". I had been using this particular route for several years, and when the "No entry except for access" sign appeared one day, I simply carried on my normal route, not seeing (or hearing) [some may think "deliberately"] the parking wardens whose thankless task it was to stop errant motorists such as myself. When I could finally get no further, I was accosted by a police officer who asked if I had neither seen nor heard the wardens. I replied that I had not. He then asked if I had seen the sign at the entrance, to which I replied that I had. He then asked why, if I had seen the sign, I had continued along that route. I said that the sign said (short form) "Access only", and I wanted access to Rackhams. "That's not what it means!!!", he said [or shouted]. "But that's what it says", said I.
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as iarocu <[email hidden]> breathed:
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (james) wrote in message news:<bdd9f589.0406080216. [email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Also does anyone know what the legal status of a sign indicating cars should park half on the footway? The footway is marked with a dashed line inicating how far in cars are expected to park and the there is a blue rectangular sign showing a car (end on) with one set of wheels on the the road and one on the footway. Is this an official sign. Would there need to have been a tro to allow the footway parking.
Quoted message said:
Don't know about the TRO but I suspect with council signs condoning it the chance of getting the police to do anyrhing about cars on the footway is zero.
According to a senior police officer quoted in The Sheffield Star a couple of years ago it is generally perfectly legal to park on (or partly on) the pavement, as long as sufficient space is left for pedestrians (including wheelchairs, pedestrians propelling prams and the like) to get past. Sheffield has extensive 1930s housing estates with very narrow access roads, if you don't park on the pavement other traffic generally can't get through. There are sometimes restrictions on heavy vehicles parking on the pavement due to the underlying structure being too weak to carry the load.
