pavements and vehicles

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

james said:

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.

Tony

"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.

someone pl. said:

Quoted message said:

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.

No prosecution ensued :-)

** Phil.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:19:43 +0100, MSA <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

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.

So do I - unlike Richard Barrett.

TRO = Traffic Regulation Order
LA = Local Authority

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

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.

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.