DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 17179--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 12, 2024, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> If they were doing so, these appeals to the tribunal would
surely fail, and thus they wouldn't be 'denied' the associated
revenue.
>
--- End Quote ---
Ahh, but the tribunal mistakenly applied the law as it was
written, rather than how it was required to be re-imagined in
favour of TfL in order to avoid any accusation of the courts
making up the law themselves, as Swift J decided (when he also
decided that you could have custard with the cheese board).
#Post#: 17189--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: March 12, 2024, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Scientist and Saint link ---
>
> [edit]Modified because how I described Mr. Garrett in the
original post got changed by a mod to "****", which made it look
like I'd called him something far worse than what I actually
did, and thus made me look bad[/edit]
>
--- End Quote ---
Changed by the forum software automatically, not by a moderator
manually.
#Post#: 17193--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: guest968
Date: March 12, 2024, 3:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh, OK.
Settings must be ultrasensitive
#Post#: 17234--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: March 13, 2024, 4:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, I've just seen a PCN for code 99 on a red route.
Do we think a road marked with pedestrian zig-zags that happens
to be on a red route is also marked "in accordance with" a DRL
or SRL?
#Post#: 17238--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 13, 2024, 5:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It means the entire red route - which is why the relevant
provision contains a definition which requires both red lines
and an upright, just so that people can tell that the intention
was that the definition must be read widely enough so that it
means the entire length of the red route, but without saying so
because they could have done but didn't, and the definition
isn't wide enough to cover the entire length of the named road,
because that would be absurd.
#Post#: 17248--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: March 14, 2024, 4:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But is a pedestrian crossing part of a red route? It's been held
that it interrupts a bus lane, see Neville Stanley v London
Borough of Lambeth (2170474513, 1 June 2017)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k-uHqbYs7iRPYC_Q0TWhL9cJm6DZ2iFJ.
Arguably a pedestrian crossing is similarly incompatible with a
red route restriction and its provisions must trump the TMO, so
I'd argue it cannot be part of the red route at all. After all a
parking bay is there to convey the effect of the red route TMO,
while the pedestrian crossing is a section 36 sign.
#Post#: 17274--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: guest968
Date: March 14, 2024, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> But is a pedestrian crossing part of a red route? It's been
held that it interrupts a bus lane, see Neville Stanley v London
Borough of Lambeth (2170474513, 1 June 2017)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k-uHqbYs7iRPYC_Q0TWhL9cJm6DZ2iFJ.
--- End Quote ---
1) I wonder if any bus drivers have been prosecuted for
overtaking on the left?
2) Is there any way that anybody can think of whereby the
illiterate ignoramuses who have decided that overtaking on the
left should be called "undertaking" can be locked up and banned
from ever saying anything in public ever again?
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
> Arguably a pedestrian crossing is similarly incompatible with
a red route restriction and its provisions must trump the TMO,
so I'd argue it cannot be part of the red route at all.
--- End Quote ---
But you're also not allowed to stop on a pedestrian crossing or
its zig-zags. What you're charged with would be different, but
unlike Mr Stanley you'd not be not guilty of an offence.
#Post#: 17324--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 15, 2024, 5:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> It is worth noting there are approximately 900 outstanding
review cases which are affected by this decision.
>
> Mr Garrett helpfully stated at the hearing that a review
should be allowed to proceed because it would be in the public
interest for TFL to collect the money from those penalties, and
that if TFL could not collect the money it would have to look at
other ways of raising revenue.
>
> So much for only enforcing for traffic management purposes...
>
--- End Quote ---
One other and I were there as observers. To put it mildly, Mr
Teper was not impressed. Also Pat Garrett mentioned it was in
the interests of all London authorities.
#Post#: 17371--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: guest968
Date: March 16, 2024, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> .... Pat Garrett ...
>
--- End Quote ---
Is it the Wild West out there? :lol:
#Post#: 17844--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 20, 2024, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I observed a hearing just before Christmas and he was
quite rude then. Both the CA and I shared a look of disbelief
with each other. Being a good boy, I said nothing.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 7
DIR Previous Page