Forums Forums Traffic Signs TSRGD 2016 Disabled Bays

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4048

    SimonMorgan
    February 2018

    Yes it does. Either a marking alone or a vertical sign alone could be sufficient for a mandatory disabled bay (backed by a TRO) if the authority deemed that to be “adequate information”.

    TSRGD 2016 stops you placing either sign or marking without a TRO, so it seems there is no legal means for placing the ‘advisory’ marking that clause 9 of the 2009 DPPP Act you mention refers to. It only permits an advisory bay as a temporary measure whilst you are going through the order making process, so ideally needs to be similar to the final signing, not something to be removed or altered when the TRO comes through.

    The main thrust of that Act seems to me to force authorities to review their existing ‘advisory’ on-street disabled bays and either make them mandatory or remove them.

    I’ll raise this as an issue with Transport Scotland. Thanks for pointing it out.

    #4049

    Driz
    March 2018

    We’ve had a number of applications from disabled residents in the past who have actually passed away by the time we’d been able to programme a new parking scheme in that area and include a formal disabled bay. That has lead to us using advisory disabled bays instead, without the need for a TRO, sign and post (cheaper to introduce and remove when no longer needed)..

    Now there is this new distinction we’ve decided to mark the bay and place the ‘DISABLED’ legend internally within the bay. The marking therefore doesn’t comply and remains an advisory.

    Probably strongly frowned upon? It’s a work around at this stage as we don’t really have the resources to go through the review or remove or make mandatory process.

    Thoughts?

    #3422
    Joe Hawke
    Participant

    Me again…

    This one has been raised before at various meetings and discussions, some of which took place before the 2016 Regs were published.

    Disabled Bays – Under the 2016 Regs, the legal link between many signs and their associated roadmarkings was removed.

    My questions are 1.- Does this apply to disabled bays? 2. – Does this apply to Disabled Bays in Scotland where there is additional legislation in the form of the Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009, which makes no apparent reference to an on-street bay governed by an order. It only seems to refer to advisory bays which may be marked with either a sign or road marking (Which isn’t a problem as they’re advisory…).

    #4050

    SimonMorgan
    March 2018

    Sounds a good plan, Driz, but not strictly legal or course, except perhaps in Scotland.

    I’ve suggested also the disabled symbol as a road marking for advisory bays in place of the text. But if the bay is later to be converted to mandatory when the order comes through, any such symbol or text needs to be removed and replaced with the legally correct version. Perhaps it could be done with a temporary adhesive marking to facilitate that.

    The main legal problem with ‘advisory’ bays is that they often contradict what the underlying traffic order says should be there on that bit of road, arguably making adjacent measures unenforceable.

    #4051

    BrynBuck
    March 2018

    Some local authorities in England do already use non-standard markings for advisory bays; Kirklees certainly do (or used to do).

    Resident permit areas and advisory disabled bays throw up all sorts of grey areas and the view I take is don’t attempt it if you hope to enforce. Some argued that the “except in marked bays” clause on an entry sign would permit a blue badge holder to park in the advisory bay without a permit, and I agreed with that view. You could reasonably argue that the advisory bay was exempt; especially now a sign is not required for a disabled bay.

    We really needed the streamlining of TROs to be carried forward with Signing the Way, but as that did not happen for various reasons I suspect local authorities are stuck with this dilemma – is compliance with the Equalities Act better than compliance with the TSRGD? Refusal of a bay on cost grounds alone wouldn’t wash with the former as far as I can tell.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.