Skip to content

Discuss This Road closed to bikes only near Ace Café General news

You are in... Forums > Discuss This > General news > Road closed to bikes only near Ace Café

This is a discussion topic

This discussion topic is linked to an article on this site. You can navigate to the article by clicking on the article name in the first post.

Go to most recent reply

Anonymous

Joined:

Posts:

Andy Downes  says:

Road closed to bikes only near Ace Café

A local council has banned just motorcycles using a road near the famous Ace Café in North London as part of a six-week trial following months of complaints about anti-social riding and racing on the road. Brent council has now banned motorcycles from Rainsford Road after a number of complaints about dangerous riding and large groups of bystanders. The ban has...

Reply to this Topic  
  • Posted 346 days ago (20 August 2013 11:43)

Post a message in General news

Fields marked with an asterisk * are required

   

Please note. You cannot submit more than 4000 characters as a message.

Upload image(s) from your computer (up to 3 images)

  1.  
  2.  
  3.  

Terms of use

Use of our community areas and forums is subject to important terms of use. By joining our community and using the features you agree to be bound by these terms. See terms of use below. 

Cancel
Rogerborg

Joined:

Sep 09

Posts: 848

Rogerborg says:

Well, that's a bag of dicks

It is indeed from TSRGD 2002, sign 619.2.

Well, check for signs on both sides of the carriageway (I do hope nobodo tampers with them), measure them up, and check that they're lit (if there are streetlights nearby).

Reply to this Topic
AndyPagin

Joined:

Aug 13

Posts: 6

AndyPagin says:

I think FellRavens' comment is the most poingant so far.

As far as I can see a traffic order is applied to a 'special road' (defined in the order), and only applies to a given class of vehicle as defined in Highways Act 1980 Sched 4. As FellRaven rightly points out, motorcycles and cars are one and the same class, so I can't see how you can prohibit mororcycles without also prohibiting cars. So the traffic order is either unlawful as it tries to impose a restriction on a non-existant class of vehicle, or they have lawfully imposed an order that applies to cars and bikes.

Suppose it depends on the precise wording of the paper copy of the order viewable at Brent councils office (no doubt in a locked filing cabinet in a dis-used toilet in the basment (bring your own lightbulb and ladder)).


FellRaven says

Adding to Rogerborg's comment

From the Highways Act 1980 Sched 4 Cars and Motorcycles are a single vehicle class, Class 1. So as theer is no separate definition any ban on Bikes would unenforceable as Motorcycles are not recognised separately within the act.

I also believe that the powers the council were given we're explicitly for easing congestion and improving traffic flow, so they are not appropriate in this case.

Reply to this Topic
Rogerborg

Joined:

Sep 09

Posts: 848

Rogerborg says:

That dog won't hunt

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows orders on any road, and specific "to traffic of any class".

Yes, "class" is vaguely defined and HWA 1980 does lump in motorcycles (50cc and up, what about peds?) and motor cars as Class I, but TSRGD 2002 provides distinct signs to prohibit all motor vehicles, motor cars, and (solo) motorcycles separartely, which shows a clear intent to distinguish.  I wouldn't fancy arguing that.

Sorry, if the signs are in order, that looks enforceable.

Reply to this Topic
AndyPagin

Joined:

Aug 13

Posts: 6

AndyPagin says:

Rodger,

I suspect you're probably correct about the signs on a regular road without any temporary experimental restrictions, but the law on 'special roads' seems to be tied into the defined vehicle classes. My gut feeling is that this restriction is in fact illegal.

Reply to this Topic
Leonard1

Joined:

Aug 13

Posts: 8

Leonard1 says:

 I unfortunately have to agree with Roger. If the signs are up then its gonna be enforceable. It seems to be linked to the Ace Cafe so could argue it should only apply when it's open and a couple of hours before and after its opening times.  

Reply to this Topic
kfisher33

Joined:

Aug 13

Posts: 16

kfisher33 says:

 my best friend's aunt makes $66/hr on the computer. She has been without work for 10 months but last month her pay was $18406 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site....WWW.ℛush64.COℳ

Reply to this Topic
lisa7676

Joined:

Aug 13

Posts: 2

lisa7676 says:

 my best friend's half-sister makes $79 every hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her check was $21891 just working on the internet for a few hours. Here's the site to read more...>>

W­W­W.C­N­N­3­2.C­O­M

Reply to this Topic
Piglet2010

Joined:

Oct 11

Posts: 2281

Piglet2010 says:

If only

the Brent Council could ban the "my so and so makes $666/hour on the Internet" spammers from MCN.

Reply to this Topic
Rogerborg

Joined:

Sep 09

Posts: 848

Rogerborg says:

Ah, Brent council should read Schedule 17

I've now seen pictures of the actual roadside signs and they're not independently lit, although there are streetlights nearby.  Naughty naugthy.

Reply to this Topic
Leonard1

Joined:

Aug 13

Posts: 8

Leonard1 says:

I see loads of signs around which are not independently lit, so are they not enforeceable too. That would seem a bit strange... I thought signs only had to be independently lit if they are not within a certain distance of street lights but who knows? 

Also does that also mean they only have to put lights up to make the whole thing enforceable anway?

Does anyone know who would be the best person to answer the question whether the signs are correct?

 

 

Reply to this Topic

Compare Insurance

Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy

Motorcycles for sale

 

It's only £13.99 to advertise your motorcycle on MCN

Sell your Motorcycle

Motorcycle pricing tool

New! Find used bike prices