A 'sensitive' issue. (1 Viewer)

[6pm Cowboy]

The issue is 'Travellers' but I would not like this to desend into a 'leave them alone / drive them out' debate. They are incidental to what I need to know and why I need to know it.

Where I live, on the roads I frequently travel, there WERE several laybys seperated from the road by a grass strip. Most of these were frequently visited by 'travellers'

The council may say that they did what they did to make the laybys more useable, rumour has it that they did it to stop the travellers using them. Either way, the council removed the grass strip and made the laybye 'continuous' with the road. hey presto, I have never seen a traveller in them since.

So what is the law/rule affecting this ? and what other 'parking places' would it affect ?

 

[GJH]

My research - see Here - indicates that there is no national legislation which either specifically permits or prohibits roadside camping. There are local Traffic Regulation Orders which vary from place to place.

It may well be that a council has altered a layby to discourage its use by people wanting somewhere to stay overnight but I have no evidence of that (never thought to look into it). If it is a mechanism which avoids the anti-social consequences of some illegal camp sites then it may well be more cost-effective than passing and having to try to enforce a new TRO.

Graham

 

[dellwood33]

Perhaps the removal of the grass strip has removed a place to tether their horses, so they no longer bother.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Fatalhud]

It could be that lorries pulled onto the grass, churning it up and covering the road in mud.

Alan H

 

[6pm Cowboy]

Perhaps the removal of the grass strip has removed a place to tether their horses, so they no longer bother.

 

[6pm Cowboy]

It could be that lorries pulled onto the grass, churning it up and covering the road in mud.

Alan H

Never noticed that happening. I am 99% certain it was to stop travellers stopping there. and it seems to have worked but need to know why.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Never noticed that happening. I am 99% certain it was to stop travellers stopping there. and it seems to have worked but need to know why.

If you want the specific answer(s) for one or more locations, Graham, drop the council an e-mail asking them for copies of the reports etc which led to the decision(s) to alter the lay-by(s). Use the Freedom of Information route (you can normally find the right page through the A to Z route if it isn't obvious).

Graham

 

[Euromobil]

I think what Graham is asking is "did the council have power to do this?" and can it happen elsewhere. The answer is "it depends" you probably have three councils, Parish, District and County, normally the County is the Highway Authourity, probably the lay-by, verge and road are all Highway land. In which case I would guess they have statutary powers to improve the highway as they see fit. It may well be they had to advertise their proposals in the press and on site, but if no one objected............oh:

 

[Geo]

I think the main reason is safety, even travellers need to fee safe
without the protection of a grass verge segregating moving traffic, they would feel, as i would, vulnerable to careless or sleepy drivers ploughing into your bedroom

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[6pm Cowboy]

I think the main reason is safety, even travellers need to fee safe
without the protection of a grass verge segregating moving traffic, they would feel, as i would, vulnerable to careless or sleepy drivers ploughing into your bedroom

Indeed, it may be as simple as that. My feeling was that it may be to do with the 'definition' of a road, or highway, and that having a grass strip may change the laybye from 'road' to something else.

I have no interest in the laybye, or the travellers, as such but am working on another idea which the council may use 'travellers' as a reason to ignore ( though I doubt that they would say so )

I am just trying to cover all the bases in my thought processes before continuing.

 

[scotjimland]

It's all part of a master plan to tar mac the world ..
this negates the need to cut the grass ..

I wonder if the Itinerants submitted quote.. a bit like a busman's holiday

Did they also remove the hitching rails ?

 

[Euromobil]

Hi Graham, dont know your 'project' but I have often found it helps to get your local Councillor on board. Although officers (employees of Council) may have a tendency to say no and stick exactly to the rules, Councillors because they have to stand for election are often more sympathetic to local issues. A charity I help out with wanted a road sign and were refused point blank, but a few friendly letters to local councillors explaining our problem brought about not only a change of heart but 2 signs paid for by Council on Highway grounds.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Douglas]

As I understand it a lay-by that has a dividing strip is not classed as part of the highway, but the lay by without the dividing strip is, therefore the police can say the you are causing an obstruction on the highway and move you on.

Doug...

 

[6pm Cowboy]

As I understand it a lay-by that has a dividing strip is not classed as part of the highway, but the lay by without the dividing strip is, therefore the police can say the you are causing an obstruction on the highway and move you on.

Doug...

That sounds feasible, Thank you Doug.

 

[GJH]

As I understand it a lay-by that has a dividing strip is not classed as part of the highway, but the lay by without the dividing strip is, therefore the police can say the you are causing an obstruction on the highway and move you on.

Doug...

That's a new one on me. The Highways Act 1980 doesn't seem to define "lay-by" as such so as a lay-by includes a “carriageway” (a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles) then it appears to me that a lay-by is always part of a highway.

I'll be happy to be proved wrong if there is a conflicting source though

Graham

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[6pm Cowboy]

Clear waters just muddied again

Good point though.

 

[Douglas]

That's a new one on me. The Highways Act 1980 doesn't seem to define "lay-by" as such so as a lay-by includes a “carriageway” (a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles) then it appears to me that a lay-by is always part of a highway.

I'll be happy to be proved wrong if there is a conflicting source though

Graham

Since when have the police stopped interpreting the law to suit them selves or even in ignorance

Doug...

 

[Wildman]

As I understand it a lay-by that has a dividing strip is not classed as part of the highway, but the lay by without the dividing strip is, therefore the police can say the you are causing an obstruction on the highway and move you on.

Doug...

The highway exends to the full width of the verges to the hedgerow on either side of the road so you can be done for causing an obstruction even if all wheels are off of the road and on the grass verge.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Since when have the police stopped interpreting the law to suit them selves or even in ignorance

Doug...

What's that got to do with it? As Roger has said the highway isn't just the tarmac bits.

If you have a source to back up your understanding why not just quote it?

Graham

 

[imprint]

Doug is right, as are other posters, but a layby with a space between it and the road is likely to give more room for legal argument than one without. However, if there is no intervening space, such as a grass patch, there will be far more difficulty in pleading not guilty if one is charged with being on the roadway after lighting-up time and not displaying lights. That is probably part of the reasoning.

As one who cut his teeth arguing over such niceties a very long time ago, I threw my references away years ago, so here's a slight bon-bon instead.

The word "lay-by" is a mistake!!

The correct word was a "Lie-bay". This ws a railway term, used to denote a piece of track - a bay - where a slow train could le to allow a faster train to pass. Not alot of people know that.