It's spreading to Kensington & Chelsea

[toastie]

spotted yesterday...............I love it.........bring it on

[torytax]

Thanks Toastie for going to the effort to post that up, these sort of photos are very welcome. It's great to know what action is being taken, as the councils and mainstream media won't give us the real picture. 

[1frog]

What does MTS mean ?

[UK France bikers.com]

Rathboning is indeed spreading to Kensington & Chelsea! Poor guys, they're having a little taste of the medicine administered to Westminster City Council!

http://ukfrancebikers.com/2010/01/24/residents-bike-parking-bays-in-kensington-chelsea-continue-to-be-defaced/

[upyourschalkley]

Harmonisation innit

[1frog]

Talking about harmonisation I saw these today on my flyering mission, harmonisation

Harmonisation innit

Talking about harmonisation I saw these today on my flyering mission in between Earls Court and Chelsea....

When I was taking the pictures, one of the residents got curious and asked Why I took the pics, so after telling him he told me that since they put the security and the permits signs, NOBODY was using the bays any longer and the bays are ALWAYS empty. He wasn't a bike riders but he said that the council's action was disgusting and that bike should be encouraged....

[1frog]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/motorcycle_permits_only_bays#comment-8679

So, there is 960 permits only spaces and 160 valid 'solo motorcycle permits' on issue
that means there are 800 unused spaces, that's why the permits only bays are empty and the visitors bays always full !
It is not rocket science that the RBKC scheme is NOT WORKING.
Also it says that if the permit sign is not visible any longer you still have to pay, how would you know it is a permit bay if it doesnt say so ?

[bigdave]

Also it says that if the permit sign is not visible any longer you still have to pay, how would you know it is a permit bay if it doesnt say so ?

I think the wrong question was asked.

Is it now a free bay? No but if you asked Westminster that question about a rathboned bay they would probably respond back similarly saying that the charge has not been dropped and so this was not a free bay.

However, is the charge enforceable if the markings are not clear? i.e. would a ticket be issued to a bike in this bay if they didn't hold a permit given it was reasonable to assume that they were not aware that this was a permit holder only bay? That may be a different story.

In additon I believe in the last picture the ticket would be unenforcable even if the permit section were not obscured as the line markings are not solid.

finally I think (but I could be wrong) there may also be a restriction on the maximum height of a road marking. i.e. if the paint was laid down to thick, or layered to high then the tickets are unenforcable. So if they repaint the markings but don't use a power washer to remove the old ones first then it MAY still be unenforcable.

[nutsville]

However, is the charge enforceable if the markings are not clear? i.e. would a ticket be issued to a bike in this bay if they didn't hold a permit given it was reasonable to assume that they were not aware that this was a permit holder only bay? That may be a different story.

In additon I believe in the last picture the ticket would be unenforcable even if the permit section were not obscured as the line markings are not solid.

finally I think (but I could be wrong) there may also be a restriction on the maximum height of a road marking. i.e. if the paint was laid down to thick, or layered to high then the tickets are unenforcable. So if they repaint the markings but don't use a power washer to remove the old ones first then it MAY still be unenforcable.

No such rule in the 2004 wosits, it's all about sign and bay dimensions not paint thickness. But the wording on the road has to conform. So the Captains works (if it is her work) invalidates the bay. But someone will probably have to take this all the way to PATAS to get a nice letter we can put up.

There's quite a few people on here willing to do that I guess. I'm certain KC  (no not you KC the Council I mean) will back down first.

[bigdave]

but thats why we have my good friend "The Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2002"

section 32 sub section 2:
"No road marking or stud shall project above the surface of the adjacent carriageway more than 6 millimetres at any point except"

it then goes on to list the expections, I've not checked all the exceptions but I'm pretty sure it has to be either covered in there as "what if a local authority paints up a road marking to 1 foot in height and it takes out a car" is just the sort of comment I expect got batted about when they were drafting this up.

[torytax]

but thats why we have my good friend "The Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2002"

section 32 sub section 2:
"No road marking or stud shall project above the surface of the adjacent carriageway more than 6 millimetres at any point except"

it then goes on to list the expections, I've not checked all the exceptions but I'm pretty sure it has to be either covered in there as "what if a local authority paints up a road marking to 1 foot in height and it takes out a car" is just the sort of comment I expect got batted about when they were drafting this up.

Wouldn't they then just call it a speed jump 

[ldn1702]

I think we need a test case. Someone parks in a rathboned residents bay and challenges any ticket by saying that the markings were not visible. See what happens. I can't see how the RBKC would get away without cancelling the ticket, they clearly can't enforce a charge in a bay for which the markings are not clearly visible.
We need a letter similar to the Kevin Goad's one from the RBKC.

[bigdave]

The FOI has been updated to include my comments, RBKC tend to be better at responding than Westminster so we should hopefully hear back quite soon on this. If someone wants to put it to the test I won't stop them however if they come back on the FOI with the answer I think we all know they have to then appealing that ticket (assuming they issue one) would be a whole lot less painful.

[ldn1702]

The FOI has been updated to include my comments, RBKC tend to be better at responding than Westminster so we should hopefully hear back quite soon on this. If someone wants to put it to the test I won't stop them however if they come back on the FOI with the answer I think we all know they have to then appealing that ticket (assuming they issue one) would be a whole lot less painful.

Yes, agreed. But they're replying to FOIs quicker than Westminster because they have not yet been bombarded with them, like Westminster. If they carry on with their stupid residents parking policy, I'm sure they'll start to see the number of FOIs submitted to them increase dramatically. It's so fun to keep politicians busy in their office, isn't it?

[rathboner]

There is a team in the RBKC anyone is welcome to join.

Harmonisation innit

[kaychanc]

i'm currently going to patas for getting a pcn in a residents bay... the fucker had to walk for 5 mins to find a sign to take a photo of the residents sign! fuckers....

[ldn1702]

i'm currently going to patas for getting a pcn in a residents bay... the fucker had to walk for 5 mins to find a sign to take a photo of the residents sign! fuckers....

If you took a picture of your bike in a rathboned residents bay, then you're sure to win. It's easy to prove that your bike was not parked in the bay where the CEO took their picture since your bike won't be on it.

[kaychanc]

If you took a picture of your bike in a rathboned residents bay, then you're sure to win. It's easy to prove that your bike was not parked in the bay where the CEO took their picture since your bike won't be on it.

quite...

[ldn1702]

quite...

So they're screwed anyway, they'll have no choice but cancel the PCN.

[Ogri]

It would be useful to get a written cancellation - on paper, that could be referred to for others.

Good luck with it.