Re: Leaving motorways via services ...

[Ian Jackson]

In article <lsab5s$uo0$8...@dont-email.me>,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>There is a sign at the exit one side which says "no exit from motorway,
>offenders may be prosecuted", but no mention of a specific act.

There will be a Traffic Regulation Order made by the relevant highways
authority, contravention of which is made an offence by one of the
Road Traffic Acts. I forget which one but it should be easy enough to
find.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Percy Picacity]

On 2014-08-11 11:58:52 +0000, Jethro_uk said:

> what offence - if any - has been committed ?
>
> I ask because if I "cheat" and use a small road near me, I can access a
> motorway service station, and thus the motorway, and shave 5-10 minutes
> off a journey, depending on which direction I'm going in.
>
> There are raising bollards, but they are permanently down.

>
> There is a sign at the exit one side which says "no exit from motorway,
> offenders may be prosecuted", but no mention of a specific act.
>

> It's quite a well known wheeze, you often follow a car in, or out ...

I suspect that you may be trespassing as far as the owner of the site
is concerned. The site owner may be breaching his tenancy agreement
and possibly committing an offence by allowing you to do this. But I
have no idea what offence you could be committing. I used to do the
same (presumably at a different service area) and I often wondered.

--

Percy Picacity

[GB]

On 11/08/2014 14:11, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <lsab5s$uo0$8...@dont-email.me>,
> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> There is a sign at the exit one side which says "no exit from motorway,
>> offenders may be prosecuted", but no mention of a specific act.
>
> There will be a Traffic Regulation Order made by the relevant highways
> authority, contravention of which is made an offence by one of the
> Road Traffic Acts. I forget which one but it should be easy enough to
> find.
>

Don't traffic orders usually say that particular types of vehicles are
affected? It's quite unusual to classify the vehicles according to where
they came from.

[Roland Perry]

In message <53e8d2dd$0$1127$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 15:27:38 on
Mon, 11 Aug 2014, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:

>>> There is a sign at the exit one side which says "no exit from motorway,
>>> offenders may be prosecuted", but no mention of a specific act.
>>
>> There will be a Traffic Regulation Order made by the relevant highways
>> authority, contravention of which is made an offence by one of the
>> Road Traffic Acts. I forget which one but it should be easy enough to
>> find.
>
>Don't traffic orders usually say that particular types of vehicles are
>affected? It's quite unusual to classify the vehicles according to
>where they came from.

They very often talk about "authorised" vehicles, which in this case
would be ones driven by motorway services staff (plus the usual crop of
council/emergency service ones).
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In article <53e8d2dd$0$1127$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>,

I don't know. You'd have to look at some actual TROs for motorway
service station access roads to find out. But I don't think writing
`except for access to the service station' or whatever into the TRO
would pose any legal difficulty.

If the OP has a particular service station in mind, they could use
whatdotheyknow.com to FOI the TRO(s).

[Rob Morley]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:58:52 +0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> what offence - if any - has been committed ?
>
> I ask because if I "cheat" and use a small road near me, I can access
> a motorway service station, and thus the motorway, and shave 5-10
> minutes off a journey, depending on which direction I'm going in.
>

I used to do that to get off the M6 at Corley Services on my daily
commute - there was the usual "no entry except for authorised
vehicles" that I and other drivers regularly ignored. One day there
was a police car parked up, the occupants apparently watching the
access road - a couple of cars in front of me turned back when they saw
them, I just carried on through and heard nothing more about it. I see
from Streetview there are rising bollards there now.

[Roland Perry]

In message <7o74cb....@news.alt.net>, at 14:01:29 on Mon, 11 Aug
2014, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:

Perhaps a TRO on the public road just outside the service station
specifying that the stub in question is "no motor vehicles", with some
customary exceptions for emergency services, site operator etc.
--
Roland Perry

[Nightjar <"cpb"@]

On 11/08/2014 12:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
> what offence - if any - has been committed ?
>
> I ask because if I "cheat" and use a small road near me, I can access a
> motorway service station, and thus the motorway, and shave 5-10 minutes
> off a journey, depending on which direction I'm going in.
>
> There are raising bollards, but they are permanently down.
>
> There is a sign at the exit one side which says "no exit from motorway,
> offenders may be prosecuted", but no mention of a specific act.
>
> It's quite a well known wheeze, you often follow a car in, or out ...
>

I would think it is contrary to a Regulation made under Paragraph 12 (2)
(a) of the Special Roads Act 1949:

(2)The Minister may make regulations with respect to the us of special
roads, and such regulations may, in particular� .

(a)regulate the manner in which and the conditions subject to which such
roads may be used by traffic of the classes authorised in that behalf by
a scheme under: section one of this Act;

However, ICBA to track down all the regulations that may have been made
under that Act.

--
Colin Bignell

[polygonum]

On 11/08/2014 15:43, Roland Perry wrote:
> They very often talk about "authorised" vehicles, which in this case
> would be ones driven by motorway services staff (plus the usual crop of
> council/emergency service ones).

Would that include staff simply driving to and from work? I can see why
some categories of staff, on official duty, might be allowed to do so
but find it very much more difficult to accept different classes of road
user when both might well be commuting in their own time.

--
Rod

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:17:00 +0100, polygonum put finger to keyboard and
typed:

If it's a private road (which it is, at least partially), then "all staff"
can be authorised users of it even when they're not actually at work. At a
previous job I had a pass for the staff car park. I could use it even if I
was only parking there on a Saturday to go shopping. It was my position
which made me an authorised user, not my use.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[polygonum]

On 11/08/2014 19:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
> If it's a private road (which it is, at least partially), then "all staff"
> can be authorised users of it even when they're not actually at work. At a
> previous job I had a pass for the staff car park. I could use it even if I
> was only parking there on a Saturday to go shopping. It was my position
> which made me an authorised user, not my use.

Fully accepted. However, I was really thinking about the "what law?" and
police caring (or not) about it.

--
Rod

[Graham Murray]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> writes:

> what offence - if any - has been committed ?
>
> I ask because if I "cheat" and use a small road near me, I can access a
> motorway service station, and thus the motorway, and shave 5-10 minutes
> off a journey, depending on which direction I'm going in.
>
> There are raising bollards, but they are permanently down.
>
> There is a sign at the exit one side which says "no exit from motorway,
> offenders may be prosecuted", but no mention of a specific act.

Taking the usual 'rule' about the explicit overriding the implicit, that
sign would only seem to prohibit vehicles which had arrived at the
services from the motorway, not vehicles arriving on the "small road"
and exiting onto the motorway.

As a subsidiary hypothetical, would someone be allowed to access[1] the
services from the "small road", perhaps even on foot or in a vehicle
(such as a pushbike) which is not allowed on the motorway? To access
services from the motorway you have to pass the 'end of motorway
regulations' traffic sign, so the vehicle restrictions do not obviously
apply.

[1] For the purposes of using the toilets, shops, cash machines or food
outlets etc.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:54:01 +0100, polygonum put finger to keyboard and
typed:

I suspect that the police don't actually care. It's the responsibility of
the site operator to prevent unauthorised use.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:41:59 +0100, Graham Murray put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>As a subsidiary hypothetical, would someone be allowed to access[1] the
>services from the "small road", perhaps even on foot or in a vehicle
>(such as a pushbike) which is not allowed on the motorway? To access
>services from the motorway you have to pass the 'end of motorway
>regulations' traffic sign, so the vehicle restrictions do not obviously
>apply.
>
>[1] For the purposes of using the toilets, shops, cash machines or food
>outlets etc.

That's actually very common. Keele Services, for example, are a popular
late night destination for students at nearby Keele University who feel the
urge for a lurgy-burger or rat-in-a-box at 3am. Conversely, at MSAs in
urban areas, such as Heston, that's how a significant proportion of staff
get to work.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2014-08-11 20:13:43 +0000, Jethro_uk said:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:51:20 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:54:01 +0100, polygonum put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>

>>> On 11/08/2014 19:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>> If it's a private road (which it is, at least partially), then "all
>>>> staff"
>>>> can be authorised users of it even when they're not actually at work.
>>>> At a previous job I had a pass for the staff car park. I could use it
>>>> even if I was only parking there on a Saturday to go shopping. It was
>>>> my position which made me an authorised user, not my use.
>>>
>>> Fully accepted. However, I was really thinking about the "what law?" and
>>> police caring (or not) about it.
>>
>> I suspect that the police don't actually care. It's the responsibility
>> of the site operator to prevent unauthorised use.
>>
>> Mark
>

> There may be some truth in that - the traffic officers equivalent of
> "it's a civil matter sir".
>
> In any instance, it's quite handy being less than 4 minutes from the
> motorway, instead of the 15 minutes it would otherwise take. Especially
> in rush hour.

I suspect that the problem that the regulation is designed to prevent
is excessive traffic on the minor road to the services. Should too
many people start using the route the police might well take an
interest. Local people nipping into the services for fast food may even
reduce the traffic on local minor roads as they do not then have to
drive to town.


--

Percy Picacity

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:13:43 +0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:51:20 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>

>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:54:01 +0100, polygonum put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>>On 11/08/2014 19:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>> If it's a private road (which it is, at least partially), then "all
>>>> staff"
>>>> can be authorised users of it even when they're not actually at work.
>>>> At a previous job I had a pass for the staff car park. I could use it
>>>> even if I was only parking there on a Saturday to go shopping. It was
>>>> my position which made me an authorised user, not my use.
>>>
>>>Fully accepted. However, I was really thinking about the "what law?" and
>>>police caring (or not) about it.
>>
>> I suspect that the police don't actually care. It's the responsibility
>> of the site operator to prevent unauthorised use.
>>
>> Mark
>

>There may be some truth in that - the traffic officers equivalent of
>"it's a civil matter sir".
>
>In any instance, it's quite handy being less than 4 minutes from the
>motorway, instead of the 15 minutes it would otherwise take. Especially
>in rush hour.

Here's an entrance wich is apparently commonly used as a short cut onto the
motorway:

http://goo.gl/maps/4u3Sj

And here's a news report of someone who was given an FPN for using it, but
sucessfully defended it in court:

http://www.motherwelltimes.co.uk/news/local-headlines/driver-wins-no-entry-battle-1-1935973

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:56:01 +0100, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

Regardless of the legality, they do seem to have become much stricter
in the use of physical barriers needing passcards to open than they
were a few years ago.

I remember using services to "escape" from the motorways a few times
when they were very badly jammed back in the early 2000's, but there
aren't many now where you can physically do that.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A pessimist is never disappointed.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[polygonum]

On 11/08/2014 21:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:41:59 +0100, Graham Murray put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> As a subsidiary hypothetical, would someone be allowed to access[1] the
>> services from the "small road", perhaps even on foot or in a vehicle
>> (such as a pushbike) which is not allowed on the motorway? To access
>> services from the motorway you have to pass the 'end of motorway
>> regulations' traffic sign, so the vehicle restrictions do not obviously
>> apply.
>>
>> [1] For the purposes of using the toilets, shops, cash machines or food
>> outlets etc.
>
> That's actually very common. Keele Services, for example, are a popular
> late night destination for students at nearby Keele University who feel the
> urge for a lurgy-burger or rat-in-a-box at 3am. Conversely, at MSAs in
> urban areas, such as Heston, that's how a significant proportion of staff
> get to work.
>
> Mark
>

With specific experience of that case (albeit many years ago), I seem to
remember the sign outside the MSA said something like "No access to
motorway". Hence, going into the MSA, doing whatever there, then
returning by the same route, you had not accessed the motorway so no
offence. No idea if the signs still say that!

--
Rod

[Roland Perry]

In message <acaiu9h8ap4900h94...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:39:30 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>Here's an entrance wich is apparently commonly used as a short cut onto the
>motorway:
>
>http://goo.gl/maps/4u3Sj
>
>And here's a news report of someone who was given an FPN for using it, but
>sucessfully defended it in court:
>
>http://www.motherwelltimes.co.uk/news/local-headlines/driver-wins-no-entry-battle-1-1935973

If he pleaded that he was attending a broken-down lorry, that might make
him "authorised", so this case isn't clear cut. Unfortunately, despite
it being possible to write the story unambiguously, they haven't.
--
Roland Perry

[Judith]

In which case should there not be a No Entry sign on to the public road.

[davi...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 08:10:24 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

If he pleaded that he was attending a broken-down lorry, that might make him "authorised", so this case isn't clear cut. Unfortunately, despite it being possible to write the story unambiguously, they haven't. -- Roland Perry

My reading of it is that they couldn't find a relevant TRO.

[Roland Perry]

In message <633e3055-fccb-462d...@googlegroups.com>, at
01:46:28 on Tue, 12 Aug 2014, davi...@gmail.com remarked:

>>If he pleaded that he was attending a broken-down lorry, that might
>>make him "authorised", so this case isn't clear cut. Unfortunately,
>>despite it being possible to write the story unambiguously, they
>>haven't. -- Roland Perry
>
>My reading of it is that they couldn't find a relevant TRO.

But that wasn't confirmed, nor was it tested in court as the case was
dropped and the authorities won't say why. It's just as likely they had
cold feet about his status as an "authorised" person. Had the chap been
an ordinary member of the public there wouldn't be quite as much
fog-of-war.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <53iiu9l4d2lpgrq53...@4ax.com>, at 23:49:50 on
Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>Perhaps a TRO on the public road just outside the service station
>>specifying that the stub in question is "no motor vehicles", with some
>>customary exceptions for emergency services, site operator etc.
>
>In which case should there not be a No Entry sign on to the public road.

"No Entry" restrictions can be unidirectional - near where I lived in
Nottingham was a stretch of road with "Except buses" No Entry 24x7 one
way, and "Except buses and loading", 7am-7pm, using the 'No Motorised
Vehicles' sign the other. It just depends which flows you are aiming to
prohibit.
--
Roland Perry

[Judith]

The no entry sign was on the service operators site.

If a major supermarket puts up No Entry signs in their car park: are they
legally enforceable.

(I could accept that if you drove through them and had an accident then it
would count against you): but are you breaking the law by ignoring them?

[Roland Perry]

In message <l1hku9d336q20uc2v...@4ax.com>, at 17:45:11 on
Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>>Here's an entrance wich is apparently commonly used as a short cut onto the
>>>motorway:
>>>
>>>http://goo.gl/maps/4u3Sj
>>>
>>>And here's a news report of someone who was given an FPN for using it, but
>>>sucessfully defended it in court:
>>>
>>>http://www.motherwelltimes.co.uk/news/local-headlines/driver-wins-no-entry-battle-1-1935973
>>
>>If he pleaded that he was attending a broken-down lorry, that might make
>>him "authorised", so this case isn't clear cut. Unfortunately, despite
>>it being possible to write the story unambiguously, they haven't.
>
>The no entry sign was on the service operators site.

If it was, and wasn't authorised, perhaps it's illegal - I understand
it's an offence to put up unauthorised signs on (or perhaps close to)
the highway purporting to give instructions to drivers.

>If a major supermarket puts up No Entry signs in their car park: are they
>legally enforceable.

Probably not, as they are unlikely to have applied to the Highways
Authority to introduce a TRO. But as they aren't anywhere near a highway
either, they are probably not illegal (even if they are ineffectual as
far as criminal law is concerned).

>(I could accept that if you drove through them and had an accident then it
>would count against you): but are you breaking the law by ignoring them?

See above.
--
Roland Perry

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:49:50 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

There usually is.

Here is the exit road at Leigh Delamere on the M4 as just one example:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.510348,-2.15442,3a,75y,136.7h,74.05t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sehbwRgEVZnWx3UWHFqnaYw!2e0

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Copy from another: plagiarism. Copy from many: research.

[Roland Perry]

In message <sevku995d80ep79lq...@4ax.com>, at 21:51:07 on
Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> remarked:

>>In which case should there not be a No Entry sign on to the public road.
>
>There usually is.
>
>Here is the exit road at Leigh Delamere on the M4 as just one example:
>https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.510348,-2.15442,3a,75y,136.7h,74.05t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sehbwRgEVZnWx3UWHFqnaYw!2e0

Except that's one of those pastiche-signs commonly found around MSA car
parks, so won't have the force of law (even if there's a TRO).
--
Roland Perry

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:lsab5s$uo0$8...@dont-email.me...

> what offence - if any - has been committed ?
>
> I ask because if I "cheat" and use a small road near me, I can access a
> motorway service station, and thus the motorway, and shave 5-10 minutes
> off a journey, depending on which direction I'm going in.
>
> There are raising bollards, but they are permanently down.
>
> There is a sign at the exit one side which says "no exit from motorway,
> offenders may be prosecuted", but no mention of a specific act.
>
> It's quite a well known wheeze, you often follow a car in, or out ...

There are also unofficial motorway junctions designed for use by the
emergency services - some are clearly signed as not for public use but
others aren't.
Some even show up on sat navs and will be used as part of a route.

[Roland Perry]

In message <lsf0uf$ol7$1...@dont-email.me>, at 07:34:55 on Wed, 13 Aug
2014, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:

>There are also unofficial motorway junctions designed for use by the
>emergency services - some are clearly signed as not for public use but
>others aren't.

Here's one of the former on the M11: http://goo.gl/maps/60R3V

Don't forget the MOD's private motorway junction on the M4 somewhere
near Newbury.

>Some even show up on sat navs and will be used as part of a route.

--
Roland Perry

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:lsab5s$uo0$8...@dont-email.me...
> what offence - if any - has been committed ?
>
> I ask because if I "cheat" and use a small road near me, I can access a
> motorway service station, and thus the motorway, and shave 5-10 minutes
> off a journey, depending on which direction I'm going in.
>
> There are raising bollards, but they are permanently down.
>
> There is a sign at the exit one side which says "no exit from motorway,
> offenders may be prosecuted", but no mention of a specific act.
>
> It's quite a well known wheeze, you often follow a car in, or out ...

I have not needed to do this for over a decade, but many have no entry signs
with a little tag "except for access" presumably for service and employees,
however sometimes there are things like hotels or car service on the site
and if stopped one would simply say one was visiting that..

[Matt Larkin]

Absolutely. With work I have stayed at a Travelodge in a MSA, which I would always arrive at via the motorway, but then leave for the local client the next day via the service road. ISTR being issued a pass by the hotel to display to authorise me to enter or leave, but I don't think there was anything in their literature which said "you can only access this hotel via the motorway", so I work on the basis that if I ever use these service roads (one in Knutsford is particularly tempting sometimes) that I would simply say to any patrolling officer that I was going to the hotel on that site.

[Simon Finnigan]

I know of HGV drivers that deliberately break barriers where possible, to
make life easier for those wanting to use these roads.

[Clive Page]

On 11/08/2014 21:29, Percy Picacity wrote:

> I suspect that the problem that the regulation is designed to prevent
> is excessive traffic on the minor road to the services. Should too
> many people start using the route the police might well take an
> interest. Local people nipping into the services for fast food may even
> reduce the traffic on local minor roads as they do not then have to
> drive to town.

On the other hand you might be doing the rest of the motorway-using
public a service by using such a short-cut.

There used to be an unofficial exit from the motorway services on the M1
between J21 and J22 (called Leicester Forest East IIRC) in to the city,
and lots of local residents eventually got to know about it and one of
them showed me. Indeed it became so popular that the authorities
eventually realised there was a demand and so they created junction 21a.


--
Clive Page

[Fredxxx]

Due care for other road users etc is a crime that can be prosecuted for
driving on private land.

I guess the question becomes whether any other car park user is
inconvenienced, or endangered in some way sufficient to trigger a
prosecution?

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:50:14 +0100, Clive Page put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Much the same thing happened on the M1 near Northampton, at what is now
J15a.

[meow...@care2.com]

On Thursday, August 14, 2014 4:57:14 PM UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
> On 12/08/2014 17:45, Judith wrote:

I hope you mean undue care :)


NT