Bylaws and disabled areas

Bromley boy · 20 Jul 2018

Following on from the recent (locked) thread about a dispute regarding a mobility scooter rider being asked to vacate a disabled area, can anyone with knowledge of relevant bylaws advise:

- what basis there might be for a prosecution of an able bodied passenger who refused to vacate a wheelchair space;

It was suggested by @bnm that bylaw 13 might provide such an offence:

"13. Unauthorised access and loitering

(1) No person shall enter or remain on any part of the railway where there is a notice:

(i) prohibiting access; or
(ii) indicating that it is reserved or provided for a specified category of person only, except where he belongs to that specified category."

Could anyone also advise:

- has any such prosecution taken place under bylaw 13;

- whether there is a specific “catch all” bylaw offence which convers failure to follow a lawful instruction given by a member of rail staff.

(This thread is not intended to be a rerun of the debate on the locked thread, but a discussion of bylaws only).

RailUK Forums

furlong · 20 Jul 2018

I've no recollection of ever seeing such a notice - I very much doubt that byelaw could be used. (3 hurdles - "any part", "a notice", "only")

Bantamzen · 20 Jul 2018

furlong said:
I've no recollection of ever seeing such a notice - I very much doubt that byelaw could be used. (3 hurdles - "any part", "a notice", "only")

And further to that, its likely that most disputes over disabled areas will begin with the service being full to standing, and staff dealing with the issue would be under pressure to operate the service and not hold it in order to call staff to assist, take details, start the legal process. Having laws / bylaws is one thing, enforcement is whole other matter. In theory a situation like this could arise on any busy train at any time.

bnm · 20 Jul 2018

furlong said:
I've no recollection of ever seeing such a notice - I very much doubt that byelaw could be used. (3 hurdles - "any part", "a notice", "only")

There are nearly always notices in disabled areas that include some wording that the area is set aside for the use of disabled. It's rare this days to see just the wheelchair pictogram, but I'd argue that even just that is sufficient for the purposes of byelaw 13.

Most signage does go further though. The attached image is from a Virgin Class 390.

AlterEgo · 20 Jul 2018

furlong said:
I've no recollection of ever seeing such a notice - I very much doubt that byelaw could be used. (3 hurdles - "any part", "a notice", "only")

Agreed.

The intent of the Bylaw is clear, yet the law as written does not stand up to scrutiny.

bnm · 20 Jul 2018

Scrutiny by whom?

I can say other byelaws don't stand up to scrutiny either. Where are the details of prosecutions for smoking, gambling, playing musical instruments, entering through an exit...?

I made the point in the locked thread that absence of details of prosecutions doesn't mean the byelaws are ineffective. Most people when told they are commuting an offence will comply with reasonable instructions to desist and that is the end of the matter.

Wanderwaal · 20 Jul 2018

bnm said:
Where are the details of prosecutions for smoking

Indeed. Byelaws prosecutuon for smoking?It's absolutely normal for staff to turn a blind eye. Once I saw someone blantantly smoking in the Birmingham New Street platform and reported that to a member staff standing on the same platform. What he did? Absolutely nothing.

AlterEgo · 20 Jul 2018

bnm said:
Scrutiny by whom?

I can say other byelaws don't stand up to scrutiny either. Where are the details of prosecutions for smoking, gambling, playing musical instruments, entering through an exit...?

I made the point in the locked thread that absence of details of prosecutions doesn't mean the byelaws are ineffective. Most people when told they are commuting an offence will comply with reasonable instructions to desist and that is the end of the matter.

They wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny by a court, is what I mean.

The bylaw is therefore not likely to be effective, although having a chat with a reasonable person would likely yield the same result.

I have never heard of any prosecutions for this offence. In fact I don’t even know if any rail staff are trained in reporting the offence.

bnm · 20 Jul 2018

AlterEgo said:
They wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny by a court, is what I mean.

So, the legal team and the DfT predecessors who drafted them, and the statutory instrument that allows them, were waisting their time.

The byelaws should be abolished then, yes?

Is your certainty that byelaws wouldn't stand up in court a fact that can scrutinised or merely supposition?

DaveNewcastle · 20 Jul 2018

Bromley boy said:
Following on from the recent (locked) thread about a dispute regarding a mobility scooter rider being asked to vacate a disabled area, can anyone with knowledge of relevant bylaws advise:

- what basis there might be for a prosecution of an able bodied passenger w1ho refused to vacate a wheelchair space;

. . . . .

- whether there is a specific “catch all” bylaw offence which convers failure to follow a lawful instruction given by a member of rail staff.

Consider Railway Byelaw 12 :

"Safety instructions

(1) An Operator may issue reasonable instructions relating to safety on any part of the railway by means of a notice on or near that part of the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such notice.

(2) An authorised person may, in an emergency or in other circumstances in which he believes he should act in the interests of safety, issue instructions to any person on the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such instructions.

. . . . "

AlterEgo said:
. . . . The intent of the Bylaw is clear, yet the law as written does not stand up to scrutiny.

bnm said:
So, the legal team and the DfT predecessors who drafted them, and the statutory instrument that allows them, were waisting their time.

The byelaws should be abolished then, yes?

Is your certainty that byelaws wouldn't stand up in court a fact that can scrutinised or merely supposition?

The current Railway Byelaws HAVE been challenged in Court (by disgruntled individuals unwilling to accept that they had erred) and those Byelaws have survived without criticism. The suggestion that anyone waiseted (sic) their time in drafting them or their enabling Act seems to me perverse and without any foundation from actual challenges.
During the period in which we've seen thousands of successful Prosecutions under the current Railway Byelaws, how many have you seen them fail due to defects in the drafting? Approximately?

bnm said:
I can say other byelaws don't stand up to scrutiny either. Where are the details of prosecutions for smoking, . . . . .

Try Boddington vs British Transport Police [1998] UKHL 13 in which Boddington was fined following a Byelaw contravention for smoking on the premises. He appealed, ultimately to the highest possible Court, the House of Lords, and challenged the Byelaws on principle. He lost the Appeal and the Judgement against him also clarified the rightful application of a private law Byelaw in creating a Criminal Offence.

I, and I'm sure some others on here, would be very grateful to you if you could illustrate any of the instances you are thinking of in which the Courts have found the current Railway Byelaws failing under scrutiny. Thanks.

Bromley boy · 20 Jul 2018

DaveNewcastle said:
Consider Railway Byelaw 12 :
"Safety instructions

(1) An Operator may issue reasonable instructions relating to safety on any part of the railway by means of a notice on or near that part of the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such notice.

(2) An authorised person may, in an emergency or in other circumstances in which he believes he should act in the interests of safety, issue instructions to any person on the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such instructions

Thanks that’s very illuminating.

So, unless you’re aware of any others, that seems to put paid to the idea of the “catch all” offence of failure to obey an instruction applying in this situation, since construing an instruction to vacate a disabled area as a “safety instruction” seems somewhat tortured, however reasonable that instruction might be in the circumstances. Neither is the situation likely to be an “emergency”.

How about Bylaw 13 as outlined above? This, on the face of it, looks like it could apply to an adequately signed disabled area (if it doesn’t apply to the “able bodied person in disabled area asked to move” scenario, I’d be interested to know where it might apply. Presumably just a catch all for non railway staff loitering or going where they shouldn’t?)

Are you aware of any prosecutions under Bylaw 13 as outlined above?

Are you aware of any other bylaws (or indeed RoRa) provisions that could give rise to an offence in these circumstances?

bnm · 20 Jul 2018

DaveNewcastle said:
I, and I'm sure some others on here, would be very grateful to you if you could illustrate any of the instances you are thinking of in which the Courts have found the current Railway Byelaws failing under scrutiny. Thanks.

Thank you for the passive aggressive response. I'll reply in kind. Read the thread again. Thanks.

I responded to another poster who stated, in this discussion, that the railway byelaws don't stand up to scrutiny. I asked by whom. He replied 'the courts'.

I was actually challenging the supposition that the byelaws don't stand up to scrutiny. I made the point that a lack of details of prosecutions (I've FOI'd the MoJ for statistics on cases brought to court under certain railway byelaws) does not mean the byelaws are ineffective. They help moderate behaviour before even getting anywhere near a court. Be that signage or reasonable requests.

Now, to continue in a passive aggressive tone. If you are going to pedantically point out a typo with a "(sic)" then it's probably a good idea to match the typo, not make a further one. I spelled 'wasting' as 'waisting', not 'waiseting'. Thanks.

For the avoidance of doubt. I am not of the opinion that the railway byelaws don't stand up to scrutiny. Thanks.

Bromley boy · 20 Jul 2018

bnm said:
Now, to continue in a passive aggressive tone. If you are going to pedantically point out a typo with a "(sic)" then it's probably a good idea to match the typo, not make a further one. I spelled 'wasting' as 'waisting', not 'waiseting'. Thanks.

Perhaps a little harsh here - he knows a great deal about bylaws etc. and he is answering your/our question!

Let’s keep it friendly

.

AlterEgo · 21 Jul 2018

Just out of interest Dave, how many prosecutions are you aware of for remaining in a disabled space, how many were successful, and how many were successful despite there being no clear signage as per the Bylaw? And how many times has that specific Bylaw been challenged?

najaB · 21 Jul 2018

Bromley boy said:
...since construing an instruction to vacate a disabled area as a “safety instruction” seems somewhat tortured...

I don't think it tortured to think that the designated disabled space is the safest place for a disabled person to be seated.

And I'll add myself to the list of people who think measuring the effectiveness of a law by the number of prosecutions is a bit perverse: "That law against murder is so effective, look how many murderers there are in prison."

DaveNewcastle · 21 Jul 2018

Bromley boy said:
Are you aware of any prosecutions under Bylaw 13 as outlined above?

AlterEgo said:
Just out of interest Dave, how many prosecutions are you aware of for remaining in a disabled space, how many were successful, and how many were successful despite there being no clear signage as per the Bylaw? And how many times has that specific Bylaw been challenged?

I don't know. Sorry.
That data is not collected.

bnm · 21 Jul 2018

There has been data released by the Ministry of Justice, following FoI requests, detailing numbers of prosecutions and their outcome for some individual railway byelaws. If such data is recorded for Byelaws 14, 17 and 18 for example, would it not also be recorded for others?

AlterEgo · 21 Jul 2018

bnm said:
There has been data released by the Ministry of Justice, following FoI requests, detailing numbers of prosecutions and their outcome for some individual railway byelaws. If such data is recorded for Byelaws 14, 17 and 18 for example, would it not also be recorded for others?

It seems likely it would be collected (I can’t think why it wouldn’t be), but perhaps the only way to get hold of that information is to actually submit an FOI.

bnm · 21 Jul 2018

AlterEgo said:
It seems likely it would be collected (I can’t think why it wouldn’t be), but perhaps the only way to get hold of that information is to actually submit an FOI.

That's what I've done

Bylaws and disabled areas

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member