The Railway's 'special' legislation. Again.

[najaB]

Non-Mod's note: split from this thread.

Likewise if the dispute had involved another mode of transport without special legislation; it would be a civil matter. I am much more comfortable with the way things are done in Scotland with regards fares matters. The combination of the English legal system and Byelaw 18 is not remotely acceptable, in my opinion.

What mode of transport did you have in mind? As discussed previously, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 § 25 makes it a strict liability offence to fail to

on demand being made for the purpose by the driver, inspector or conductor, production during the journey and surrender at the end of the journey by the holder thereof of any ticket issued to him;

on buses and trams. Air travel is governed by a plethora of rules, regulations and statutes. Were you thinking of ferries?

 

[cuccir]

I sometimes think of critcisms of the railway byelaws when I arrive on National Trust land. Those welcoming signs almost always have, somewhere on the back of them, this plethora of byelaws printed on them.

That said - perhaps the interesting question is not "do other modes of transport, or public sites, have the same number of byelaws", but "are other byelaws used to prosecute people as frequently as the railway byelaws"? There may be a criticism to be made if these byelaws are being frequently used to prosecute, particularly given that these are private prosecutions.

 

[najaB]

I agree. The issue isn't the legislative framework, but rather the inconsistent application thereof.

 

[6Gman]

I sometimes think of critcisms of the railway byelaws when I arrive on National Trust land. Those welcoming signs almost always have, somewhere on the back of them, this plethora of byelaws printed on them.

That said - perhaps the interesting question is not "do other modes of transport, or public sites, have the same number of byelaws", but "are other byelaws used to prosecute people as frequently as the railway byelaws"? There may be a criticism to be made if these byelaws are being frequently used to prosecute, particularly given that these are private prosecutions.

Love the boomerang byelaw in the National Trust list!

Incidentally, many years ago I discovered a similarly lengthy statement of byelaws posted up at London Zoo of all places.

 

[CentralTrainer]

Love the boomerang byelaw in the National Trust list!

Incidentally, many years ago I discovered a similarly lengthy statement of byelaws posted up at London Zoo of all places.

My favourite from a skim read:

16. No unauthorised person shall bring on to Trust Property any swing, roundabout, organ or other like thing.

 

[GW43125]

any swing, roundabout, organ or other like thing.

That's my plans for the evening ruined.

No organs? How will you survive?

 

[BestWestern]

Swings, roundabouts, organs... All the usual things you find in a kid's play area. Unless of course they mean another sort of 'organ'

 

[cf111]

I don't think it's the legislation, it's the prosecutions framework. In England it is relatively easy to pursue a private prosecution but in Scotland Abellio aren't going to get a Bill of Criminal Letters from the High Court to prosecute someone for evading a fare, nor are local Procurators Fiscal going to start taking reports from Abellio.

 

[Cantab26]

I don't think it's the legislation, it's the prosecutions framework. In England it is relatively easy to pursue a private prosecution but in Scotland Abellio aren't going to get a Bill of Criminal Letters from the High Court to prosecute someone for evading a fare, nor are local Procurators Fiscal going to start taking reports from Abellio.

And even if they do get a grant of letters, most cases will have no evidentiary corroboration and any defence agent worth his fee will immediately make plea of no case to answer.

 

[Mojo]

The legislation mentioned in the OP does not create a strict liability offence. It allows for Regulations to be created; these were created in the form of The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990. This creates an offence to use a ticket which has been altered or defaced; been issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable; or has expired.

This is by far much less far-reaching than equivalent railway legislation.

 

[Bookd]

I have an old Bus Eireann timetable (from 1995) including their regulations which probably also applied to Iainrod.
One stipulation is that passengers must not enter the company's vehicles having consumed intoxicatating liquor or when drunk.

 

[Barn]

The legislation mentioned in the OP does not create a strict liability offence. It allows for Regulations to be created; these were created in the form of The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990. This creates an offence to use a ticket which has been altered or defaced; been issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable; or has expired.

This is by far much less far-reaching than equivalent railway legislation.

Actually you're both right. You are correct in that s25 does not itself do anything except allow regulations to be made. But those regulations do a number of things including requiring the payment of fares and the production of travel mandates on demand.

NB that although they are dated 1990 they have been updated since then and now refer to smart ticketing products as well as old-school payments to conductors. Unfortunately (and this is a failure of legislative transparency in the UK) it is very difficult to find consolidated statutory instruments unless you subscribe to a service like Westlaw or LexisNexis.