Yesterday a friend drove into the White Rose Shopping Centre near Leeds where she works. It was snowing and there was a small gritter type vehicle spraying grit on the car parks. It was 7.30 am and staff were turning up for work. The road barriers were open so access to all.
She drove into the car park against the 'No Entry' sign as usual and parked up - this is a short cut. There were at this time no other vehicles in this car park other than the gritter which was a long way off. The gritter driver changed his route and drove across the car park where she was getting out of the car. He told her she couldn't come in that way and she told him she and her colleagues had been doing this for several years without a problem. He said it was a health and safety issue. A row ensued. She and her colleagues have now been reported to the centre's security department and the gritter driver called the police because a lady was calling him names. The store has been obliged to instigate disciplinary proceedings against its staff. However the HR department at the head office is not concerned so unlikely anything will come of it.
First of all, she and the others agreed they should not go against the No Entry sign and apologised. This is not sufficient for the security department and want to ban staff from the car park. If this were to happen they would lose their jobs as there is nowhere to park for miles.
I had a read of the latest House of Lords ruling on these car parks. The decision is that they are a 'road' for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act and that includes the parking bays as well as the roads linking them. So an injury accident for example would be treated as the same as a 'normal' road. My view is the centre's assertion that this is a Health and Safety matter is wrong. The Road Traffic Act would take precedence I believe. Looking on Google Maps the 'No Entry' signs do not comply with the Road Traffic Regulations as regards size, lighting and position so are unenforceable.
What do you think?
She drove into the car park against the 'No Entry' sign as usual and parked up - this is a short cut. There were at this time no other vehicles in this car park other than the gritter which was a long way off. The gritter driver changed his route and drove across the car park where she was getting out of the car. He told her she couldn't come in that way and she told him she and her colleagues had been doing this for several years without a problem. He said it was a health and safety issue. A row ensued. She and her colleagues have now been reported to the centre's security department and the gritter driver called the police because a lady was calling him names. The store has been obliged to instigate disciplinary proceedings against its staff. However the HR department at the head office is not concerned so unlikely anything will come of it.
First of all, she and the others agreed they should not go against the No Entry sign and apologised. This is not sufficient for the security department and want to ban staff from the car park. If this were to happen they would lose their jobs as there is nowhere to park for miles.
I had a read of the latest House of Lords ruling on these car parks. The decision is that they are a 'road' for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act and that includes the parking bays as well as the roads linking them. So an injury accident for example would be treated as the same as a 'normal' road. My view is the centre's assertion that this is a Health and Safety matter is wrong. The Road Traffic Act would take precedence I believe. Looking on Google Maps the 'No Entry' signs do not comply with the Road Traffic Regulations as regards size, lighting and position so are unenforceable.
What do you think?