Can backhoes, cyclists and pedestrians use our highways?

If so, what is the offence? When the highways were designed and built (I refer specifically to the north-south highways), informative signs were placed at the entrance to the ramps restricting access to specific types of slow moving vehicles, including mopeds, cycles, pedestrians, etc. Somehow, persons always found it necessary to remove these specifically (always seeming to ignore the other signs). During my ten years with the Ministry of Works and Transport, Traffic Management Branch, I replaced these restrictedaccess signs along the north-south highways twice.

In fact, I cannot recall seeing them even now. I have said all of that to say this: there is no specific regulation concerning this in the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act Chapters 48:50 or 48:01; however, it is my opinion that in accordance with 48:50 Section 64. (1) to (3) and (8), and (9), and Section 66, it is an offence to ignore the restrictedaccess sign, and the penalty for a first offence is $2,000.

The Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act Chapter 48:50 states: “64. (1) (a) The Licensing Authority may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed, erected or otherwise marked on or near any road, and may authorise any traffic signs so placed, erected or otherwise marked … (3) Every traffic sign erected, placed, marked or retained on or near any road shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed — (a) to have been lawfully so erected, placed, marked or retained; and (b) to be of the prescribed type and substantially of the prescribed size and colour, where the size, colour and type of the same have been prescribed, and in other cases to be of a character authorised by the Licensing Authority under this section. … “(8) In any case where a constable is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road, or where any traffic sign, being a sign for regulating the movement of traffic or indicating the route to be followed by traffic, has been lawfully placed, erected, marked or retained on or near any road, then in any such case any person driving or propelling any vehicle or any person riding or driving any animal—(a) who neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or animal or to make the vehicle or animal proceed in or keep to a particular line of traffic when directed or signalled to do so by the constable in the execution of his duty; or (b) who fails to conform to the indication given by the traffic sign, is guilty of an offence “(9) Any person who—(a) unlawfully places, erects, marks or retains, or causes to be placed, erected, marked or retained, any traffic sign on or near any road; or (b) removes, defaces, damages, alters or obscures, or in any way interferes with, any traffic sign lawfully placed, erected, marked or retained on or near any road, is liable to a fine of five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for three months.

“66. Where a police constable in uniform is engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road or where a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type or of another character authorised by the Licensing Authority under section 64 or where a notice of the Commissioner of Police under section 68 has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who—(a) neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in or keep to, a particular line of traffic when directed to do so by the police constable in the execution of his duty; or (b) fails to comply with the indication given by the sign or the notice, is liable on summary conviction for a first offence to a fine of two thousand dollars and on any subsequent conviction to a fine of four thousand dollars and imprisonment for twelve months.” Clearly, it is important that these designs should have ultimately be placed within Ch. 48:50, but were never done, and so emphasis had to be place on retaining the traffic signs in place.

It therefore seems that Ch. 48:50 Section 64 places the burden on the “Licensing Authority” to place the sign and then the burden is on the driver to prove that the sign was not “duly authorised”. I would not expect every traffic control regulation to be in Ch. 48:50 but it may be in a traffic regulation that is Gazetted.

There should be a gazette that designated the highway under Ch.

48:01. and that may have listed the restrictions on access.

If I am wrong, then nothing prevents a bicyclist or pedestrian from using the north-south highway.

Recent legal opinion concurs that Ch.48:50 Sec 64 would require the sign to be there to charge the driver with “Breach of Traffic Sign”. If there is a regulation then, even in the absence of a sign the driver can be charged with “Breach of the regulation”.

So why has this not been addressed in the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 2017, in order to reduce having to constantly replace the highway restricted access sign?

e-mail: info@ccost.org