Are one way systems legally enforcible?

[AdamWW]

Apologies if this has been covered already - I have been away from this forum for a while. I can't see a specific thread on this but I'm not going to read through all the posts.

If someone were to exit a railway station through a door labelled as "entry only", is this a criminal offence?

I'm fairly sure there is no specific offence as such, but could it be argued as an offence due to a failure to obey directions via Covid legislation or railway by-laws?

Does it make a difference if there is nobody entering the station through the door at the time?

 

[The_Train]

I suppose anything can become legally enforceable if relevant laws are passed through Parliament. Despite the fact that I'm sure there are parts of our current oppressive regime that would love to criminalise people for such pettiness, I'm pretty sure such attempts at creating ridiculous laws like this would be treated with the contempt it deserves.

As a slight anecdotal tale, I recently visited a local Argos store on a retail park. There was no other people around either heading in or out of the store but as I approached the doors I noticed an "Exit only" sign and as these are the only doors I've known for this store was quite confused. I noticed an "Enter here" sign to my right & so, thinking there may be a side door to enter through, I followed like a sheep only to be taken on a diversionary route back to the very same doors with the "Exit only" sign outside. It seemed to offer some entertainment to the staff member on the other side of the door but someone watching from a distance might have felt that I needed some psychological help

 

[Solent&Wessex]

As far as the Railway is concerned then yes, disobeying certain one way signage would be an offence.

Byelaw 9 refers:

9. (4) Where there is a notice by an entrance or exit on any part of the railway indicating that it shall be used for entrance or exit only, no person shall enter by the exit or leave by the entrance. No person shall enter or leave by an emergency exit except in an emergency or when directed to do so by an authorised person.

 

[peters]

One problem is if you have two sets of automated doors and one is marked entrance only and the other is marked exit only, then what happens if one fails? The sensible thing to do would be to use the other door and if you see a member of staff then make sure they are aware of the problem. It wouldn't be sensible for a large group to gather until a member of staff either removes the sign or fixes the problem as that would defeat the point of the one way system.

 

[AdamWW]

As far as the Railway is concerned then yes, disobeying certain one way signage would be an offence.

Byelaw 9 refers:

9. (4) Where there is a notice by an entrance or exit on any part of the railway indicating that it shall be used for entrance or exit only, no person shall enter by the exit or leave by the entrance. No person shall enter or leave by an emergency exit except in an emergency or when directed to do so by an authorised person.

Thanks. Most informative.

So maybe that's the only enforcible bit of the one way systems.

As a slight anecdotal tale, I recently visited a local Argos store on a retail park. There was no other people around either heading in or out of the store but as I approached the doors I noticed an "Exit only" sign and as these are the only doors I've known for this store was quite confused. I noticed an "Enter here" sign to my right & so, thinking there may be a side door to enter through, I followed like a sheep only to be taken on a diversionary route back to the very same doors with the "Exit only" sign outside. It seemed to offer some entertainment to the staff member on the other side of the door but someone watching from a distance might have felt that I needed some psychological help

I had a similar experience visiting a model shop. There was a sign diverting visitors away from the main entrance and along the outside of a fence towards the car park. I assumed they were using a temporary entrance at the back of the shop. But no. At the end of the fence the signs sent me back down the other side of the fence to finish up back at the entrance.

I presume it was intended as a queuing area, but it wasn't needed at the time and on subsequent visits I just went straight in.

 

[johnnychips]

One would hope staff, railway or otherwise would use their common sense. But I was told today I couldn’t stand in a smoking area of the pub with my smoker friends unless I was sat down; presumably the virus respects the position of buttocks or angle of the legs.

 

[davews]

What pub is this which as a 'smoking area' these days?
I was a bit amused at all the yellow arrows in the polling station the other week. With only the Police Commissioner elections in our area the place was completely deserted of any other members of the public.

 

[WelshBluebird]

You are asking the wrong question.
In most case one way systems aren't legally enforceable. But nearly all places that will have them have some kind of provision regarding who they allow on their property / who they serve. And you will very quickly find that if you do not follow the rules of the place, then in a lot of cases they will ask you to leave / refuse to serve you. This isn't really to do with one way systems but more to do with respecting rules when you are on private property.

 

[island]

One would hope staff, railway or otherwise would use their common sense. But I was told today I couldn’t stand in a smoking area of the pub with my smoker friends unless I was sat down; presumably the virus respects the position of buttocks or angle of the legs.

It is currently a legal requirement that pubs/restaurants/cafés ensure that customers are seated whilst consuming any products on the premises (including outdoor service areas).