I won my appeal against this bus lane back in 2023. Unfortunately, I'm experiencing some computer difficulties at the moment, so can't post my appeal, but here's the Adjudicators notes on the case:
1. This case was determined on 17 October 2003 without a hearing.
2. Mr XXX appeals on the basis that the signage for this bus gate (simply a short length of bus-only street) was not sufficient to give him proper warning of the restriction in time to take avoiding action.
3. He argues that the two advance warning signs are positioned in such a way that the driver has limited time to see and understand them. The signs at the actual entry point are set back a short distance inside the turning, which makes them difficult to see them until the turn is actually commenced.
4. Mr XXX has provided various photographs of the area, which I have seen and considered.
5. The Council has provided the footage of the incident, which shows that the bus gate was entered by the vehicle turning right into the restriction.
6. Mr XXX points out that it is just possible to see a vehicle in the loading bay which is situated immediately before the turn. Mr XXX has provided a photograph at Evidence #4 showing that vehicles in the loading bay can restrict the view of a driver approaching the bus gate from that direction.
7. I have had regard to recent decisions of other adjudicators regarding the signage for this bus gate, but all of the relevant decisions involve a vehicle turning left from George Street, not turning right as Mr XXX did.
8. The test I need to apply is whether the situation, looked at as a whole, gives adequate warning to a driver in time to take avoiding action.
9. Firstly there is an advance sign in Gay Street warning that there is a bus-only restriction in Milsom Street. However that sign is obviously only useful if the driver knows the location of Milsom Street, and therefore appears to be directed at locals.
10. Secondly there is an advance warning sign just after the turn into George Street, which is a more useful map-based sign, showing that there is a bus-only restriction at the next turn right. However, after comparing the various photographs provided by Mr XXX and the Council, I do find that this sign is located only 4-5 yards after the right hand turn round into George Street from Gay Street, which gives drivers very little time to see and consider its contents.
11. The next sign that a driver might see is the entry point sign on the right-hand pavement at the bus gate junction itself. Both entry point signs have been sensibly angled so that at least one sign will be visible to a driver, whether approaching from the east or west. However, the signs are set back perhaps 3-4 yards inside the junction, which must restrict their visibility to an extent. As Mr XXX points out, there is also a loading bay immediately prior to the junction which will, if occupied, further restrict the early visibility of the signs for a driver turning right. I accept that the video footage shows a vehicle in the loading bay at the time that Mr Roberts approached.
12. Looking at the situation as a whole, I find that the first warning sign will only be significant for someone with local knowledge of the area, the second advance warning sign may well be missed by a driver negotiating the right hand turn, and, if so, a driver may only see the signs as the turn right into the restriction is commenced, with the possibility of vehicles in the loading bay further restricting vision. At that point it might well be too late to safely avoid the restriction. I therefore find the signage inadequate when approaching this restriction from the direction requiring a right-hand turn.
13. I therefore find the contravention did not occur, and I allow this appeal. I direct the Council to cancel the penalty charge notice.
Hope this helps.
