Author Topic: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside (Read 526 times)

LeFronge · « **on:** February 22, 2025, 12:03:59 pm »

Yup - I got stung by this one! Which doing a quick search on here seems to be quite well known. This is my first PCN, having only been a driver now for around 12 months.

The advice on the previous posts about this was to make a new post myself for what I'm hoping is a successful appeal of the notice.

In terms of the incident itself: I am following the flow of traffic and follow two cars and a cyclist into the lane - im sure all got penalties too!

I've seen there are a lot of grounds to dispute this and see this overturned, but want advice on how to do so if there is anything specific that's required for my case - I have the footage of the incident in question and happy to send on if it helps shape the argument for the notice to be overturned.

Thank you in advance!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

John U.K. · « **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2025, 12:21:28 pm »

For meaningful advice please to have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

and post up here
all sides of the PCN - only redact yr name & address,
any Council photos/video, and
a GSV link to the location.,

Hippocrates · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2025, 02:39:08 pm »

@LeFronge I will PM you my details as I have much DFT info on this case and have won 2 out of 2 recently.

The signage is bonkers, contradicts the TSM Chapter Three - by the DFT - and reminds me of Eric to Andre: "I am playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order."

Bustagate · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2025, 09:44:52 am »

Hammersmith & Fulham may have passed a TMO which declares that a section of Shepherds Bush Road is a bus lane but Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR) then obliges them to

Quote

take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force;

The most important (regulatory) traffic signs for a bus lane are prescribed in Schedule 9 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016:

diagram 959B (start of with-flow bus lane; item 10 of Part 4) or diagram 960 (start of contraflow bus lane; item 8 of Part 4)
diagram 964 (end of bus lane; item 11 of part 4)
diagram 1048 ("BUS LANE" road marking; item 14 of Part 6)
diagram 1049A (continuous thick white longitudinal line used as boundary of the bus lane; item 11 of Part 6)

Of these, diagram 959B is the most important. It specifies the vehicles which are permitted to be in the bus lane. These are shown as pictographs or as the word "taxi". If the bus lane does not operate at all times, it also shows when the bus lane is in operation. Section 9.3 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual sets out how with-flow bus lanes should be signed:

Quote

9.3.2. The bus lane is separated from the rest of the carriageway by a continuous line to diagram 1049A (S9‑6‑11). The width of the line is 250 or 300 mm depending upon site conditions, particularly the width of road available.

9.3.5. The sign to diagram 959B is a regulatory sign and should be placed as near as practicable to the start of the lane, i.e. where the continuous line to diagram 1049A begins.

9.3.8. The road marking “BUS LANE” to diagram 1048 is used to indicate all types of with‑flow bus lanes, including those where other vehicles are allowed. The marking should normally be placed at the beginning of the lane, i.e. where the line to diagram 1049A commences.

Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual doesn't provide details for offside with-flow bus lanes as these cannot be established by highway authorities without special permission from the Department for Transport, which approves each application (and requires the correct signage to be shown on the plans, which the highway authority is then required to follow).

As well as the regulatory signs, there are advisory signs which inform road users about the forthcoming bus lane. They are in Schedule 11 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016

diagram 958 (with-flow bus lane ahead; item 37 of Part 2)
diagram 1010 (dashed thick white line on a 1:10 taper to the start of the bus lane; item 10 of Part 4) - N.B. the taper isn't part of the bus lane: it helps guide road users away from the lane which transforms into a bus lane at the words "BUS LANE" on the carriageway
diagram 1014 (curved arrow; item 14 of Part 4)

There was a very important case concerning bus lanes which went to judicial review in 2010, R (Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin). In his judgment, Mr Justice Beatson found at paragraph 65:

Quote

The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Such information is a requirement and, as Jackson J stated in R (Barnett LBC) v Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) at [41], if the statutory conditions are not met the financial liability does not arise.

This case was in the High Court, which means that it sets precedent for lower tribunals, such as bus lane adjudicators. What this means is that if the signage isn't adequate, there is no contravention and no financial liability.

On Shepherds Bush Road there doesn't appear to be a diagram 959B at the start of the bus lane. That really is the beginning and the end of it. None of the preceding advisory signage can make up for a fundamental failure to display the single regulatory sign which specifies where the bus lane starts, the vehicles which can use it and its hours of operation.

This has been going on for years. I don't understand how Hammersmith & Fulham can issue PCNs when they've failed to install a diagram 959B at the start of the bus lane as defined in the TMO. It looks to me like fraud by misrepresentation.

Hippocrates · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2025, 12:03:27 pm »

Because they have DFT authorisation since 2006.

Bustagate · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2025, 03:13:24 pm »

H&F's plan showed two sections of "KEEP CLEAR" road markings with the diagram 958 in the middle of the southern of the two, followed by a 1:5 taper. Instead the "KEEP CLEAR" road markings are absent, the diagram 958 is in the middle of what should be the first "KEEP CLEAR" road marking and there's a 1:10 taper. Another issue concerns the road markings between northbound and southbound traffic. The authorised plan shows a solid line separating these over the entire length of the plan. That's never valid. Standard practice for offside bus lanes is to use diagram 1049A on the outside of the lead-in taper to the bus lane as well as on the outside of the bus lane itself with warning lines elsewhere. What has been implemented are warning lines everywhere.

As the road markings are not in accordance with the special authorisation from DfT, it follows that H&F cannot invoke that authorisation for the markings which are present. The usual regulations in TSRGD apply. As the road markings appear to predate TSRGD 2016, they come under TSRGD 2002. That used General Directions to implement a bundle of diagrams 1048, 1049 (looks the same as diagram 1049A) and either 959 or 960: either you had all of them or you had none. So the absence of diagram 959 invalidates diagrams 1048 and 1049. None of the regulatory signage is in accordance with TSRGD. All H&F are left with are diagram 958, the lead-in taper and the deflection arrow.

We come back to Mr Justice Bateson's remarks in [2010] EWHC(Admin) 894,

Quote

If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed;

In that case he was considering the possibility that the signs could be valid but not adequate. In this case there is no valid regulatory signage, only some advisory signage. That hardly suffices as adequate information about an offside bus lane.

That's if there actually is an offside bus lane. I'm not convinced that there is. They can only be created by special authorisation from DfT. Although DfT has authorised H&F's proposals, H&F haven't implemented those proposals. I'd say the offside bus lane was pending. Given the lapse of time and the change of TSRGD, I doubt whether H&F could now invoke DfT's 2006 authorisation.

Incandescent · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2025, 09:06:15 pm »

The basic problem with Regulation 18 is use of the word "adequate". One man's 'adequate' is another's 'inadequate'. The council would say it's all adequate even if there were no signs there at all !!

Bustagate · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2025, 10:08:43 pm »

I agree that "adequate" is a matter of interpretation. But Mr Justice Beatson actually went quite a long way in analysing the adequacy of Oxford's signage. The trouble is that those could be regarded as obiter dicta rather than binding precedent.

With Shepherds Bush Road, however, I would emphasise two points:

the failure to place the signage in accordance with the authorised plan and the absence of a diagram 959 next to the offside bus lane means that neither the "BUS LANE" road marking nor the thick white line has been placed lawfully. They must form no part of the assessment of the adequacy of the signage;
the omission of the "KEEP CLEAR" road markings and the misplacement of the diagram 958 severely reduce the likelihood that drivers emerging from the outside lane and heading for the inside lane will see the diagram 958.

It follows that if the approved plans represent DfT's views as to what constitutes adequate signage for this bus lane, what H&F have placed there falls far below it.

Bustagate · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2025, 02:26:27 pm »

I've checked the location of the diagram 958 and consider that it's actually been put where it was meant to be put. That doesn't invalidate the argument about the inadequacy of the signage.

The fact remains that the "KEEP CLEAR" road markings are absent. They ensured that the roadway was kept clear between the end of the nearside bus lane and the start of the lead-in taper to the offside bus lane:

Bus drivers would not move from the bus stop until they could proceed straight to the outside lane beyond the second "KEEP CLEAR" marking.
Other drivers would be held in the outside southbound lane next to the bus stop until they could move beyond the second "KEEP CLEAR" marking. When they reached the bus stop sign, they would have a view of the road in front of them which consisted of the two "KEEP CLEAR" road markings, the lead-in taper to the offside bus lane, the "BUS LANE" road marking in the outside lane and the thick white line separating the offside bus lane from the inside lane. If they looked, they would also have an uninterrupted view of the diagram 958 on the footway beside the middle of the second "KEEP CLEAR" marking.

In the absence of the "KEEP CLEAR" road markings, drivers do not have the uninterrupted view of the road ahead which DfT specified had to be provided as part of the markings for the offside bus lane.

Therein lies the inadequacy of the signage.

Hammersmith and Fulham's mulcting of motorists has arisen from their failure to implement the road markings which were part of the consent for the offside bus lane. They have succeeded in doing this because the plan DfT approved has not been readily available. It is attached to this post.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hippocrates · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2025, 06:15:20 pm »

They have changed the signage over the years.

Bustagate · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2025, 07:08:16 pm »

I've looked again at the Google Street View images. It appears to me that H&F may actually have followed the DfT-approved plan originally but that by March 2008 they had erased the "KEEP CLEAR" road markings and the 1:5 lead-in taper and painted a 1:10 lead-in taper with a red surface-dressing in its place. Those are interesting moves as the authorisation for the offside bus lane was based on the original plans. I'd have said that H&F voided the authorisation by changing the road markings.

Without the special authorisation, TSRGD 2002 General Direction 18(3) directs that:

diagram 1048 (the "BUS LANE" road marking) requires diagram 1049 and either diagram 959 or 960
diagram 1049 (the thick white line) requires diagram 1048 and either diagram 959 or 960 (there's another option with "BUS & <cycle> ONLY" road markings but that's irrelevant)

Absent the scheme for which H&F received special authorisation, neither the "BUS LANE" road marking nor the solid white line of the offside bus lane complied with TSRGD, so they were unlawful.

Hippocrates · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2025, 10:31:47 am »

I know all this and so do the Adjudicators. I have had story in the Standard. If you want to achieve something, I would suggest writing to the DFT and suggest they rescind the authorisation and explain why it departs from TSM Chapter 3.

Bustagate · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2025, 11:37:22 am »

DfT seem remarkably timid. They REALLY don't want to get involved with telling highway authorities what to do. Better to stay silent and let others fight it out in other forums. So I wouldn't look to them to do anything which they aren't obliged by law to do.

I consider that this creates an opportunity. While DfT hasn't told H&F off for departing from the scheme for which DfT provided special authorisation, neither has it granted H&F special authorisation for what H&F now has on the highway.

I expect DfT would actually be quite happy if H&F reinstated the scheme as authorised by DfT. Although I was surprised when I first saw it, I've come to appreciate its merits. I now think it may have been a very clever move (but more likely fortuitous) that the approved signage doesn't include a diagram 959. That stymies H&F's ability to change the road markings and say that they comply with TSRGD.

So the argument is that

by March 2008 H&F had departed from the scheme for which it obtained special authorisation. That scheme represented DfT's view as to what constituted adequate signage at this site
when it erased the KEEP CLEAR road markings and the 1:5 lead in taper, H&F voided the authorisation it received to place all the agreed signage for the offside bus lane
having voided its special authorisation, H&F had to ensure that all signs complied with TSRGD 2002
General Direction 18(3) of TSRGD 2002 requires diagram 959 or 960 for the "BUS LANE" road marking and the thick white line
no diagram 959 or 960 is present at the relevant location
it follows that the only potentially lawful signage for the offside bus lane is the diagram 958 and the lead-in taper to diagram 1010
that signage is not adequate for an offside bus lane

Hippocrates · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2025, 11:39:41 am »

There are 959B signs but added as warning signs. The placing of the reversed 958 sign is within the limits to do so.

Bustagate · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2025, 08:52:28 pm »

I don't know what you mean by "959B signs but added as warning signs". Are you referring, by any chance, to blue plates with white writing on them at the centre of which is something which looks like a diagram 959B adapted for an offside bus lane? I can see from Google Street View that one of these appeared outside Hammersmith Library between August 2021 and June 2022.

That sign is not in accordance with TSRGD 2016. Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual says:

Quote

2.2.6. The legal aspects of signing are sometimes misunderstood by practitioners, particularly the prohibition on an authority unilaterally inventing its own non-standard signs. These aspects are covered in the following sections, as is the need for authorisation or a special direction when non-prescribed signs are required, or a prescribed sign is to be used in a way not permitted by the Directions.

3.3.1. The use of non-prescribed signs on public highways without authorisation by the national authority might be deemed unlawful, with authorities using them acting beyond their powers. The erec-tion of an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction and the possible consequences of erecting or permitting the erec-tion of obstructions can be severe. Those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages, for example if an obstruction is the cause of an accident or an injury in a collision, or if it adversely affects a property adjacent to the road by blocking light or impairing visual amenity. Furthermore, the use of unlawful traffic signs might compromise enforcement of statutory provisions and be detrimental to road safety.

Schedule 12 of TSRGD 2016 greatly expanded the freedom for highway engineers to create signs which provide advance notice of restrictions. In particular these can show what is happening to individual lanes (so-called "lane gain" signs. I don't see any need for H&F to invent their own signs when

DfT have already given special permission for the 2006 scheme
Schedule 12 provides great flexibility to create advance signs

If H&F point to their "warning" 959B signs, I'd point to Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual. If they want chapter and verse, the definition of "traffic signs" and the authority to prescribe signs and authorise the placing of non-prescribed signs derives from Section 64(1) of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The obligation on road users to comply with traffic signs comes from section 36 of Road Traffic Act 1988, which refers to Section 64(1) of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

It's all been tied up neatly by the Parliamentary draftsmen. H&F haven't got a leg to stand on. By attempting to justify their signage using their "warning" 959B's they draw attention to their ultra vires activities.

Once you've gone ultra vires, you're liable to find that everything which you've done based on those activities is also found ultra vires. With any luck they'll be obliged to refund everyone to whom they've issued PCNs for the offside bus lane since the "warning 959B's" went up. With a good barrister their erasure of the "KEEP CLEAR" and the 1:5 taper might also be found ultra vires. If so, it's refunds, compensation and statutory interest back to before March 2008.

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside (Read 526 times)

LeFronge

34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

John U.K.

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherd Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Hippocrates

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Bustagate

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Hippocrates

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Bustagate

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Incandescent

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Bustagate

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Bustagate

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Hippocrates

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Bustagate

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Hippocrates

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Bustagate

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Hippocrates

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Bustagate

Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside