OP, to be clear it is not a 'Give Way' area, it is where 'Priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction'. The Give Way triangle and line may be used 'to give greater emphasis to the sign and indicate where vehicles must wait'. You should avoid referring to the restriction as 'Give Way' yourself and correct the authority should it use the term because it misleads - I've read several adjudication decisions where IMO this has been a factor in their decisions.
Please see the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdfSee pp 21-25.
Whereas the 'priority' sign is at pp 37-38.
IMO, your reps must put this point to the authority:
The video shows my vehicle entering the priority section at the same time that a vehicle appears from the opposite direction. My vehicle passed through the arch of the bridge before that vehicle reached what Google Street View shows is a 'priority' sign in its direction.
The video also shows that the 'give priority' sign in my direction does not carry an associated plate specifying the distance over which the restriction applies although the council has placed optional road markings, namely those prescribed for use at road junctions and level crossings, which the Traffic Signs Manual states may be used ''to give greater emphasis' to the [priority] sign and indicate where vehicles must wait.
I would now refer the authority to further references in the Traffic Signs Manual to the signage to be used by councils where 'priority is to be given to traffic from the opposite direction':
'Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch of a bridge, the signs to diagrams 615[Priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction] and 811A [Priority over oncoming vehicles] should include the distance over which the priority applies. (my emphasis).
It must therefore follow and a motorist would be entitled to assume and act upon such an assumption that as the council has availed itself of the optional road markings to 'give greater emphasis' to the restriction, it has similarly rationally determined that as the limits of the priority section are obvious, namely 'through the arch of the bridge', it does not need to observe the Traffic Sign Manual's clear recommendation to erect an associated plate specifying those limits in terms of distance e.g. 50 yds etc.
I submit that the council cannot have its cake and eat it. It cannot on the one hand ignore the TSM as regards clearly conveying to motorists the limits of the area by placing distance plates and then on the other seek to penalise motorists who act upon the only logical construction of this decision which is that the priority area is limited to that length of road 'through the arch of the bridge'.
I did not fail to give priority to oncoming vehicles while I traversed the length of road through the arch of the bridge and therefore the PCN must be cancelled.
Some thoughts.
