Free Traffic Legal Advice

The Enforcement Authority adduce 2 map/plans and 4 undated images of the sign positioned just after the mouth of the road and angled toward vehicles approaching from the right. Such sign advises motorists of the restriction which it states commences 40 yards from that point.

The undated images are of limited, if any, evidential value, since the sign is not visible in the contemporaneous footage, and I know not whether such sign was present at the date in question.

No evidence is adduced of any advance notification signage in the road from which vehicles turn, whether right or left, informing of the impediment to that route and visible before such right or left-hand turn manoeuvre is commenced.

There are signs available to give this indication and I can see no good reason why they should not be installed. In the absence of any warning signage I do not consider the signage to in this particular context, adequate.

I note the position of the restrictive sign and indicate my disquiet at its affixation to a building as opposed to being pole-mounted, whereby its symbol and/or legend relates to the area/s behind and beyond the sign itself.

The restrictive sign's position effectively turns the road into a cul-de sac at that point, for such vehicles during the restricted periods, with no alternative route for a vehicle to take, since the indent before the sign is a private entrance; the only, unsatisfactory, option being for restricted vehicles to make a 3 point turn but since a parallel sign bears an 'ahead only' mandatory instruction the motorist is rendered in an invidious situation.

Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature and extent of the restriction to motorists. I do not find that to be the case in this instance.

The Enforcement Authority cite ETA case numbers; each Appeal is determined upon its individual evidential merit, and one Adjudicator's finding is not binding upon another Adjudicator.

Indeed I have had cause to consider this location on previous occasions and I stand by my former findings.


Evidentially I am not satisfied by the evidence in this Case, accordingly I allow this Appeal.

The Appellant on his way to make a delivery passed the sign without noticing it. His case is that this single wall-mounted sign is insufficiently clear and in any event difficult to avoid once the vehicle has entered Lime St.
The position on the basis of the photographs appears to be that drivers, including drivers of large vehicles can enter this narrow street only to find some distance along it that the way ahead is effectively blocked by the presence of the sign. It seems to me that in order for a restriction to be clearly signed it must be signed in such a way that it gives the driver a reasonable opportunity to take notice of it and comply with its indication. In the present case by the time the sign comes into view a driver has very little opportunity to do much about it, There is no alternative ”escape “route before the sign; and the fact that it is a single sign, the legal minimum, means that this is not one of those case where it might be said that the restriction was clearly visible a long way away giving the driver the opportunity to take avoiding action. This is in my view a very clear case of some sort of advance warning prior to the entry being necessary for clarity (and would no doubt assist the City’s entirely laudable objective to keep Lime Street clear for pedestrians). On the particular facts of this case I am not satisfied the restriction was sufficiently clearly indicated and the Appeal is allowed.