Basic facts:
At the moment the car's front wheels crossed the road marking at the priority sign, the red car had yet to complete its right turn from Gipsy Road and was at least 35m from an information sign in their direction giving them priority over oncoming vehicles.
.............
It is not a 'Give Way' restriction, it is a 'Priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction' restriction.
The following associated plate may be and is used:
"Give way to oncoming vehicles”
TSM Chapter 3 gives further details:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdfSign 615 is a regulatory sign, therefore circular.
Sign 811 is an information sign conveying the message that traffic has priority over oncoming traffic.
The regulatory sign may be used without an associated distance being specified in specific instances one of which is that '...the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch of a bridge..'
The location qualifies as one where the distance may be omitted, and it is.
Similarly, 'to give greater emphasis to the sign and to indicate the place at which vehicles should wait the Give Way line to diagram 1003..may be used. ..The diagram to 1023A may also be provided.'
Both the line and the marking are present.
But this combination merely serves to 'give greater emphasis to the sign', it is NOT a Give Way restriction in its own right.
There is an information sign in the opposite direction which is located outside the boundaries of the arch of the bridge and where the road narrows.
IMO, a motorist is entitled to consider that the regulatory sign has effect only through the arch of the bridge and no further. Although it might not be immediately obvious, this interpretation would be bolstered by seeing the rear of the 'priority' sign in the opposite direction.
The contravention therefore could only relate to failing to give way to oncoming traffic within the restricted area.
In this case it would appear that the vehicle concerned was at least 35 metres away from the restricted area and IMO the contravention did not occur.
Has this argument been put to Lambeth previously i.e. what vehicle was impeded, where was it, do they agree that the restriction conveyed by the regulatory sign is that priority must be given to vehicles within the restricted area and that in the absence of any associated plate specifying distance this exists solely 'through the arch of the bridge' etc. etc.
