IMO,
According to the 2-year old GSV this length of road consists of:
DRL - with whatever prohibition applies;
A white box (box 1) in which the RR restriction is Mon-Sat etc. with given exceptions on the bottom panel of a 3-panelled sign;
Another separate white box(box 2) - indicated by the parallel markings at right-angles to the kerb- with the same RR prohibition but different exceptions indicated on a 2-panel sign.
Further DRL.
The discrepancy between the two boxes is clear: one has 3 panels, the other has 2.
The prescribed form of a RR sign - anywhere on a RR - consists of THREE panels (Schedule 6 TSRGD and TSM Chapter 3, s16 refer which are:
Top: RED ROUTE
Middle: Times of prohibition;
Bottom: Exceptions.
Where there are NO exceptions, as on most plain and simple double RR, then the bottom panel 'may be omitted'.
A marked box indicates exceptions and therefore:
As regards the first box, a sign must be placed because there's a change to the prohibition from what preceded the box; and
This sign must consist of 3 panels, which it does.
As the exempted activities apply for the whole of the prohibited hours the box must be marked white, which it is.
As regards box 2, the sign is incorrect because exemptions can only be signed on a 3-panel sign.
But apparently the OP was not in box 2, they were parked on DRL beyond therefore it follows that there should be an upright 2 or 3-panel sign to indicate the prohibition which applies.
What TfL appear to have done is to imagine that the preceding RR prohibition continues naturally once the limits of the box have been passed.
Nonsense.
So in this short stretch of RR IMO we have:
DRL - with whatever prohibition applied at that point, let's say prohibition 1;
Box 1 with part-time prohibition 2 which operates as shown;
Box 2 - incorrectly signed, so a length of RR in its own right improperly signed. As such I don't know whether the markings should be white or red;
DRL - but no upright sign which there must be IMO because this is a RR prohibition in its own right. So what exemptions, if any, apply?
TfL seem to think that whatever applied to the RR before box 1 must necessarily apply to DRL after box 2.
IMO, wrong if for no other reason than the RR prohibition immediately preceding the OP was tnat in box 2, which was improperly signed.
Can the OP use this to their advantage?
OP, sorry to write at such length but I felt I should set out my reasoning in full.
As I read Schedule 18 TSRGD reference to d)making a reference to a bank or public holiday. is acceptable.
