@cp8759 Thank you for your post (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/penalty-charge-notice-bus-lane-violation/msg68151/#msg68151) with the TROs for Canal Street, Nottingham. I have been intrigued by a detail in the signage for this: the presence of "only" at the end of the plate "and wheelchair accessible taxis only". That "only" was required under TSRGD 1994 and TSRGD 2002 but was prohibited by TSRGD 2016. So what's going on in 2023 for such a plate to be installed?
The answer lies in the TRO (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WIM6llj5yvgEHG9_ed85IBCMz63UFxmT/view) which you posted and in the special authorisation (https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-1975.pdf) which Nottingham are using. Some investigation has led me to send this FoI request (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/removal_or_alteration_of_special) to DfT, which sets out what's happened:
Dear Department for Transport,
Please supply details of specially-authorised traffic signs for which the Department has issued notices of removal or alteration since the issue of TSRGD 2016.
I have in mind that under TSRGD 1994 and TSRGD 2002 the "Only" plate (diagram 953.2) was mandated beneath blue roundels to diagram 953. TSRGD 2016 eliminated diagram 953.2 and prohibited its being placed at new installations (including routine replacement of old signs).
Before 2016, DfT had issued special authorisations for plates ending with the word "only" for use beneath diagram 953. TSRGD 2016 added to the standard plates for use below diagram 953 legend no. 17 "and authorised vehicles".
I would have expected DfT to advise holders of such special authorisations that they were not to be used for new signs. It may, of course, be that, as the authorisations refer to their accompanying signs which were being placed under the 2002 Regulations, the Department considered such advice superfluous.
I draw to your attention Plate A, "and wheelchair accessible taxi only" in https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/c.... This authorisation was issued in 2011, but Nottingham City Council used it on Canal Street, Nottingham in 2023. The TRO asserts that the signs are being placed under TSRGD 2002 (!)
The vehicles which are permitted in addition to those shown on diagram 953 include not only wheelchair-accessible taxis but security vehicles operated by uniformed security personnel. That being so, the standard TSRGD 2016 plate "and authorised vehicles" would appear more appropriate. It requires no special authorisation.
While I wait for DfT's reply, those receiving PCNs on Canal Street may wish to craft collateral challenges based on Nottingham's irregular use of signage and the assertion in their TRO that the signage is being placed under TSRGD 2002. Nottingham are meticulous in their TROs, so it seems unlikely that this was accidental.
Those proceeding westbound on Canal Street appear to me to have the best chances of challenging PCNs on the grounds of adequacy of signage. The map-type advance notice sign is already dodgy in being placed so far from the line of sight of motorists and being surrounded by other signs.
Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual advises:
4.5.3. For safety reasons, drivers should not need to divert their eyes more than ten degrees away from the road ahead, meaning that the message on a sign must be fully absorbed before a driver reaches that position. As speeds increase, so must the legible distance, in order that the sign can be assimilated without unduly distracting attention from the road ahead.
The map-type sign is displaced 6-8m laterally from the line of sight of westbound motorists. That means that it ceases to lie within 10° of the line of sight once motorists have come within 40m of it. At that distance, the sign is seen as a vertical black line with a a right turn at a roundabout onto a horizontal black line. There are three patches of blue. Two are for parking (the large white "P" can be made out). The other, right at the top, so psychologically far away, is a blue roundel. The blue surrounding the white P indicates permission. Prohibitions are shown on our signs using red. (This is a beef which I have with blue roundels (https://www.busgates.uk/bad-signs/prescribed/blue-roundels) generally: where they show vehicles, people or horses, they symbolise exclusive use by them. Worboys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worboys_Committee)' blue roundels were mandatory instructions: go left; straight ahead only; etc).
The sign's
- lateral placement
- positioning of the blue roundel so far from the roundabout
- surrounding signs, especially that to the right for the Restricted Parking Zone
render it ineffective in providing advance notice of the bus gate.
It is well-established case law that, if someone transgresses the terms of a traffic order, no contravention occurs if the local authority has failed to make adequate information available about the traffic order.
In R (Neil Herron et al) v The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWCA Civ 905 Lord Justice Burnton found (Lord Justice Aikens and Sir David Keene concurring) :
35. It has long been recognised that the enforceability of a [traffic order] requires that adequate notice of the applicable restriction is given to the road user. This principle is derived from the duty imposed by Regulation 18 of [LATOR 1996]. In Macleod v Hamilton 1965 SLT 305 Lord Clyde said, at 308
It was an integral part of the statutory scheme for a traffic regulation order that notice by means of traffic signs should be given to the public using the roads which were restricted so as to warn users of their obligations. Unless these traffic signs were there accordingly and the opportunity was thus afforded to the public to know what they could not legally do, no offence would be committed. It would, indeed, be anomalous and absurd were the position otherwise. ...
36. That principle was approved and applied by the Divisional Court in James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Giving a judgment with which the other members of the court [Justices Ashworth and Widgery] agreed, [Lord Justice] Winn said:
... The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected. …
This was a judgment in the Court of Appeal, so is binding on the High Court as well as on tribunals and adjudicators.
The assessment of the adequacy of the signage therefore covers not only signs which were present but also signs which could have been placed.
What would be much more effective would be a sign to diagram 877 (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 2 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/2/made) Item 22). The sign would be the mirror image of the leftmost lane in the version in the second row. It would show a single vertical black line with a red bar across it, above which would be the words "Bus lane". There would be a right-pointing arrow before the red bar. This conveys the essential information and can be read and understood quickly. Given the lateral displacement of the sign, it would need to be a large size, preferably a height of 1800.
There are no road markings on the approach to the roundabout suggesting the direction in which to turn. In this situation, it would be normal for there to be a right-turn arrow to diagram 1038 before the roundabout with the words "ALL ROUTES" before it.
At the roundabout, the blue roundels of the bus restriction are more than 40m away. They are 600mm in diameter. They are the only visible indication of a bus restriction on proceeding straight ahead. At the exit from the roundabout there should be a map-type advance direction sign which takes the form of the top half of the current advance direction sign at the junction with Trent Street.
This sign should be designed and implemented under current legislation, i.e. TSRGD 2016 and not be a hybrid of a sign prescribed under Schedule 12 of TSRGD 2016 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/made) with symbols from TSRGD 2016 Schedule 12 Part 20 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/part/20/made) and a specially-authorised plate which can only be used under TSRGD 2002 (see the special authorisation (https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-1975.pdf)). Either there should be no plate beneath the blue roundel or it should be the prescribed plate "and authorised vehicles". This would, in any case, be more appropriate as security vehicles with uniformed security personnel are also permitted through the bus gate.
The road marking "CAR PARK" on the first exit would be more effective in indicating that this exit leads for most traffic only to the car park if it were closer to the roundabout. The drivers of buses and wheelchair-accessible taxis know where they're going and don't need to be told that they can pass through the bus gate.