Free Traffic Legal Advice

Have you requested the DVD because this is TfL's primary evidence and would carry most weight with adjudicators. The facts of your case, not hypothetical possibilities and aged GSV.

I haven't! I must admit I do not even know where to start I will have a look as to how request this. Can you clarify: by DVD you mean the footage (online) or the actual disc? And does that need to be requested to a specific department?

I draw attention to the fact that the signage is not merely cluttered — it is compromised by design. Having checked again on maps the 2t restriction sign is visually obstructed by the infrastructure installed to enforce it (the advisory sign - which is not visible from the roundabout with live traffic). The central sign is covered by gantry poles, vehicle height warning equipment, and other road furniture. Drivers in both approach lanes face an obscured or peripheral view of this critical restriction. Unlike the 2.0m height limit, which is duplicated clearly on both sides and above, the 2t restriction is not repeated or given equal prominence. If a restriction is not fully visible and legible from all approach positions, it cannot be said to be adequately conveyed under Regulation 18 of the LATOR 1996.

Thanks @H C Andersen — that’s helpful context. Yet the signage itself does not state that the 2t refers to Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW). It simply shows a goods vehicle icon with “2t”, which could reasonably be interpreted by a driver as Unladen weight. Considering my van had the partition wall removed, I reasonably assumed it's approximately 2t.

@Pastmybest: where do I find cp5789?

Totally agree that the key test here is adequacy,

More images to consider:
https://imgur.com/a/ZuiBX7d

Looking again at the approach signage, I’d argue the 2t weight limit fails the adequacy test for several reasons:

- It’s small, non-standalone, and buried among over 12 regulatory signs on a cluttered board. There’s no visual emphasis (compared to the bold 2.0m restrictions that dominate the layout)

- There’s no duplication of the 2t sign for drivers in the left-hand lane. In real traffic, it’s obscured by taller vehicles or queueing traffic.

- Driver attention is already maxed out. Between the overhead gantry, height panels, boom barriers, speed limit signs, average speed camera warnings, and diverging lanes, it becomes impossible to spot and interpret the weight restriction in time to take action.

- The actual tunnel entrance is well beyond the initial signage and barrier. The “restrictions ahead” board appears at the narrowing. But once you’ve passed the barrier system, you’re fully committed, with no physical or legal way to turn around.
The 2.0m height restriction is repeated on the archway above the tunnel. But there’s no repetition of the 2t weight limit at the tunnel entrance — where the actual restriction would logically apply.

Can I reasonably argue that the sign clutter board is advisory only, and not a valid placement of a mandatory regulatory sign, as required under TSRGD Direction 8 and LATOR Regulation 18?

Thanks for the reply. I understand these can be tough to challenge, but I wonder if we could focus on whether the mandatory restriction signs are indeed compliant in terms of placement and visibility.

Given there are two lanes entering the tunnel, can anyone advise:

(1) Are weight/width/height restriction signs legally required to appear on both sides of the carriageway?

(2) What are the minimum size/dimensions for a 2t unladen weight restriction sign under TSRGD or DfT guidance?

And does embedding the “2t” inside a lorry icon meet the required clarity and prominence for mandatory restrictions (as it is surrounded by other restrictions)?

Grateful for any further insight on this.

A quick update: the representation has been accepted and TFL cancelled the PCN! Thanks so much for the precious advice!

Thanks - any suggestion on improving the wording of this draft please