3
« on: October 10, 2024, 12:17:24 am »
I can’t even submit my appeal still. Website was down fully a few days ago and today I’m getting an error message and being told to post my appeal instead?? This is my appeal anyway I intend to try and submit tomorrow:
Dear Lewisham Council,
Preamble:
On Saturday 21st September I needed to drive from my house in Essex to my partner’s house who lives in Hither Green. Normally I would drive via the A205 westbound and under the bridge by St Mildred’s Road to reach my destination. However, on that day, the police had closed the road under the bridge itself diverting heavy traffic up from the A205 to Manor Lane, then onto Leahurst Road, roads to which I have no previous knowledge of.
I progressed onto Leahurst Road, approached the point of the alleged contravention and then turned left onto Ennersdale Road.
Regarding the point of alleged contravention, I did not see any prior warnings to indicate that there was a motor restricted road on Leahurst Road/Ennersdale Road.
At the point of the alleged contravention itself, once my vehicle had progressed to the point that the sign can be clearly seen, read and understood, it is then blocked from turning and avoiding the closure due to the narrow pedestrian island. As vehicles following closely behind or oncoming on the other side of the road (as there were when I was driving), stopping and trying to reverse or turn away may have resulted in an accident. Thus, my only sensible option at that point would be to progress past the sign onto Ennersdale Road.
In the video evidence you have provided of the alleged contravention, another car is seen just a few moments ahead of my vehicle passing through the same restriction, suggesting again that the location is not clearly signed.
As such – This is not a clearly signed restriction – the sign is placed in an obscure location after passing the narrowing of the road and leaves nowhere to turn off if you do observe it in time. The sign is also confusing as it could relate to Leahurst Road directly in front which is a no access road. A driver should not be expected to spend time trying to decipher a road sign whilst also needing to make quick decisions and careful manoeuvrers due to changes in a road’s layout.
Specific grounds:
The section of TSRGD that applies to this restriction is Schedule 3 Parts 1-5: “Upright signs that indicate regulatory requirements for moving traffic”. The sign that denotes the restriction at issue is at item 12 of the table at Schedule 3 Part 2 viz. “Motor vehicles prohibited”. The table further indicates provisions and general directions applicable to the sign. Item 12 is subject to General Direction 1 in Schedule 3 General Directions.
Schedule 3 General Direction 1 stipulates:
“1.- (1). The sign must only be placed to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic.
(2) When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point.”
The TSRGD 2016 further stipulates size, colour, sign design and illumination. Further The Traffic Signs Manual in its Introduction to Chapter 1 outlines how the manual should be used and interpreted:
9.1. para 1.1.1 –“Whilst the Manual can assist with complying with the mandatory requirements, it cannot provide a definitive legal interpretation, nor can it override them. This remains the prerogative of courts or parking adjudicators in relation to the appearance and use of specific traffic signs, road markings etc. at specific locations”.
Para. 1.2.1 states “In the Manual, the word “must” is used to indicate a legal requirement of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (or other legislation) that must be complied with. The word “should” indicates a course of action that is recommended and represents good practice. The word “may” generally indicates a permissible action, or an option that requires consideration depending on the circumstances.”
In the following representations, I cite sections of the TSM One (16) and Three to illustrate the responsibilities of Traffic Authorities when positioning a sign of this type.
Insufficient signage
I say that the signage is insufficient because:
The placement of the terminal sign does not allow the driver to understand the message quickly and easily at the point that is needed. It provides the message too late for the safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre given the road layout. I rely on para. 1.3.2 in Chapter One of the TSM and not the use of the word “must” indicating a legal requirement (18): “1.3.2. In order to achieve safe and efficient operation of a highway network, it is essential that all signing provided is necessary, clear and unambiguous, and gives its message to road users at the appropriate time. The message must be quickly and easily understood at the point it is needed; neither too soon that the information might be forgotten, nor too late for the safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre.”
Schedule 3, General Direction 1 in the TSRGD (2016) states that such signs should be placed “as near as practicable” to the point at which the restriction begins, suggesting that discretion can be used in placing the sign. It would be practicable to place the sign in advance of the traffic island in order for drivers to manoeuvre to comply.
In the following appeals, the adjudicators have found the signage placement to be insufficient: 224022084; 2230544814; 2240024490; 2240047190; 2240003548.
Road geometry
This road geometry immediately in advance of this sign presents the driver with multiple other matters to safely navigate, drawing their attention and reducing the time available to consider the single terminal sign announcing this restriction. I rely upon Chapter One TSM, para. 4.3.3: “In deciding the appropriate provision of terminal signs, the following factors should be taken into account:
• Turning angles
• Road geometry including vertical alignment
• One way traffic conditions
• Sign mounting height”
In this case, the road geometry includes:
• The traffic island and accompanying signage indicating road layout and direction of traffic. This appears as a traffic calming measure and the bollard sign indicates that traffic should keep left. This is at odds with the restriction to motor vehicles proceeding.
• The junction with Orchid Close and potential traffic turning onto Leahurst Road.
• The junction with Longhurst Road and potential traffic onto Leahurst Road.
• Parked traffic along the length of Leahurst Road on either side presenting the vehicle the potential for car doors, pets or pedestrians to enter the carriageway without being easily discerned in advance.
• The driver’s attention is drawn by these aspects of road geometry in advance of the restriction, limiting the driver’s capacity to discern the sole terminal sign as they approach the restriction ahead.
• The adjudicators have considered a number of these aspects and others in cases: 2240059713; 224005978A; 2240076778; 2240047190; 2240003548.
Single Terminal Sign
Other location use two terminal signs viz. Dallinger Road and Holme Lacy Road. The restrictions are identical. Two terminal signs would better draw the attention of westbound drivers on Leahurst Road and better signal the restriction, which is unexpected given the unimpeded nature of the carriageway, the traffic island signage which indicates to keep left, and the appearance of the island being a traffic calming measure. When choosing one terminal sign, authorities are required to ensure it does not give rise to issues relating to enforcement. I cite from TSM Chapter One:
• “2.4.1. Terminal signs indicating the start of a restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit should not necessarily be duplicated on each side of the carriageway…..but care should be taken to ensure that, where a single sign is used, it is clearly visible to all relevant road users, and does not give rise to issues relating to road safety or enforcement. There remains a duty on traffic authorities to place such signs as they consider will give adequate guidance of a regulatory measure.”
• By using only one terminal sign and placing it at the end of the traffic island, adequate guidance of a regulatory measure is not given to drivers and thus gives rise to issues relating to enforcement.
• Consistency of sign appearance and uniformity are covered in TSM Chapter One at para. 2.2.1: “Consistency of sign appearance and use are essential for road safety….Warning signs sited at different distances from the associated hazards in different localities, for instance, could mislead road users who venture outside their local area. To obtain the fullest benefits of uniformity, therefore, there should not only be uniformity of signs but also uniformity in their use, in their siting and their illumination.”
• The said principle must surely apply within one authority. By using two terminal signs at some locations to denote the same restriction but only one in this location, consistency is certainly not achieved. Furthermore, there is no consistency between the warning signage on Leahurst Road and that provided in Longhurst Road, the latter being larger and clearer. The adjudicator has found the single terminal sign to be insufficient in cases: 2240162596; 2240024490 and 223053111A.
Single Terminal Sign and Junction
The TSM Chapter Three gives further guidance on the placement of upright signs giving effect to TMOs and turning at road junctions at 1.8.6.: “There are likely to be some situations where two signs will still be preferable…Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction.”
Insufficient Advance Warning Sign on Leahurst Road
Whilst it is accepted that this is discretionary, the sign in Leahurst Road has been found wanting and it is small and placed on the offside only. Further, it runs the risk of larger vehicles travelling in the opposite direction obscuring it.
Referring to TSM Chapter One, para. 5.2.3: “Road users are accustomed to signs being on the near side of the road and such positioning should be the general practice. However, siting on the off side is appropriate in certain circumstances – for example where there are difficulties in siting on the near side, or where a direction sign is located opposite or in the entrance toa side road. Worthwhile economies might be gained at some locations, such as at T-junctions, where one structure carrying direction signs facing both ways will suffice instead of a sign on the near side for each approach. At sharp left-hand bends, siting on the off side might not only be appropriate but preferable, although consideration must be given to the risk of the sign being obscured by oncoming vehicles or leading drivers to pass on the right-hand side.”
There is no apparent reason for using just one sign. Further, the adjudicator has found it insufficient in cases: 223053111A; 223054814; 2240059713; 224005978A; 2240076778 and 2240047190. In addition: 2240102845; 223041997A and 2240003548.
Re advanced warning signs in Leahurst Road and Longhurst Road
1. You have produced a Regulatory sign smaller than the minimal recommendation of 450mm subsequently reducing the sign’s legibility. The circumference of the sign measures 310mm which is 31% smaller than the recommended 450mm.
I refer to TSRGD guidelines Chapter 3 (Schedule 3, Part 2).
2. You have placed a Regulatory sign upon a blue backing board and you have added a white border to that backing board. In doing so, you have detracted from the signs recognisable silhouette.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing boards.
In particular, 1.11.1.
….A backing board must not itself be provided with a border, nor give the impression of being an additional border. Where it seems that a sign is not being noticed by drivers, it should be checked to ensure that it is well sited, not obscured by vegetation or other obstructions, and is of the appropriate size and in good condition...
and 1.11.3.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing boards. The larger overall size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A backing board can deprive non rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their distinctive silhouette. Yellow backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and their over use could eventually devalue their attention attracting benefits. A less garish way of increasing a sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve legibility and hence reading distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
3. You have mounted the sign in Lonhgurst Road at a height outside of the TSRGD recommendations.
The base of the backing board of Sign 1 is 2.9m from the ground.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Section 5, Positioning of Signs, 5.4 Mounting heights 5.4.1. Signs should be mounted such that the lower edge of the sign is generally between 900 mm and 1500 mm above the highest point of the adjacent carriageway.
Signs mounted at the lower end of this range benefit from receiving the most illumination from vehicle headlamps, but they are also prone to soiling due to spray from passing vehicles.
Mounting heights at the higher end of the range should be used where this or obscuration by other vehicles is likely to be a problem. Speed limit signs and other safety-critical signs will not normally be mounted lower than 1500 mm above the carriageway.
The base of the blue backing board mounted to the lamppost is 2.90m off the ground meaning the Regulatory sign itself is even higher. This is above eye line in a moving vehicle. This is the only warning sign that would give the driver the option to avoid driving into the restricted area by turning right into Longhurst Road.
4. You have mounted the sign along with 3 other signs making 4 in total when the recommendation is 2 maximum.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.10 Mounting more than one sign on a post
1.10.1. Research has shown that the greater the number of signs which drivers are presented with simultaneously, the greater the difficulty they are likely to have in assimilating the information. This problem in dealing with information overload increases with age, so that older drivers suffer disproportionately. Generally, therefore, not more than two signs should be erected on any one post when intended to be read from an approaching vehicle…
5. Although not compulsory to use 2 signs, one each side of the road, you have chosen not to install dedicated housing but instead have utilised an existing lamppost on the offside of the road, further reducing the sign’s visibility and effectiveness.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.8 Siting of upright signs
1.8.5. There is no specific requirement that signs indicating the beginning of a restriction or prohibition must be placed on each side of the road or on each side of the appropriate carriageway of a dual carriageway road (see 8.2 in respect of speed limit signs). This relaxation has been made to reduce environmental impact, but care should be taken to ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to all road users and does not give rise to issues relating to enforcement or road safety...
Re terminal sign
The second sign is situated approx. 3 metres from where the prohibition comes into force.
By the time you are upon this sign there is nowhere else to go but to enter into the enforcement area. Your camera is set to capture vehicles at that point.
Additionally, Sign 2 is backed by another sign, at a different height, with a grey backing, causing further clutter and distraction.
You have used a yellow backing board for Sign 2 (as well as several other signs in the immediate area).
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 7, Sign Backgrounds
7.2 Backing boards
7.2.2. Yellow backing boards are intrusive; they should be used sparingly, and not as a matter of course. They can reduce the attention drivers give to other, more important, signs and over use could eventually devalue their attention-attracting benefits.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing boards.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing boards. The larger overall size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A backing board can deprive non rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their distinctive silhouette. Yellow backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and their over use could eventually devalue their attention attracting benefits. A less garish way of increasing a sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve legibility and hence reading distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
To summarise, the signs you have in place to warn drivers they will be entering a prohibited area are ineffective.
The first (Sign 1) is as good as invisible and the second (Sign 2) is badly situated, poorly mounted and lost in a sea of signs.
As the driver approaches the prohibited area, the most prominant sign(s) to oncoming traffic are the No Entry signs, positioned in the drivers direct line of sight on Eastdown Park. The colour, size and shape of the No Entry signs grab the drivers attention.
The No Entry signs take visual precedence due to their size, silhouette, positioning and colour. The driver’s focus is on the No Entry signs and not the yellow backed board set back from the junction.
Regardless, even if the sign was spotted, by that point there is nothing to do but to drive into the prohibited area.
It should be noted that there are an unusually high number of road signs in the area. There are signs for weight restrictions, parking restrictions, no entry signs, cycle signs to name but a few.
It is unsurprising that drivers become sign fatigued and distracted.
ETA Register of Appeals
I refer you to two separate cases for this same issue in which it was agreed that the signage was inadequate. Demonstrating that I am not the only motorist who has had an issue with the placement of the signage.
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240328826
Appellant Sharmini Christie
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM LC20YKE
PCN Details
PCN ZY09452368
Contravention date 11 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:51:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction - Cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly found that these contraventions had not been proved.
PCN ZY09462485
Contravention date 13 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:31:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction - Cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly found that these contraventions had not been proved.
In light of the above, I request a response to all of the points raised and I ask for the PCN to be cancelled.
[Name and Address]
Show Posts