Free Traffic Legal Advice

Here's a draft of the Synopsis. I'm reckoning to have each section as a separate post.


1. Synopsis

The contravention which has been alleged is

33E – USING A ROUTE RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN VEHICLES BUSES CYCLES AND TAXIS ONLY
In (place) CAMROSE AVENUE  On (date)  At (time)

In its Case Summary, the Council states that the restricted route is a section of Camrose Avenue in Edgware where only buses, taxis, pedal cycles, and emergency vehicles on duty are allowed to drive through.

Attached to the Case Summary are copies of

• The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016
• The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. 2) Traffic Order 2018

By implication, these are the traffic orders which Harrow asserts apply to the area of road where I was.

In section 2, I examine the traffic orders which apply on Camrose Avenue. As well as the bus-priority TMO, there is a width-restriction TMO,

• The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30

I show that the width-restriction TMO applies not only to the width-restricted areas of road but also to the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb (the “Prohibited lengths”). The width-restriction TMO applies its own restrictions to these areas of road and, through clever drafting, also allows vehicles to use these areas of road if they are permitted to do so by any other TMO.

I then examine the history of the TMOs on Camrose Avenue, starting with the 1976 one. I show what happened in 1999 when Harrow consolidated its moving-vehicle TMOs into:

• The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
• The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999

I show that the provisions of the 1976 TMO were translated correctly to the width-restriction TMO but not to the bus-priority TMO. It applied the bus-priority restrictions to the areas of road which were subject to the width restrictions. The provisions in each TMO for Camrose Avenue have been repeated each time a TMO has been repealed and replaced, so the mistake made in 1999 remains today.

The consequence is that the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb are subject only to the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”. These exclude all vehicles except the emergency services and vehicles on Harrow Council business.

It follows that the contravention which the Council has alleged did not occur.

In section 3, I show that significant elements of the signage on Camrose Avenue have not been placed in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016). The consequence is that Harrow has placed those signs ultra vires and, by the principles of administrative law, they are void.

In section 4, I review the statutory duties imposed on highway authorities with regard to traffic signs. I then consider the lawful signage in advance of, and at the restrictions. While Harrow makes much of the advance notice of the width restrictions, there is no advance notice of the bus restriction. But the legislation under which Harrow places the advance notice of the width restriction relates to providing notice of the effect of a TMO. The width-restriction TMO applies both the bus restriction and the width restriction, so Harrow’s signs actually do only half the job. I show that TSRGD 2016 supports signs which show both the bus restriction and the width restriction, thereby enabling the true effect of the width-restriction TMO to be seen.

The Traffic Signs Manual has a similar status to The Highway Code. It is the official DfT document which provides guidance to highway engineers on how to use traffic signs. In Section 5, I draw comparisons between Camrose Avenue and figures in the Traffic Signs Manual which show what DfT considers to be appropriate signage. I note that the blue roundel signs are smaller than DfT recommends, despite their being the first indication of the bus restriction and that motorists need to move out to the width restriction if they are to avoid a PCN.

I conclude by exploring the legal precedents relating to the adequacy of signage. These show that,

If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed

I contend that Harrow has not provided adequate information and so, even if my argument is not accepted about the area of road which is the subject of the bus-priority TMO, no contravention occurred.

2. Traffic Orders on Camrose Avenue

2.1 Introduction

Attached is an annotated aerial view of the site, CamroseAerialRinged.jpg. It will help if you have this open in another window as you read this section.

There are two traffic orders in force on Camrose Avenue:

• The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016 as amended
• The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30

I show that the width-restriction TMO applies not only to the width-restricted areas of road but also to the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb (the “Prohibited lengths”). The width-restriction TMO applies its own restrictions to these areas of road and, through clever drafting, also allows vehicles to use these areas of road if they are permitted to do so by any other TMO.

I then examine the history of the TMOs on Camrose Avenue, starting with the 1976 one. I show what happened in 1999 when Harrow consolidated its moving-vehicle TMOs into:

• The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
• The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999

I show that the provisions of the 1976 TMO were translated correctly to the width-restriction TMO but not to the bus-priority TMO. It applied the bus-priority restrictions to the areas of road which were subject to the width restrictions. The provisions in each TMO for Camrose Avenue have been repeated each time a TMO has been repealed and replaced, so the mistake made in 1999 remains today.

The consequence is that the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb are subject only to the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”. These exclude all vehicles except the emergency services and vehicles on Harrow Council business.

It follows that the contravention which the Council has alleged did not occur.

2.2 The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007

The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 specifies all the width restrictions on roads in Harrow. At most sites there aren’t also bus restrictions, so the width-restriction TMO defines what happens to the parts of the carriageway which aren’t subject to a width restriction. These are defined as "Prohibited lengths". For most width restrictions, all vehicles are banned from them (hence “Prohibited lengths”).

A uniform structure has been used for the width restriction TMO, so, although Camrose Avenue's bus restrictions are specified in the bus-priority TMOs, the width-restriction TMO also defines "Prohibited lengths" on Camrose Avenue. These are the sections of carriageway in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb.

The "Prohibited lengths" are subject to these rules:

2. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in a [Prohibited length] of carriageway
. . .
4. Nothing in Articles 2 and 3 of this Order shall apply to :-
(a) any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes;
(b) anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform;
(c) any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
(d) any vehicle specified in column 6 of the Schedule to this Order;
(e) to any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow. [LBH 2012/30]
Note in particular 4(c): this clause allows the width-restriction TMO to coexist with the bus-priority TMO. Section 66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows highway authorities to place signs which show the effect of TMOs. So if a sign (such as a blue roundel) has been placed on a "Prohibited length" which allows certain classes of vehicle to pass, the width-restriction TMO also allows them to pass.

Clause 4(e) means that vehicles being used to provide Harrow Council services can use the “Prohibited lengths”. This means that where a bus-priority TMO overlaps with the width-restriction TMO, vehicles providing Council services can use the area of road in addition to those permitted by the bus-priority TMO.

2.3 Original TMO for Camrose Avenue

The restrictions on Camrose Avenue were set out coherently in The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 (the italics have been added, as they are in all the quotes in section 2):

3. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in the carriageway on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost island site or in the carriageway on the north-west side of the south-westernmost island site.

4. No person shall cause any vehicle the overall width of which together with the load (if any) carried thereon exceeds 6 feet 6 inches to enter the carriageway on the north-west side of the north-easternmost island site or the carriageway on the south-east side of the south-westernmost island site.

5. Nothing in Article 3 of this order shall apply
(a) in relation to a stage carriage or an express carriage on a scheduled service; or
(b) in relation to a vehicle being used for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; or
(c) to anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform.

This refers to two island sites: north-easternmost and south-westernmost. As a glance at the aerial view of the site shows, these are accurate geographic descriptions of the traffic islands. I have ringed them in yellow and red respectively. They divide the flow of westbound and eastbound traffic respectively. For brevity, I shall refer to them as the westbound island and the eastbound island.

This traffic order defines the restricted parts of the carriageway as:
3. bus-restriction:
4. width-restriction:

It does not specify the direction of travel through any of the restrictions, nor does it mention the snake-like kerbed structure which separates eastbound from westbound traffic. It is a model of accuracy and concision.

2.4 Consolidation of TMOs

In 1999 Harrow consolidated traffic orders relating to width restrictions, bus lanes and other bus restrictions into two orders:

• The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
• The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999

Since 1999 there have been various amendments to each of these TMOs, with periodic repeals and replacements. These have not affected the definitions of the restricted areas of carriageway but they have changed the classes of vehicle permitted through the bus restrictions. The current TMOs are

• The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
• The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016

Copies of these TMOs are attached along with The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999.

2.5 Consolidated Width-restriction TMO 1999

As with the 1976 TMO, the consolidated width-restriction TMO defined the width restrictions by reference to "the north-eastern island" and "the south-western island". Rather than defining the width-restricted areas by a compass-reference to the islands, the TMO placed the width restrictions between an island and "the central median strip". Whereas the 1976 TMO had not specified the direction of travel, the consolidated width-restriction TMO did.  Depending on your point of view, this either provided an aid to interpretation or created an opportunity for mistakes through overspecification.

Curiously, while the TMO used the ordinal points of the compass (north-eastern and south-western) to define the traffic islands on Camrose Avenue, they used the cardinal points (eastern and western) for the "Prohibited lengths". These were defined as lying between an island and the northern or southern kerb-line.

These changes were done correctly and are consistent with the stated direction of travel, so the "Prohibited lengths" are defined as intended, between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs.

2.6 Consolidated Bus-priority TMO 1999

There were two schedules to the consolidated bus-priority TMO:

• Schedule 1: Bus Lanes
• Schedule 2: Bus-only routes

Camrose Avenue was Item 1 in Schedule 2.

The definitions of the areas of road were:

Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue;
Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue.

The compass points for the traffic islands were:

• Westbound: southern
• Eastbound: northern

For reference, the consolidated width-restriction TMO correctly used the following compass points for the traffic islands:

• Westbound: north-eastern (width restriction); eastern (prohibited length)
• Eastbound: south-western (width restriction); western (prohibited length)

As a glance at the aerial view will show, the southern traffic island is used by eastbound traffic and the northern traffic island by westbound traffic.

The dangers of over-specification are evident. For the moment, let's ignore the stated direction of travel and see what areas of road are defined. The areas are:

• "south of the southern traffic island": this is south of the eastbound-traffic island, i.e. the eastbound width restriction
• "north of the northern traffic island": this is north of the westbound-traffic island, i.e. the westbound width restriction

It appears that the consolidated bus-priority TMO was simply wrong. Whoever drew up the TMO in 1999 (Brian Durke, on the evidence of the meta-data) made a mistake, a mistake which was not made at exactly the same time by those drawing up the consolidated width-restriction TMO.

2.7 Lack of Rigorous Checking in the Bus-priority TMO

The width-restriction TMO shows evidence of a high standard of work. Particularly notable is the way that the it was structured so that vehicles could use its “Prohibited lengths” if they are permitted to do so by a sign placed in accordance with another TMO.

The bus-priority TMO did not reach these heights. On the page defining bus-only routes, the following area of road is defined on Headstone Lane (the indenting has been added to aid comprehension:)
the carriageway which lies between
While the second “between” is followed by two objects separated by an “and”, the first is followed by a single object. It makes no sense.
By the 2016 TMO, the numbers have changed and “north” has become “north-east”, but the structure remains unchanged.
In 2021 the TMO was amended to change the definition of the bus-priority area of Christchurch Avenue. It became (with added indentation)

Christchurch Avenue

from its junction with Masons Avenue

and a point opposite

the north-eastern most point of

the island site between

No. 13 Byron Road and
No. 139A Masons Avenue;

There is an island site between No. 13 Byron Road and No. 139A Masons Avenue and it does have a north-easternmost point, so this definition amounts to

Christchurch Avenue

from its junction with Masons Avenue

and a point opposite

[a well-defined point on an island site]

This evidence suggests that mistakes can be made in the bus-priority TMOs and persist from one TMO to the next.

2.8 Harrow's Explanation

The definition of the bus-priority areas came up in the hearing of appeal 2250053451 on 28 April 2025. Mr Adekusibe of Harrow sought to explain the definitions by saying that "southern traffic island" and "northern traffic island" needed to be understood by reference to their appearance to motorists approaching them in the specified direction. Thus to westbound motorists, the "southern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the westbound nearside kerb, while to eastbound motorists the "northern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the eastbound nearside kerb.

There are some obvious problems with this:

• it is based on the perception when approaching the restrictions that there are two traffic islands ahead. Certainly, there are two kerbed structures with bollards and signs on posts. But if there really were two traffic islands in each direction, there would be four traffic islands in total. There are not. There are three kerbed structures: two traffic islands and the snake-like structure which is formally known (and referred to as such in the width-restriction TMO) as the central median strip.
• the other uses of compass points in the bus-priority TMO make sense with their normal meaning
• the uses of compass points in the width-restriction TMO written at the same time (1999) make sense with their normal meaning
• TMOs are formal legal documents written using a formal register. They define things precisely and use the correct legal terms. This is shown in the use by the contemporaneous width-restriction TMO of the term "central median strip". If the words “northern“ and “southern” were being used with meanings other than the natural ones, this would be stated explicitly.

It seems possible that officers in Harrow, puzzled by the definitions of the areas of Camrose Avenue defined as bus-priority, have constructed the interpretation advanced by Mr Adekusibe to reassure themselves that the TMO is valid. Those definitions have been used for so long (since 1999) and nobody has ever challenged them successfully, so they must be right.

The evidence suggests otherwise. The law works from the TMO forwards to the signage, not back from the signage to the TMO.

2.9 Consequences

The areas of Camrose Avenue on which the bus-priority TMO imposes restrictions are those which are subject to the width restriction; they apply in the opposite direction of travel to that in the width-restriction TMO. This makes no sense both because of the direction of travel and because most buses are physically incapable of passing through the width restriction.

We need not concern ourselves with whether the parts of the bus-restriction TMO which apply to Camrose Avenue are void. Our concern is with the restrictions which do apply between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs. They are the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”.

Apart from the emergency services and as directed by a police constable in uniform (which are general exceptions to traffic signs), the permitted users of the areas of carriageway between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs are:

any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow

It follows that the correct sign in each direction on the footway and the traffic island is not diagram 953 but diagram 616 (No Entry) with the plate "except authorised vehicles". This plate would, however, require special permission from DfT.

The sign to diagram 953 has been placed contrary to TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3 General Direction 1 and so is void.

What are you trying to say? Harrow's illumination of the signs is poor: the street lights are behind the signs and the local illumination sits above the signs rather than pointing towards them. For the blue roundels this enables them to be seen as blue circles, but the effect on the width-restriction signs is to make them look like lights.

The loss of the diagram 515 chevrons from the post-and-rail barrier means that eastbound motorists are blinded by the dipped headlights of westbound motorists passing through the width restriction. This light is also reflected from the road surface (which did not have its surface-dressing replaced after resurfacing in 2021/22). As a result, the road markings are much less visible at night than they are by day (this is a general observation: beware of believing Google Street View images).

Harrow should be challenged to produce evidence of the appearance of the signage from the location where the motorist needs to make the decision to move out (I'd like to hear where they say that point is). The images should show comparable conditions, i.e. day or night, wet or dry road and with or without vehicles passing through the restrictions in the opposite direction. The height of the camera should be no more than 1.5m above the road so as to correspond to the driver's viewpoint. 

Here's an updated version of Reply #17.


2. Traffic Orders on Camrose Avenue

2.1 Introduction

Attached is an annotated aerial view of the site, CamroseAerialRinged.jpg. It will help if you have this open in another window as you read this section.

There are two traffic orders in force on Camrose Avenue:

• The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended
• The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016 as amended

Copies of these TMOs are attached. I show that the width-restriction TMO applies not only to the width-restricted areas of road but also to the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb (the “Prohibited lengths”). The width-restriction TMO applies its own restrictions to these areas of road and, through clever drafting, also allows vehicles to use these areas of road if they are permitted to do so by any other TMO.

I then examine the history of the TMOs on Camrose Avenue, starting with the 1976 one. I show what happened in 1999 when Harrow consolidated its moving-vehicle TMOs into:

• The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
• The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999

I show that the provisions of the 1976 TMO were translated correctly to the width-restriction TMO but not to the bus-priority TMO. It applied the bus-priority restrictions to the areas of road which were subject to the width restrictions. The provisions in each TMO for Camrose Avenue have been repeated each time a TMO has been repealed and replaced, so the mistake made in 1999 remains today.

The consequence is that the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb are subject only to the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”. These exclude all vehicles except the emergency services and vehicles on Harrow Council business.

It follows that the contravention which the Council has alleged did not occur.

2.2 The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007

The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 specifies all the width restrictions on roads in Harrow. At most sites there aren’t also bus restrictions, so the width-restriction TMO defines what happens to the parts of the carriageway which aren’t subject to a width restriction. These are defined as "Prohibited lengths". For most width restrictions, all vehicles are banned from them (hence “Prohibited lengths”).

A uniform structure has been used for the width restriction TMO, so, although Camrose Avenue's bus restrictions are specified in the bus-priority TMOs, the width-restriction TMO also defines "Prohibited lengths" on Camrose Avenue. These are the sections of carriageway in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb.

The "Prohibited lengths" are subject to these rules:

2. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in a [Prohibited length] of carriageway
. . .
4. Nothing in Articles 2 and 3 of this Order shall apply to :-
(a) any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes;
(b) anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform;
(c) any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
(d) any vehicle specified in column 6 of the Schedule to this Order;
(e) to any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow. [LBH 2012/30]

Note in particular 4(c): this clause allows the width-restriction TMO to coexist with the bus-priority TMO. Section 66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows highway authorities to place signs which show the effect of TMOs. So if a sign (such as a blue roundel) has been placed on a "Prohibited length" which allows certain classes of vehicle to pass, the width-restriction TMO also allows them to pass.

Clause 4(e) means that vehicles being used to provide Harrow Council services can use the “Prohibited lengths”. Where a bus-priority TMO overlaps with the width-restriction TMO, vehicles providing Council services are added to those permitted by the bus-priority TMO.

2.3 Original TMO for Camrose Avenue

The restrictions on Camrose Avenue were set out coherently in The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 (the italics have been added, as they are in all the quotes in section 2):

3. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in the carriageway on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost island site or in the carriageway on the north-west side of the south-westernmost island site.

4. No person shall cause any vehicle the overall width of which together with the load (if any) carried thereon exceeds 6 feet 6 inches to enter the carriageway on the north-west side of the north-easternmost island site or the carriageway on the south-east side of the south-westernmost island site.

5. Nothing in Article 3 of this order shall apply
(a) in relation to a stage carriage or an express carriage on a scheduled service; or
(b) in relation to a vehicle being used for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; or
(c) to anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform.

This refers to two island sites: north-easternmost and south-westernmost. As a glance at the aerial view of the site shows, these are accurate geographic descriptions of the traffic islands. I have ringed them in yellow and red respectively. They divide the flow of westbound and eastbound traffic respectively. For brevity, I shall refer to them as the westbound island and the eastbound island.

This traffic order defines the restricted parts of the carriageway as:

3. bus-restriction:
4. width-restriction:

It does not specify the direction of travel through any of the restrictions, nor does it mention the snake-like kerbed structure which separates eastbound from westbound traffic. It is a model of accuracy and concision.

2.4 Consolidation of TMOs

In 1999 Harrow consolidated traffic orders relating to width restrictions, bus lanes and other bus restrictions into two orders:

• The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
• The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999

Since 1999 there have been various amendments to each of these TMOs, with periodic repeals and replacements. These have not affected the definitions of the restricted areas of carriageway but they have changed the classes of vehicle permitted through the bus restrictions.

2.5 Consolidated Width-restriction TMO 1999

For the width restrictions, the consolidated width-restriction TMO followed the 1976 TMO in referring to "the north-eastern island" and "the south-western island". For the "Prohibited lengths", it instead used the cardinal points of the compass (eastern and western). It got these right, so "north-eastern" became "eastern" and "south-western" became "western".

The TMO defined both sets of restrictions as being between an island and some other structure. For the width restrictions this was "the central median strip". For the bus priorities this was the northern or southern kerb-line.

Whereas the 1976 TMO had not specified the direction of travel, the consolidated width-restriction TMO did.  Depending on your point of view, this either provided an aid to interpretation or created an opportunity for mistakes through overspecification. None was made.

2.6 Consolidated Bus-priority TMO 1999

There were two schedules to the consolidated bus-priority TMO:

• Schedule 1: Bus Lanes
• Schedule 2: Bus-only routes

Camrose Avenue was Item 1 in Schedule 2.

The definitions of the areas of road were:

Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue;
Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue.

When the width-restriction TMO shifted from ordinal to cardinal compass points, it did so correctly:

• Westbound: north-eastern  ---> eastern
• Eastbound: south-western  ---> western

The bus-priority TMO chose the other cardinal points and got it wrong:

• Westbound: north-eastern  --/-> southern
• Eastbound: south-western  --/-> northern

The descriptions of the areas of road ("south of the xxx traffic island"; "north of the yyy traffic island") would be correct if xxx had been northern and yyy had been southern. But they were not. The traffic islands were reversed, so the areas specified were those which are subject to the width restrictions.

2.7 Lack of Rigorous Checking in the Bus-priority TMO

The width-restriction TMO shows evidence of a high standard of work. Although it's odd that it uses ordinal points of the compass for the width restrictions and cardinal points for the "Prohibited lengths", the shifts are correct and everything works. Also notable is the way that the TMO was structured so that vehicles could use its “Prohibited lengths” if they are permitted to do so by a sign placed in accordance with another TMO.

Leaving aside its provisions for Camrose Avenue, Schedule 2 of the bus-priority TMO shows other signs of a lack of rigorous checking. In its 2007 incarnation, it defines the following area of road on Headstone Lane (the indenting has been added to aid comprehension:)

the carriageway which lies between

the island site situated  between

a point 6.00 metres north-east of the extended north-eastern kerb-line of Melbourne Avenue and
a point 9.00 metres north-east of that point.

While the second “between” is followed by two objects separated by an “and”, the first is followed by a single object. It makes no sense.

In 2021 the TMO was amended to change the definition of the bus-priority area of Christchurch Avenue. It became (with added indentation)

Christchurch Avenue

from its junction with Masons Avenue

and a point opposite

the north-eastern most point of

the island site between

No. 13 Byron Road and
No. 139A Masons Avenue;

There is an island site between No. 13 Byron Road and No. 139A Masons Avenue and it does have a north-easternmost point, so this definition amounts to

Christchurch Avenue

from its junction with Masons Avenue

and a point opposite

[a well-defined point on an island site]

This evidence suggests that not only can mistakes be made and persist in the bus-priority TMO, new ones can be added.

2.8 Harrow's Explanation

The definition of the bus-priority areas came up in the hearing of appeal 2250053451 on 28 April 2025. Mr Adekusibe of Harrow sought to explain the definitions by saying that "southern traffic island" and "northern traffic island" needed to be understood by reference to their appearance to motorists approaching them in the specified direction. Thus to westbound motorists, the "southern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the westbound nearside kerb, while to eastbound motorists the "northern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the eastbound nearside kerb.

There are some obvious problems with this:

• it is based on the perception when approaching the restrictions that there are two traffic islands ahead. Certainly, there are two kerbed structures with bollards and signs on posts. But if there really were two traffic islands in each direction, there would be four traffic islands in total. There are not. There are three kerbed structures: two traffic islands and the snake-like structure which is formally known (and referred to as such in the width-restriction TMO) as the central median strip.
• the other uses of compass points in the bus-priority TMO make sense with their normal meaning
• the uses of compass points in the width-restriction TMO written at the same time (1999) make sense with their normal meaning
• TMOs are formal legal documents written using a formal register. They define things precisely and use the correct legal terms. This is shown in the use by the contemporaneous width-restriction TMO of the term "central median strip". If the words “northern“ and “southern” were being used with meanings other than the natural ones, this would be stated explicitly.

It seems possible that officers in Harrow, puzzled by the definitions of the areas of Camrose Avenue defined as bus-priority, have constructed the interpretation advanced by Mr Adekusibe to reassure themselves that the TMO is valid. Those definitions have been used for so long (since 1999) and nobody has ever challenged them successfully, so they must be right.

The evidence suggests otherwise. The law works from the TMO forwards to the signage, not back from the signage to the TMO.

2.9 Consequences

The areas of Camrose Avenue on which the bus-priority TMO imposes restrictions are those which are subject to the width restriction. As the PCN alleges that the contravention was using a route restricted to buses, cycles and taxis only, which is the set of vehicles permitted by the bus-priority TMO, it follows that there was no contravention.

If it is held that the bus-priority TMO does apply between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs, the allegation is still not correct because the TMO is overlain by the width-restriction TMO. This adds to the permitted vehicles:

any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow

Taxis were added to the bus-priority TMO by The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. 2) Traffic Order 2018. Suppose that, instead of amending the order, this had been written as a separate TMO permitting taxis to use the same area of road. Then it would be oppressive to issue PCNs against taxis for violating the bus-priority TMO while ignoring the taxi-permitting TMO. That is why the change was made as an amendment. Normal practice is to have a single TMO which sets out all the classes of vehicle which are permitted.

But on Camrose Avenue there are two overlapping TMOs. They are nested, with the bus-priority TMO being tighter than the width-restricted TMO. Each is subject to Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996, which requires the placing of signage to indicate the effect of the order. The bus-priority TMO requires the blue roundel to diagram 953 as it is displayed. The width-restriction TMO requires that sign with the plate "and authorised vehicles". It is that combination of signs which should be displayed as it shows the combined effect of the TMOs.

It follows that if the bus-priority TMO applies between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs, the sign which is displayed is wrong and that the contravention which should have been alleged was using a route restricted to buses, cycles, taxis and authorised vehicles. It was not.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I recognise that this advice is the opposite of that normally advanced, which is not to reveal your hand until the other side has shown his. Quite apart from matters of fairness, it is prompted by London Tribunals' Practice Direction 2024 No. 2, which limits the material which can be added at the appeal stage.

It doesn't, in the notice of appeal you can add whatever you want. It purports to limit what can be added after the notice of appeal stage, but most adjudicators ignore it anyway.

Re: Reply #23

But what exactly is a Notice of Appeal? How much material can be included and when does it become "additional representations"? I consider it better to play safe and put complex boilerplate in the representations.

What is there to lose? I suppose there's a chance that Harrow might accept the representations, so the matter won't get to an adjudicator, but the recipient of the PCN won't have to pay anything and will have no further hoops to jump through.

Re: Reply #24

1. As has been noted, the decision in the appeal did not refer to the signage issue. That doesn't mean that it wasn't raised or that Beatson's judgment didn't figure prominently. It means that the adjudicator allowed the appeal and selected as the reason for allowing it one which was specific to the case and which could not help other appeals.

2. While Regulation 18 of LATOR places a duty on a highway authority, that duty cannot be enforced through an appeal against a PCN. There is another duty which s.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 places on highway authorities which is arguably more important:

It shall be the duty of every ... local authority ... to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular ... traffic ... on ... the highway

My final submission to the appeal said this:

Without advance notice, drivers would come upon hazards and restrictions unexpectedly. They would then have to brake suddenly and swerve, change lane or turn round. Accidents would be far more common. This is why highway authorities place warning signs 45m before the hazard and why, for some restrictions, there is well-defined advance signage.

For nearside with-flow bus lanes, that advance signage includes the lead-in taper and diagram 958 30m before the start of the taper. What Harrow created on Camrose Avenue in 1974 was, in effect, a nearside with-flow bus lane.

3. I'm disturbed by your use of the term "TSRGD-compliant" signs. I'm aware that various judgments have used the term "substantially compliant" with regard to traffic signs. The ones from EWHC (I don't think I've seen any from AC or UKSC), which are precedents, seem to me to have been concerned with sets of traffic signs which work together, e.g. parking restrictions. Here it does indeed seem absurd that you should be able to ignore a sign staring you in the face because somewhere else there's a sign missing.

But when it comes to individual signs, if a sign has not been placed as prescribed by TSRGD (and it can legitimately have been placed under a previous version) then, unless DfT has authorised it specially, it's been placed ultra vires and, by the tenets of administrative law, is void. That means that the adjudicator must exclude that sign from his assessment of the adequacy of the signage. He can still consider it in terms of legitimising an action by the motorist (theory of the second actor), but not to the potential benefit of the highway authority which placed it unlawfully.

That is why I have been keen to knock the curved arrows out of contention: without them (and also the BUS GATE road markings, which have not been placed as prescribed), there's nothing between Shaldon Road and the white hatching in front of the traffic island. That absence of signage is Beatson's judgment writ large.

4. I do consider that non-regulatory signs are to be taken into account in assessing the adequacy of the signage. For a with-flow bus lane, the diagram 958 and the lead-in taper are both informatory and neither is mandated by TSRGD 2016. It would help greatly if the advance notice signs which currently show only the width restriction also showed the bus restriction. So would a lane gain sign after Shaldon Road which showed that the inside lane was about to become bus-only and that the outside lane had a width restriction.

5. What I'm trying to do now is to help other people who get PCNs on Camrose Avenue by developing boilerplate which they can use in their representations. I've been surprised by what I've found in the TMOs, which leads me to think that Harrow are vulnerable to the complete collapse of their highest-grossing TMO.

Headstone Lane is vulnerable for the same reason and I have a separate line of attack on Charlton Road (based on Regulation 18(2) of LATOR and Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/13). On this last point, Cambridgeshire County Council have acknowledged that related signage which they use is wrong and will correct it.

I don't care much for the DFT authorisation at Shepherds Bush Road Southbound  Offside Bus Lane which runs counter to the TSM Chapter Three.