DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 37305--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: EllHas
Date: September 18, 2024, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One person has 12 PCNs for that one road?!
Thank you for this, I'll find a sensible place to add it in
alongside the rest of what you have sent me and I'll post it
here before replying to the council.
Thanks again for your help.
#Post#: 37312--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 18, 2024, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes. And his colleague has 10. I await your draft. I am going to
make a video about this location as it is becoming too infamous.
Their hearings will be at the end of October after I have
meditated under my Plane Tree.
#Post#: 37614--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: EllHas
Date: September 20, 2024, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Yes. And his colleague has 10. I await your draft. I am going
to make a video about this location as it is becoming too
infamous. Their hearings will be at the end of October after I
have meditated under my Plane Tree.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry for the delay with this. It's been a busy few days and I
wanted the proper amount of time to put this together.
Please find it below. Hopefully it's ok!
----
Dear Lewisham Council
I make these formal representations against PCN: ZY09702771
Preamble:
On Saturday 7th September I needed to drive my 1 year old son
from my home in Mottingham to my father’s house in Catford.
Normally I would either drive via Grove Park or go via the A205.
However, on that day, a decision was made to close off the
bridge at St Mildreds Road, result in horrendous traffic. And
so, with a restless baby in the back seat, I did my best to
navigate the blockages. What should have been a 10-minute
journey, became an hour and a half nightmare.
Regarding the journey in question, having finally made it past
the worst of the traffic only to discover that the passing under
the bridge was closed (there was no prior warning about this), I
decided to try driving down Manor Lane, hoping that I could
cross via Hither Green and then make my way back up. It has been
many years since I have driven through that particular area as
I’d had no need to. I was aware that there was a width
restriction road somewhere along the route, but had no reason to
believe that it would affect my car.
I progressed onto Leahurst Road, approached the point of the
alleged contravention and then turned left onto Ennersdale Road.
At the top of Ennersdale Road I discovered that the road was
closed off to all motor vehicles and there was no way to
progress onto Hither Green, so I was forced to turn back and
retrace my journey through the disgraceful traffic caused by
road closures and lack of adequate signage.
Regarding the point of alleged contravention, I did not see any
signage or prior warnings to indicate that there was a motor
restricted road on Leahurst Road/Ennersdale Road. I was
concentrating on how the road took a sharp left following a
narrowing with a pedestrian island with another road straight
ahead and a clear no entry sign.
I then received a PCN and had to return to the site in order to
ascertain what had triggered this. I noted that there is only a
small sign placed directly on the corner of the shop, up high -
when driving, you are not looking at that area - you are
navigating the tight corner- pedestrian island and oncoming
traffic. Furthermore, the sign could easily appear to relate to
the very clearly marked no entry road that is directly across on
the continuation of Leahurst Road and not the left turn onto
Ennersdale Road.
I also noted, that once a vehicle has 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. If there are any 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 would surely result in an accident. Thus, a
driver’s only sensible option at that point would be to progress
past the sign onto Ennersdale Road and then turn around at the
first safe opportunity.
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 Leahurt
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 adjudica
tors 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.
The Penalty Charge Notice
On the website that you have provided in order to view
photographs and video footage of the alleged contravention, it
should be noted that the follow notice is displayed on my case
file “This PCN is now closed. Thank you. This PCN is past the
stage at which you can challenge it or make representations”.
The alleged contravention occurred on 7/9/24, the date of the
PCN was 13/9/24 and the date at which I observed this notice on
the website was 20/9/24. I still within the 14 day period and
well within the 28 day period as stipulated by your own PCN.
Therefore the information on this website is incorrect and
highly misleading.
In light of the above, I request a response to all of the points
raised and I ask for the PCN to be cancelled.
Reg. keeper
Address
#Post#: 37618--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 20, 2024, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Far too long IMO.
I also think you need to be clear as regards what point you are
trying to make because you offer different reasons - possibly
due to its length you lose focus.
You either saw the sign or you did not.
I did see the sign:
But because this was not until after I'd entered the chicane I
felt that I had no safe road user option other than to carry on.
I did not see the sign at the time:
When I visited soon after receiving the PCN the reasons why I
and, I now know, other motorists have missed the sign is because
of *****. In my case **** but the attached tribunal cases(take
them out of the body of your reps please) identify ****
additional reasons.
Would be my approach. But IMO you must choose and I suggest
based upon what you and only you know happened and not to
opportunistically try and adopt other motorists' arguments. Use
these as further examples of reasons why the sign is poorly
placed but write from your knowledge of events.
Wait for other comments.
#Post#: 37632--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 20, 2024, 11:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: EllHas link ---
>
> [quote author=Hippocrates link=topic=3155.msg37312#msg37312
date=1726657390]
> Yes. And his colleague has 10. I await your draft. I am going
to make a video about this location as it is becoming too
infamous. Their hearings will be at the end of October after I
have meditated under my Plane Tree.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry for the delay with this. It's been a busy few days and I
wanted the proper amount of time to put this together.
Please find it below. Hopefully it's ok!
----
Dear Lewisham Council
I make these formal representations against PCN: ZY09702771
Preamble:
On Saturday 7th September I needed to drive my 1 year old son
from my home in Mottingham to my father’s house in Catford.
Normally I would either drive via Grove Park or go via the A205.
However, on that day, a decision was made to close off the
bridge at St Mildreds Road, result in horrendous traffic. And
so, with a restless baby in the back seat, I did my best to
navigate the blockages. What should have been a 10-minute
journey, became an hour and a half nightmare.
Regarding the journey in question, having finally made it past
the worst of the traffic only to discover that the passing under
the bridge was closed (there was no prior warning about this), I
decided to try driving down Manor Lane, hoping that I could
cross via Hither Green and then make my way back up. It has been
many years since I have driven through that particular area as
I’d had no need to. I was aware that there was a width
restriction road somewhere along the route, but had no reason to
believe that it would affect my car.
I progressed onto Leahurst Road, approached the point of the
alleged contravention and then turned left onto Ennersdale Road.
At the top of Ennersdale Road I discovered that the road was
closed off to all motor vehicles and there was no way to
progress onto Hither Green, so I was forced to turn back and
retrace my journey through the disgraceful traffic caused by
road closures and lack of adequate signage.
Regarding the point of alleged contravention, I did not see any
signage or prior warnings to indicate that there was a motor
restricted road on Leahurst Road/Ennersdale Road. I was
concentrating on how the road took a sharp left following a
narrowing with a pedestrian island with another road straight
ahead and a clear no entry sign.
I then received a PCN and had to return to the site in order to
ascertain what had triggered this. I noted that there is only a
small sign placed directly on the corner of the shop, up high -
when driving, you are not looking at that area - you are
navigating the tight corner- pedestrian island and oncoming
traffic. Furthermore, the sign could easily appear to relate to
the very clearly marked no entry road that is directly across on
the continuation of Leahurst Road and not the left turn onto
Ennersdale Road.
I also noted, that once a vehicle has 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. If there are any 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 would surely result in an accident. Thus, a
driver’s only sensible option at that point would be to progress
past the sign onto Ennersdale Road and then turn around at the
first safe opportunity.
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 Leahurt
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 adjudica
tors 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.
The Penalty Charge Notice
On the website that you have provided in order to view
photographs and video footage of the alleged contravention, it
should be noted that the follow notice is displayed on my case
file “This PCN is now closed. Thank you. This PCN is past the
stage at which you can challenge it or make representations”.
The alleged contravention occurred on 7/9/24, the date of the
PCN was 13/9/24 and the date at which I observed this notice on
the website was 20/9/24. I still within the 14 day period and
well within the 28 day period as stipulated by your own PCN.
Therefore the information on this website is incorrect and
highly misleading.
In light of the above, I request a response to all of the points
raised and I ask for the PCN to be cancelled.
Reg. keeper
Address
[/quote]
#Post#: 37634--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: EllHas
Date: September 20, 2024, 11:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> [quote author=EllHas link=topic=3155.msg37614#msg37614
date=1726835806]
> [quote author=Hippocrates link=topic=3155.msg37312#msg37312
date=1726657390]
> Yes. And his colleague has 10. I await your draft. I am going
to make a video about this location as it is becoming too
infamous. Their hearings will be at the end of October after I
have meditated under my Plane Tree.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry for the delay with this. It's been a busy few days and I
wanted the proper amount of time to put this together.
Please find it below. Hopefully it's ok!
----
Dear Lewisham Council
I make these formal representations against PCN: ZY09702771
Preamble:
On Saturday 7th September I needed to drive my 1 year old son
from my home in Mottingham to my father’s house in Catford.
Normally I would either drive via Grove Park or go via the A205.
However, on that day, a decision was made to close off the
bridge at St Mildreds Road, result in horrendous traffic. And
so, with a restless baby in the back seat, I did my best to
navigate the blockages. What should have been a 10-minute
journey, became an hour and a half nightmare.
Regarding the journey in question, having finally made it past
the worst of the traffic only to discover that the passing under
the bridge was closed (there was no prior warning about this), I
decided to try driving down Manor Lane, hoping that I could
cross via Hither Green and then make my way back up. It has been
many years since I have driven through that particular area as
I’d had no need to. I was aware that there was a width
restriction road somewhere along the route, but had no reason to
believe that it would affect my car.
I progressed onto Leahurst Road, approached the point of the
alleged contravention and then turned left onto Ennersdale Road.
At the top of Ennersdale Road I discovered that the road was
closed off to all motor vehicles and there was no way to
progress onto Hither Green, so I was forced to turn back and
retrace my journey through the disgraceful traffic caused by
road closures and lack of adequate signage.
...
Address
[/quote]
[/quote]
Thank you very much, I'll remove the bits you suggested. The
rest of it is ok?
#Post#: 37635--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: EllHas
Date: September 20, 2024, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Far too long IMO.
>
> I also think you need to be clear as regards what point you
are trying to make because you offer different reasons -
possibly due to its length you lose focus.
>
> You either saw the sign or you did not.
>
> I did see the sign:
> But because this was not until after I'd entered the chicane I
felt that I had no safe road user option other than to carry on.
>
> I did not see the sign at the time:
> When I visited soon after receiving the PCN the reasons why I
and, I now know, other motorists have missed the sign is because
of *****. In my case **** but the attached tribunal cases(take
them out of the body of your reps please) identify ****
additional reasons.
>
> Would be my approach. But IMO you must choose and I suggest
based upon what you and only you know happened and not to
opportunistically try and adopt other motorists' arguments. Use
these as further examples of reasons why the sign is poorly
placed but write from your knowledge of events.
>
> Wait for other comments.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for your feedback. It's all pretty new to me, so I was
mainly following what Hippocrates requested me to include. I
think they've said that it's ok now that they've suggested some
edits.
#Post#: 37675--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 20, 2024, 7:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The longer the better.
#Post#: 37676--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: EllHas
Date: September 20, 2024, 8:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Duly noted!
#Post#: 37679--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 21, 2024, 2:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: EllHas link ---
>
> Duly noted!
>
--- End Quote ---
They should be aware of these submissions as they lost a case
due to them some months ago. It will also test whether
AI/Barbour B****y Logic or a human being deals with them.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page