DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: brazilianx
Date: April 29, 2025, 4:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is incredibly in depth - amazing work - best of luck!
#Post#: 69157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 29, 2025, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is; but, far in excess of the prescribed length (by the Chief
Adjudicator) of a skeleton argument. 8)
#Post#: 69158--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 29, 2025, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are two further documents for the reconvened hearing:
- Annex E: Excerpts from TSRGD setting out prescribed uses of
the curved arrows, width restriction sign and the BUS GATE road
marking
- Revised Synopsis collating material from Harrow's Case Summary
with that in the Synopsis of the Appeal, Harrow's Response and
the Counter Response
Annex E seeks to demonstrate that Harrow's assertion
--- Quote ---
> signage at the location [is] in accordance with The Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016
--- End Quote ---
is false.
The Revised Synopsis sets out the arguments which Harrow deploy,
together with my responses seeking to pick them apart. It
remains to be seen how these fare before the Adjudicator.
---------------------
One general point which I would make is that highway authorities
do not have a completely free hand in deciding what traffic
signs to place.
First, unless they obtain special permission from DfT, they must
use only those signs defined in TSRGD 2016 and only in the ways
that it prescribes.
Secondly, when they make a Traffic Regulation Order (which is
necessary to impose bus or width restrictions), Regulation 18 of
The Local Authorities' Traffic Order (Procedures) (England and
Wales) Regulations 1996
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18<br
/>(LATOR) imposes on the authority the duty to secure
--- Quote ---
> (a) … the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in
such positions as the order making authority may consider
requisite for securing that adequate information as to the
effect of the order is made available to persons using the road.
--- End Quote ---
Thirdly, section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/122
place
on highway authorities the duty
--- Quote ---
> to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of
vehicular ... traffic ... on the highway
--- End Quote ---
The Department for Transport (DfT) publishes the Traffic Signs
Manual
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual,<br
/>which offers advice to highway authorities and others on the
use
of traffic signs on the highway network. Chapter 1 of the
Traffic Signs Manual
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c419a1240f0b61704aec4d7/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-1.pdf<br
/>sets out the principles for signage:
--- Quote ---
> 1.3.1. Traffic signs are placed by the traffic authority,
through the powers provided by the Road Traffic Regulation Act
1984, to provide warnings, information and details of
restrictions to road users...
>
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
The Traffic Signs Manual has a similar status to The Highway
Code: it isn't the law, but it sets out what you should do and
courts look to it as setting a benchmark of how people and
organisations should behave. Schemes such as Camrose Avenue tend
not to fit well into the framework set out in the various
chapters of the Traffic Signs Manual. That's why they catch out
so many motorists.
One key legal case concerned with the adequacy of traffic signs
is R (Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator
[2010] EWHC 894 (Admin). This was a judicial review of an
adjudication and so sets precedent for adjudicators. The case
turned on two issues: whether the area of road was a bus lane;
and the adequacy of the advance signage. In paragraph 65 Mr
Justice Beatson (as he then was) found:
--- Quote ---
> If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no
offence is committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Such
information is a requirement ...
--- End Quote ---
So the main line of attack against these PCNs is that the signs
did not provide adequate information, so no contravention
occurred. On Camrose Avenue some of the signs are not as
prescribed in TSRGD 2016, so are legally void. That helps
establish that the signage is inadequate. The other main plank
is to argue by analogy with the closest match in the Traffic
Signs Manual to whatever is on the road at the site in question.
If it's a bus restriction, that's section 9 of Chapter 5 of the
Traffic Signs Manual
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c4ace6ded915d38a0611abc/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69160--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 29, 2025, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Well, it's certainly a "nice little earner" for the council !!
>
--- End Quote ---
Case refused: 2250084160
The appeal was heard via a video link. The Appellant attended
the hearing. The Authority was not represented.
The issue was about signage. The Appellant said that as he was
following a bus, he could not see the restriction signs until a
point at which he decided that stopping abruptly or changing
lane would have been dangerous.
It is common ground that there was no advance warning sign.
There was a width restriction warning sign but the Appellant
would not have been influenced by it. The Appellant thought
initially that there was no sign at all but accepted upon
reviewing the Authority’s evidence that the signage was present.
I do not accept the Appellant’s suggestion that it was
reasonable for him to think that the lane outside the bus gate
was for traffic in the opposite direction. There was no central
line separating the two lanes and there was an arrow in the
outside lane in the direction of the Appellant’s direction of
travel. There were keep right and left signs on bollards either
side of that lane. These signs were facing the Appellant. This
would not be the case if the lane was for traffic coming the
other way. There were no vehicles to the outside of the
Appellant’s as he approached the bus gate.
It follows that the question for me was whether the Appellant
had the opportunity to see the signage ahead.
I accept that there was a bus ahead. The Appellant was not
tailgating. I find that the Appellant could have seen at least
one of the upright bus gate signs and the bus gate road marking
in time to change lane safely.
I am satisfied that the contravention occurred. I refuse the
appeal.
Another DIY appeal I am afraid.
#Post#: 69177--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 29, 2025, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm intrigued by the sentences:
--- Quote ---
> There was no central line separating the two lanes and there
was an arrow in the outside lane in the direction of the
Appellant’s direction of travel. There were keep right and left
signs on bollards either side of that lane.
--- End Quote ---
Lane markings (which include the white hatching in front of the
traffic islands) delineate lanes. Without lane markings, there
is a single lane. That is precisely one of the issues on Camrose
Avenue. Harrow removed the lane markings in 2008. Otherwise one
could point to the absence of a sign to diagram 877, which shows
that the inside lane is about to be dedicated to buses and other
permitted vehicles.
As for "keep right and left signs on bollards either side of
that lane", what is he talking about? Elsewhere (e.g. Headstone
Lane) Harrow place Keep Left signs which they expect buses and
permitted vehicles to pass on the right. Doing so is the
contravention for which Harrow issues vast numbers of PCNs on
Charlton Road. The correct approach (see Traffic Advisory
Leaflet 3/13
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c0650e5274a7202e19128/traffic-bollards-low-level.pdf)<br
/>is to leave the bollard blank as vehicles are permitted to
pass
the bollard on both sides. So far as I am aware, Harrow don't
make this mistake on Camrose Avenue.
#Post#: 69235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 29, 2025, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
An update on today's reconvened hearing. It was noisier than I
had expected: Harrow's representatives intervened frequently
with raised voices, often repeating what they had just said.
That suggests to me that they considered that they were on the
back foot.
Harrow's argument was, in essence, that they had complied with
the requirement to place the regulatory signs (blue roundels)
which indicate the presence of the bus restriction and that, in
law, that sufficed. They appeared not to understand that a
decision in 2010 in the High Court about a road in Oxford could
be more significant in guiding Adjudicators than any number of
adjudications about Camrose Avenue. I was surprised that the
Adjudicator didn't appear to be familiar with the case.
I found it difficult to read what the Adjudicator was thinking.
One thing which did seem to go down well was when I showed the
signage at the northern end of Hammersmith Bridge Road where
(until the closure of Hammersmith Bridge) there was a width
restriction in the outer southbound lane next to a nearside bus
lane. The sign showed the blue roundel on the inside, then a
black dashed vertical line and then the width restriction. I
suggested that this was what Harrow should have placed as
advance signage instead of only width restriction signs.
I shan't be surprised if it takes the Adjudicator a few days to
produce his decision.
#Post#: 69237--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 29, 2025, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I said, you have rattled a few cages.
#Post#: 69323--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 30, 2025, 3:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeal was allowed ... but the Adjudicator picked the reason
which does least damage to Harrow (and to the future workload
for Adjudicators):
--- Quote ---
> because of a parked car on the offside, oncoming vehicles and
the darkness of the night, he had to keep to the nearside to
avoid hitting one of the oncoming vehicles and/or his own
vehicle being hit from behind by the closely following vehicle.
>
> a motorist may on occasion have to take action so as to avoid
an accident, which may involve an unintentional contravention of
a restriction
>
> I find on balance that, at the material time, the Appellant
was taking action within the meaning of the exemption provided
by Article 5(1)(a) of the Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order
2026, as amended by the Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. 2)
Traffic Order 2018
--- End Quote ---
I did fear that putting up so many grounds for appeal provided
an opportunity for the Adjudicator to select the least damaging
one. That leaves the material which I prepared as a source which
others can mine for their own appeals.
One issue which I had not considered was the very human one that
the other participants in the case each had a reasonably
comfortable life which they wished to preserve. While I was
motivated by a sense of injustice, it turned out that the
justice system was more concerned with self-preservation. "Keep
calm and carry on" appears to be the motto, or perhaps it's
"Don't rock the boat".
#Post#: 69327--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: brazilianx
Date: April 30, 2025, 4:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting - pleased for your win
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] even though they dodged the main
principle behind the appeal.
Like you say
--- Quote ---
> That leaves the material which I prepared as a source which
others can mine for their own appeals.
--- End Quote ---
And that might just be me. :)
I've got a few days before I need to submit my initial
representation. I have differring circumstances to you in that
it was during the day, and although there was an oncoming
vehicle, I don't think a claim of evasive manoeuvre would cut
the mustard.
When you've had a moment to take a breath be great to get your
thoughts on my PCN here
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e-(april-2025)
Thanks
#Post#: 69340--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 30, 2025, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The sign, as shown in the site evidence produced by the
Enforcement Authority, is that prescribed by Diagram 953 at Item
33 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2016, being a permitted variant thereof, as
indicating ‘route for use by buses, pedal cycles and taxis’.
What were the dates of this photographic evidence please?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page