DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 48424--------------------------------------------------
*Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: December 5, 2024, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm a newbie and my attempt to include an image in the post
didn't work. I'm reposting what I wrote with the image as an
attachment. It won't be where I wanted it in the post, so you
may do better to click on the hyperlink to "original plan" and
get it in another window.
The TMO
I have taken a look at The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order
2011
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/traffic_management_order_5/response/365762/attach/2/Traffic%20Order.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1,<br
/>which is the TMO which Harrow use as the basis of their 33E
PCNs
for the Camrose Avenue "bus gates". Schedule 1 lists Bus Lanes
while Schedule 2 lists Bus-only routes, including
1(a) Camrose Avenue westbound: the carriageway to the south of
the southern traffic island immediately to the west of its
junction with Dale Avenue.
1(b) Camrose Avenue eastbound: the carriageway to the north of
the northern traffic island immediately to the west of its
junction with Dale Avenue.
So far, so good. But what are the areas of carriageway referred
to? What do "southern traffic island" and "northern traffic
island" mean?
Original Plan
Let's look at the original plan
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/documents_relating_to_camrose_av/response/652750/attach/3/1838596%202.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1<br
/>[Click and get it in another window before you continue; I've
also uploaded it as an attachment]
Westbound as one turns left from Dale Avenue there is first the
section of red-surfaced road with the words "BUS & <cycle> ONLY"
and a solid heavy white line (black on the plan, but the
convention is that white lines are drawn as black) curving from
Dale Avenue to the inside of a traffic island. As it's
unambiguous, I'm going to call this the "westbound traffic
island". In front of it is an area of hatching on the road
which extends half way across the exit of Dale Avenue.
Above the westbound traffic island on the plan is another
section of westbound road with arrows pointing the way through.
Above that is what I shall refer to as a "traffic separation
barrier" which takes a snake-like form. Its rightmost end could
be regarded as the pair to the westbound traffic island: it
bears a pole with a traffic sign (the 6'6" width restriction).
But this part of the traffic separation barrier is not itself a
traffic island: either the entire snake-like form is a single
traffic island or it isn't. It certainly isn't more than a
single object.
Now let's move to the western end of the traffic separation
barrier. Above it is a section of eastbound road with arrows
pointing the way through. Above that is a traffic island, which
I shall call the "eastbound traffic island". In front of this is
a section of hatching on the road. Above both the hatching and
the eastbound traffic island is a section of red-surfaced road
with the words "BUS & <cycle> ONLY" and a taper of the
red-surface dressing to the exit from the service road.
Changes in 2018
These plans show us what the intentions were of the designers of
the road scheme for their implementation. They have been changed
since then, because of the 2018 amendment to the TMO which
permitted taxis as well as buses and cycles to use the
otherwise-prohibited areas of the carriageway. It was this
(along with deterioration of the road surface) which led to the
resurfacing with the loss of the red surface dressing and to the
replacement of the explicit words "BUS & <cycle> ONLY" with the
enigmatic "BUS GATE" (of which more in another post). Note also
that when the new markings were painted, the words "BUS GATE"
were not placed at the start of the restricted sections of
carriageway but further along. Also, the diversionary arrow (to
diagram 1014 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf)<br
/>immediately in front of the red-surfaced area was shortened
and
repositioned close to the kerb. Formerly, its tip had lain to
the right of the start of the traffic island, directing
motorists to the section of road where they should be. Now it
lay within the taper (formerly surface-dressed red), pointing to
the left of the eastbound traffic island. It therefore directs
motorists into the restricted zone. The restriction is not
marked until one is within it.
Double-take
At least this is what I thought. Then I did a double-take. Go
back to the words of the TMO. The restricted areas are
- the carriageway to the south of the southern traffic island
immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue
- the carriageway to the north of the northern traffic island
immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue
I have labeled the structures on the carriageway as
- the westbound traffic island
- the eastbound traffic island
- the traffic separation barrier
I did so as I consider these terms to be accurate and
unambiguous. I don't consider that the traffic separation
barrier could be described as a traffic island but will consider
later what happens if someone wishes to describe it as such.
If Camrose Avenue ran east-west, we could also describe the
westbound traffic island as the southern traffic island and the
eastbound traffic island as the northern traffic island. In that
case, the TMO would mean that the red-surfaced areas were indeed
the ones which were restricted to buses and cycles (and, since
the 2018 amendment) taxis.
But Camrose Avenue runs NE - SW at the restrictions. If you draw
a line of latitude 51.607123 N through the area, you will see
that the westbound traffic island is actually the northern one,
being entirely to the north of this (its centre is at 51.601775
N) while the eastbound traffic island is actually the southern
one (its centre is at 51.601658 N).
Implications for the TMO
This completely upends the TMO. The area of carriageway
described in 1(a) is that to the south of the eastbound traffic
island while that for 1(b) is the area to the north of the
westbound carriageway. So the restricted areas of carriageway
through which only buses and cycles (and now taxis) can pass are
those bits which lie within the 6'6" width restrictions. As
buses are more than 6'6" wide, this is a bit of a problem!
(Never mind also, that the direction of travel specified in the
TMO is the opposite to that on the road.)
The corollary is that the areas of road shown on the plan with
red surface dressing are actually permitted to all traffic. All
the PCNs ever issued for Camrose Avenue are invalid.
I don't see how this "gotcha" can be resolved. Claiming that the
traffic separation barrier is a traffic island doesn't really
help. It's got to be somewhere; the natural choice would be to
take its position as that of its centre, which, surprise,
surprise, lies in the middle, so the westbound traffic island
remains the northern one and the eastbound traffic island
remains the southern one.
Implications for Recipients of PCNs
I'm not a lawyer so don't know how a court would view this. As I
understand it, the words of the TMO are what count. The diagrams
produced for the scheme are considered by the Council in
preparing and approving the scheme. They could be considered by
the courts to resolve a detail which had not been specified in
the words of the TMO. But in this case the words of the TMO are
unambiguous. By no stretch of the imagination can "northern
traffic island" be construed as meaning "southern traffic
island". Yet the order as made is a nonsense! I suspect that the
courts would throw up their hands and declare that that part of
the TMO relating to Camrose Avenue was either ambiguous or
meaningless and therefore void. In which case what happens to
all the penalties which motorists have paid over the years? It
is truly fitting that Harrow's biggest PCN-revenue-raiser should
be built on such shaky foundations.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 48497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: December 5, 2024, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
BUS GATES
Early Bus Gates
The words "BUS GATE" are appearing more frequently on roads and
motorists are penalised for going through them. But what are
they and why are they so called? I believe that the answer lies
in something which existed about 20 years ago but which was
fairly rare.
The centre of Cambridge has had traffic problems for many years.
Its road layout is mediaeval and roads can't be widened because
the buildings are Grade I. In order to restrict traffic entering
the centre but allow buses to do so, rising bollards were
installed on Bridge Street south of Thompsons Lane. These were
normally raised and physically blocked ordinary motor vehicles
(but not motorbikes). Buses were fitted with transponders which,
when the bus approached, caused the bollards to be lowered into
the road so that the bus could pass over them. Once it had done
so, the bollards rose again to obstruct other vehicles.
Such a system of rising bollards which opens for buses performed
the same function as a gate with a gate-keeper. It was natural
to call such an arrangement a "bus gate". But they were
expensive to install and run and the drivers of other vehicles
(taxis, medics, etc) wanted to be given transponders. They could
also be dangerous as drivers tailgated buses to get through.
The consequence has been that local authorities have simplified
the original concept, removing the expensive equipment and
installing a video camera instead. But they have retained the
name "bus gate". This creates problems for motorists as the term
"BUS GATE" written on the road surface is intrinsically
meaningless. It appears nowhere in legislation nor does it
appear in the Highway Code (even the 2024 edition).
Traffic Signs Manual
The first official document to use the term "bus gate" was
Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf.<br
/>Section 9.7.3 of this states:
--- Quote ---
>
> [ltr]9.7.3. A bus gate is a short length of bus‑only
street. On a two‑way road, access may be restricted to
buses in one direction only, with all traffic permitted in the
opposite direction, i.e. similar to a contraflow lane, but too
short to be signed as such. In this case, that part of the
carriageway reserved for buses should be separated from the
opposing flow of traffic by a traffic island and not by a
continuous line marking to diagram 1049A (see Figure
9‑25). Bus gates are often used to remove through traffic
from a road but allow full access. They effectively create a “no
through road” for all traffic other than buses. The bus gate may
be located either at a junction or part way along a road, and
may be used by other vehicles where permitted by the order. If a
bus gate is placed on a road that was previously a signed route
or was used by significant through traffic, consideration should
be given to providing or changing directional signing to guide
prohibited traffic to use the preferred alternative route, as
described in 5.1.2. An example is shown in Figure
9‑26[/ltr]
--- End Quote ---
Bus-only streets are defined in section 9.7.1 and 9.7.2:
--- Quote ---
>
> [ltr]9.7.1. Where a one‑way or two‑way road is
reserved for buses and any other permitted vehicles, the entry
points may be indicated by upright signs in following ways:
[/ltr]
>
>
>
-
> [li][ltr]The “bus only” sign to diagram 953, 953A or 953B
...[/ltr]
>
- [ltr]The “no entry” sign to diagram 616 with an appropriate
exception plate (S3‑2‑10)...[/ltr]
>
- [ltr]The “no motor vehicles” sign to diagram 619 with an
appropriate supplementary plate (S3‑2‑12)...[/ltr]
>
- [ltr]Diagram 617 with an appropriate exception plate
(S3‑2‑11)...[/ltr]
>
>
> [/li]
>
> [ltr]The other end of a one‑way road must have “no
entry” signs to diagram 616 in accordance with 4.9.5 to
4.9.7...[/ltr]
>
> [ltr]9.7.2. The upright signs need to be placed as near as
practicable to the point where the restriction commences, but
there is no specific requirement to provide a sign on each side
of the carriageway... Drivers should not be placed in the
situation where they might not see the sign before starting to
turn at a road junction. Also, at a junction where the side road
is at an acute angle with the major road, two signs might be
required so that it is clear as to which road the prohibition
applies[/ltr]
--- End Quote ---
Bus gates are also defined in Bus and cycle signs and road
markings (updated 5 December 2023)
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/know-your-traffic-signs/bus-and-cycle-signs-and-road-markings:
--- Quote ---
>
> [ltr]A bus gate is a short length of bus-only street.[/ltr]
--- End Quote ---
Bus Gates in Bus-only Streets
The rising bollards in Cambridge were in a section of Bridge
Street on which the only permitted motor vehicles were buses and
vehicles serving premises on that section of Bridge Street. That
approach has been retained in the official documents listed
above. The only exception is that a two-way road can be bus-only
in one direction but not the other. Camrose Avenue does not fall
into this category because other traffic can bypass the
restrictions in both directions.
Bus-only streets are typically regarded as pedestrianised in
that section and have the appropriate signage at each end.
Usually the section of road which is bus-only runs between
junctions at each end with advance signage for motorists
approaching the junction indicating that the particular
direction is bus-only. There is always an exit from the junction
where the driver can go to avoid entering the bus-only street.
Provided the advance signage is adequate, this form of bus gate
seems to me unexceptionable. It is what Bridge Street in
Cambridge has become. Motorists are directed away from the
bus-only street and so never reach that short section of it
which has the cameras. In Bridge Street the section with the
words "BUS GATE" and the cameras has red-dressed tarmac, which
tells vehicles serving the shops where they need to turn back.
Bus Lanes
Bus lanes are defined in legislation and the signage for them is
set out in the Traffic Signs Manual. These ensure that motorists
can see where they're not meant to be. Motorists using the road
which has a bus lane get mandatory advanced warning:
- a sign to diagram 958 (the rectangular blue sign showing a
white bus and other types of permitted vehicle with a solid
white line to the right and a dashed slanting white line below)
sited 30 m in advance of the lead‑in taper
- a lead-in taper with a broken broad white line at its front,
with a minimum clear visibility distance of 45 m; or, where
there is an adjacent junction with a side road, a broken broad
white line curving from the junction to the start of the bus
lane
- a solid broad white line marking the outside of the bus lane
- the words "BUS LANE" on the road at the start of the bus lane
Local authorities create bus lanes using TROs (TMOs in London).
The legislation about signage ensure that motorists are
adequately warned.
Roll-your-own Bus Gates
We now come to the area where problems arise. Local authorities
have started using TROs and TMOs to designate sections of road
as "bus-only" (which often includes cycles and taxis).
Camrose Avenue can be regarded as an early form of this. The
original scheme
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/documents_relating_to_camrose_av/response/652750/attach/3/1838596<br
/>from 2008 used red surface-dressing to distinguish the
bus-only
sections of road from the others and had the words "BUS &
<cycle> ONLY across their start. Eastbound there was a lead-in
taper (as for a bus lane) while westbound (where Dale Avenue
makes this impracticable) there was a solid white line curving
from Dale Avenue to the traffic island. There were also
diversionary arrows which, if followed, took motorists to the
centre of the road. What there was not was advance signage on
posts, such as is mandated for bus lanes.
In 2018 the TMO for Camrose Avenue was amended to permit taxis.
The road was resurfaced without the red dressing and the words
which meaningfully indicated to motorists who was permitted were
replaced by the cryptic "BUS GATE". These were placed further
into the restricted area than the meaningful words had been.
Worse, the solid white line was removed westbound and the second
arrow eastbound was shortened and moved towards the kerb so that
it pointed into the restricted area rather than away from it.
Harrow Council were able to do this because they are the authors
of these restrictions and they are not following any guidance
from the Department for Transport as the latter does not
recognise that they exist. They are "roll-your-own".
It would be interesting to know whether the number of PCNs
issued on Camrose
Avenue jumped after the 2018 resurfacing and how those numbers
compare between eastbound (where the arrows direct motorists
into the "bus gate") and westbound (where they don't).
Legislative Framework for Bus-only Routes
In 2010 a working group appointed by the PATROL Adjudication
Joint Committee and the Bus Lane Adjudication Service Joint
Committee met to review the drafting of Bus Lane Traffic
Regulation Orders (TROs). Page 5 of its report
HTML https://www.patrol-uk.info/docs/Bus_Lane_Paper.pdf
states:
--- Quote ---
> Some existing TROs refer to “bus only streets” and “bus gates”
which don’t appear to be defined by legislation but are terms
used in the Traffic Signs Manual issued by the DfT. In the
Traffic Signs Manual, a “bus only street” is a one way or two
way road which is for use by buses (cycles and/or taxis) and a
“bus gate” is a short length of bus only street. The DfT’s
approach to signage appears to differ depending on whether there
is a bus lane, as defined in the TSRGD 2002, a “bus only street”
or a “bus gate”.
>
> If the terms “bus only streets” and “bus gates” are to be used
in a TRO, in order to ensure that they are enforceable, they
would need to be defined as bus lanes in accordance with the
Transport Act 2000.
--- End Quote ---
It's worth noting that The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order
2011
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/traffic_management_order_5/response/365762/attach/2/Traffic,<br
/>which superseded the original TMO for Camrose Avenue, had two
schedules. Schedule 1 was concerned with bus lanes while
Schedule 2 (which included Camrose Avenue) was concerned with
"bus-only routes". That appears to be Harrow's own variant of
the "bus only streets" which the PATROL/BLAS working group
advised needed to be defined as bus lanes to be enforceable.
Some adjudications of appeals from PCNs have asserted that "bus
gates" are short sections of bus lane. Would that they were, as
bus lanes have well-defined signage which provides vastly better
warning than the roll-your-own efforts of local authorities.
Conclusion
The roll-your-own nature of bus-only routes defined by TROs and
TMOs outside the legislative framework of bus lanes has allowed
local authorities to create sections of road with wholly
inadequate signage which locals know to avoid but which entrap
those from outside the local area. Many "bus gate" schemes serve
as a source of income for a council which bears on those who
cannot vote it out.
Local authorities should beware of the conclusions of the
working group of the PATROL/Bus Lane Adjudication Service:
--- Quote ---
> if “bus only streets” and “bus gates” are to be used in a TRO,
in order to ensure that they are enforceable, they would need to
be defined as bus lanes in accordance with the Transport Act
2000.
--- End Quote ---
PCNs in respect of "bus gates" should be appealed with reference
to the PATROL /BLAS report and the signage requirements of bus
lanes. The words "BUS GATE" are intrinsically meaningless and
not in the Highway Code. Motorists are expected to be alert to
road signs and to respond to them. They are not expected to be
mind-readers or capable of parsing words strung together in
apparently meaningless ways. Adjudicators need to be reminded
that, although they now know what "BUS GATE" means, to the
appellant the words might as well be "BUS FARM".
#Post#: 48500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 5, 2024, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
9.7.6.  The “BUS GATE” road marking to diagram
1048.5 (S9‑6‑15, see Figure 9-27) may
be used in conjunction with 953 series upright signs, and with
diagram 616 (no entry) when
accompanied by a plate that exempts buses, as shown in Figure
9-25 and Figure 9-26. The
regulations do not permit it to be used with diagram 617 or 619,
even if these signs have a bus
exemption.
9.7.7.  This replaces the previously prescribed
diagrams 1048.3 “BUS ONLY” and 1048.4 “BUS
AND (cycle symbol) ONLY”. Unlike the “BUS ONLY” marking, the
“BUS GATE” marking can be
used where the restricted access applies for only part of the
day or where the road may be used
by vehicles other than buses, cycles and taxis (e.g. solo motor
cycles or “except for access”).
It also takes up less space than the previous “BUS AND (cycle
symbol) ONLY” marking,
which might have been difficult to place in a very short bus
gate. The legend may be laid in a
single line or in two lines depending on the carriageway or lane
width available. Two sizes are
prescribed; the smaller size will be appropriate for most
situations. The larger size might be
used where greater emphasis is required
#Post#: 48503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: December 5, 2024, 1:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I see that Harrow Council may have been forced into
using the words "BUS GATE" even if they hadn't added taxis. But
that doesn't explain their placing the words further into the
restricted area than "BUS & (cycle symbol) ONLY" had been. Nor
does it explain the presence of the 953 sign so far into the
restricted zone. Or the second 1014 arrow eastbound pointing
into the restricted zone.
If the restricted zone is technically part of a bus lane, there
should also be a sign to diagram 959B placed as near as
practicable to the start of the lane, i.e. where the continuous
line to diagram 1049A begins (except it's absent in both
directions but had been present westbound until the
resurfacing).
I remain of the view that "BUS GATE" is no more meaningful than
"BUS FARM". If "BUS GATE" is mandated, it should be in the
Highway Code.
#Post#: 48505--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 5, 2024, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> Thank you. I see that Harrow Council may have been forced into
using the words "BUS GATE" even if they hadn't added taxis. But
that doesn't explain their placing the words further into the
restricted area than "BUS & (cycle symbol) ONLY" had been. Nor
does it explain the presence of the 953 sign so far into the
restricted zone. Or the second 1014 arrow eastbound pointing
into the restricted zone.
>
> If the restricted zone is technically part of a bus lane,
there should also be a sign to diagram 959B placed as near as
practicable to the start of the lane, i.e. where the continuous
line to diagram 1049A begins (except it's absent in both
directions but had been present westbound until the
resurfacing).
>
> I remain of the view that "BUS GATE" is no more meaningful
than "BUS FARM". If "BUS GATE" is mandated, it should be in the
Highway Code.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry as you are going off on a tangent. Please do not confuse
Bus Lane signs with Bus Gate signs. This is not a bus lane so
959B is irrelevant. Also, can we please have this discussion on
your thread as the OP's case will be heard shortly?
#Post#: 48532--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: December 5, 2024, 4:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The issue is that "bus gates" are not defined in legislation. It
is legislation which makes TROs and TMOs enforceable. That is
why Adjudicators have tended to construe "bus gates" as some
minimal form of bus lane and why the PATROL/BLAS report advised
local authorities to use bus lane legislation to ensure
enforceability.
Traffic authorities are trying to have their cake and eat it by
using the legislation relating to bus lanes to enforce TROs and
TMOs which purport to create "bus-only streets" and "bus-only
routes" without adhering to the signage rules for bus lanes.
Those signage rules are there for a purpose: they set the
standards which ensure that motorists are warned appropriately
of the restrictions ahead. Reducing the signage makes it more
likely that motorists, especially those from outside the area,
will unintentionally become subject to a PCN. It's a hassle to
challenge a PCN, so many pay up while they can claim the 50%
discount. And the local authority pockets the money.
#Post#: 48549--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: December 5, 2024, 7:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] as you say you are a newbie, and
you should not be posting advice if you are not qualified to
assist (which, with the best will in the world, you are not (or
at least not yet)).
From a quick skim of what you've written, a comprehensive answer
to everything you say is found in Oxfordshire County Council, R
(on the application of) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC
894 (Admin)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mNVj6Ot_5htvFuxDu6SpIz0vkqQTz9XQ/view<br
/>which you should read and take in.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm all for new people
coming along with arguments and ideas, but we all started with
no knowledge of the subject and getting to the position to
positively give advice to posters takes a few months at least,
and can take years.
As a general rule if an experienced representative has taken
over conduct of the case, you should leave it to them or at most
make a suggestion about something they might want to look into,
it is not a newbie's place to start questioning the approach
taken by people who have been in this line of business for many
years.
If you do want to enter into any sort of debate, that should be
done in the flame pit rather than on a live thread, hence why
your posts have ended up here.
#Post#: 48560--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: December 6, 2024, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I apologise if my desire to post material which related to
Camrose Avenue on a current Camrose Avenue thread did not
conform to the "house rules" of this site. Perhaps it's not a
site I should be posting to.
I thought that my discovery that The Harrow (Bus Priority)
Traffic Order 2011 had used "northern traffic island" where
"southern traffic island" was presumably intended (and vice
versa) might provide assistance to the OP.
I am aware of the the 2010 Oxford judgment and had considered
including a reference to it in a previous post (to make the
point that the entire width of a road can be a bus lane).
I know it doesn't relate to London, but the TMA 2004 statutory
guidance
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-lane-and-moving-traffic-enforcement-outside-london/traffic-management-act-2004-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities-outside-london-on-civil-enforcement-of-bus-lane-and-moving-traffic-contravention<br
/>says (my italics)
--- Quote ---
> Local authorities should aim to increase compliance with bus
lane and moving traffic regulations through clear, well
designed, legal, and enforced controls including clear traffic
signing which can readily be understood from a moving vehicle.
--- End Quote ---
I consider that the rules for the signage of bus lanes provide a
benchmark against which to assess whether "clear traffic signing
which can readily be understood from a moving vehicle" exists.
#Post#: 48589--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: December 6, 2024, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your OP might also wish to consider whether the absence of
warning signs of the use of cameras to enforce the "bus gate"
invalidates the PCN. See the contemporary image below of Bridge
Street, Cambridge.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 48614--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 6, 2024, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] Do you have a Harrow case at
present? BTW, luv the name!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page