DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63862--------------------------------------------------
Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds
Bush Rd Southbound Offside
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: March 23, 2025, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've looked again at the Google Street View images. It appears
to me that H&F may actually have followed the DfT-approved plan
originally but that by March 2008 they had erased the "KEEP
CLEAR" road markings and the 1:5 lead-in taper and painted a
1:10 lead-in taper with a red surface-dressing in its place.
Those are interesting moves as the authorisation for the offside
bus lane was based on the original plans. I'd have said that H&F
voided the authorisation by changing the road markings.
Without the special authorisation, TSRGD 2002 General Direction
18(3) directs that:
- diagram 1048 (the "BUS LANE" road marking) requires diagram
1049 and either diagram 959 or 960
- diagram 1049 (the thick white line) requires diagram 1048 and
either diagram 959 or 960 (there's another option with "BUS &
<cycle> ONLY" road markings but that's irrelevant)
Absent the scheme for which H&F received special authorisation,
neither the "BUS LANE" road marking nor the solid white line of
the offside bus lane complied with TSRGD, so they were unlawful.
#Post#: 63914--------------------------------------------------
Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds
Bush Rd Southbound Offside
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 24, 2025, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I know all this and so do the Adjudicators. I have had story in
the Standard. If you want to achieve something, I would suggest
writing to the DFT and suggest they rescind the authorisation
and explain why it departs from TSM Chapter 3.
#Post#: 63923--------------------------------------------------
Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds
Bush Rd Southbound Offside
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: March 24, 2025, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DfT seem remarkably timid. They REALLY don't want to get
involved with telling highway authorities what to do. Better to
stay silent and let others fight it out in other forums. So I
wouldn't look to them to do anything which they aren't obliged
by law to do.
I consider that this creates an opportunity. While DfT hasn't
told H&F off for departing from the scheme for which DfT
provided special authorisation, neither has it granted H&F
special authorisation for what H&F now has on the highway.
I expect DfT would actually be quite happy if H&F reinstated the
scheme as authorised by DfT. Although I was surprised when I
first saw it, I've come to appreciate its merits. I now think it
may have been a very clever move (but more likely fortuitous)
that the approved signage doesn't include a diagram 959. That
stymies H&F's ability to change the road markings and say that
they comply with TSRGD.
So the argument is that
- by March 2008 H&F had departed from the scheme for which it
obtained special authorisation. That scheme represented DfT's
view as to what constituted adequate signage at this site
- when it erased the KEEP CLEAR road markings and the 1:5 lead
in taper, H&F voided the authorisation it received to place all
the agreed signage for the offside bus lane
- having voided its special authorisation, H&F had to ensure
that all signs complied with TSRGD 2002
- General Direction 18(3) of TSRGD 2002 requires diagram 959 or
960 for the "BUS LANE" road marking and the thick white line
- no diagram 959 or 960 is present at the relevant location
- it follows that the only potentially lawful signage for the
offside bus lane is the diagram 958 and the lead-in taper to
diagram 1010
- that signage is not adequate for an offside bus lane
#Post#: 63924--------------------------------------------------
Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds
Bush Rd Southbound Offside
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 24, 2025, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are 959B signs but added as warning signs. The placing of
the reversed 958 sign is within the limits to do so.
#Post#: 63978--------------------------------------------------
Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - camera enforcement - Shepherds
Bush Rd Southbound Offside
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: March 24, 2025, 3:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you mean by "959B signs but added as warning
signs". Are you referring, by any chance, to blue plates with
white writing on them at the centre of which is something which
looks like a diagram 959B adapted for an offside bus lane? I can
see from Google Street View that one of these appeared outside
Hammersmith Library between August 2021 and June 2022.
That sign is not in accordance with TSRGD 2016. Chapter 1 of the
Traffic Signs Manual says:
--- Quote ---
> 2.2.6. The legal aspects of signing are sometimes
misunderstood by practitioners, particularly the prohibition on
an authority unilaterally inventing its own non-standard signs.
These aspects are covered in the following sections, as is the
need for authorisation or a special direction when
non-prescribed signs are required, or a prescribed sign is to be
used in a way not permitted by the Directions.
>
> 3.3.1. The use of non-prescribed signs on public highways
without authorisation by the national authority might be deemed
unlawful, with authorities using them acting beyond their
powers. The erec-tion of an unauthorised sign in the highway is
an obstruction and the possible consequences of erecting or
permitting the erec-tion of obstructions can be severe. Those
responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages,
for example if an obstruction is the cause of an accident or an
injury in a collision, or if it adversely affects a property
adjacent to the road by blocking light or impairing visual
amenity. Furthermore, the use of unlawful traffic signs might
compromise enforcement of statutory provisions and be
detrimental to road safety.
>
--- End Quote ---
Schedule 12 of TSRGD 2016 greatly expanded the freedom for
highway engineers to create signs which provide advance notice
of restrictions. In particular these can show what is happening
to individual lanes (so-called "lane gain" signs. I don't see
any need for H&F to invent their own signs when
- DfT have already given special permission for the 2006 scheme
- Schedule 12 provides great flexibility to create advance signs
If H&F point to their "warning" 959B signs, I'd point to Chapter
1 of the Traffic Signs Manual. If they want chapter and verse,
the definition of "traffic signs" and the authority to prescribe
signs and authorise the placing of non-prescribed signs derives
from Section 64(1) of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The
obligation on road users to comply with traffic signs comes from
section 36 of Road Traffic Act 1988, which refers to Section
64(1) of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
It's all been tied up neatly by the Parliamentary draftsmen. H&F
haven't got a leg to stand on. By attempting to justify their
signage using their "warning" 959B's they draw attention to
their ultra vires activities.
Once you've gone ultra vires, you're liable to find that
everything which you've done based on those activities is also
found ultra vires. With any luck they'll be obliged to refund
everyone to whom they've issued PCNs for the offside bus lane
since the "warning 959B's" went up. With a good barrister their
erasure of the "KEEP CLEAR" and the 1:5 taper might also be
found ultra vires. If so, it's refunds, compensation and
statutory interest back to before March 2008.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page