DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69758--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 2, 2025, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The material below has been drafted as a submission to an appeal
against a PCN on Camrose Avenue. I should welcome comments and
suggestions for improvement and also views as to how
Adjudicators are likely to respond.
Validity of Blue Roundel Signs on Camrose Avenue
The blue roundel signs are to diagram 953, TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3
Part 2
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/part/2/made<br
/>Item 33. These are subject to Schedule 3 General Direction 1
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/part/5/paragraph/1/made:
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
Attached is an annotated aerial view of the site,
CamroseAerialRinged.jpg. It will help if you have this open in
another window as you proceed.
Original TMO for Camrose Avenue
The restrictions on Camrose Avenue were set out coherently in
The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 (the
italics are mine, as they are in all the quotes except the
Beatson judgment at the end):
--- Quote ---
> 3. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in the
carriageway on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost
island site or in the carriageway on the north-west side of the
south-westernmost island site.
>
> 4. No person shall cause any vehicle the overall width of
which together with the load (if any) carried thereon exceeds 6
feet 6 inches to enter the carriageway on the north-west side of
the north-easternmost island site or the carriageway on the
south-east side of the south-westernmost island site.
>
> 5. Nothing in Article 3 of this order shall apply
> (a) in relation to a stage carriage or an express carriage on
a scheduled service; or
> (b) in relation to a vehicle being used for police, fire
brigade or ambulance purposes; or
> (c) to anything done with the permission or at the direction
of a police constable in uniform.
>
--- End Quote ---
This refers to two island sites: north-easternmost and
south-westernmost. As a glance at the aerial view of the site
shows, these are accurate geographic descriptions of the traffic
islands. I have ringed them in yellow and red respectively. They
divide the flow of westbound and eastbound traffic respectively.
For brevity, I shall refer to them as the westbound island and
the eastbound island.
This traffic order defines the restricted parts of the
carriageway as:
3. bus-restriction:
south-eastern side of the westbound island
north-west side of the eastbound island
4. width-restriction:
north-west side of the westbound island
south-east side of the eastbound island
It does not specify the direction of travel through any of the
restrictions, nor does it mention the snake-like kerbed
structure which separates eastbound from westbound traffic. It
is a model of accuracy and concision.
Consolidation of TMOs
In 1999 Harrow consolidated traffic orders relating to width
restrictions, bus lanes and other bus restrictions into two
orders:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
Since 1999 there have been various amendments to each of these
TMOs, with periodic repeals and replacements. These have not
affected the definitions of the restricted areas of carriageway
but they have changed the classes of vehicle permitted through
the bus restrictions. The current TMOs are
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016
Copies of these TMOs are attached along with The Harrow (Bus
Priority) Traffic Order 1999.
Consolidated Width-restriction TMOs
At other sites in Harrow, e.g. Charlton Road, width restrictions
apply to some parts of the carriageway with other parts defined
as "Prohibited lengths", where almost all vehicles are banned. A
uniform structure has been used for the consolidated width
restriction TMOs, so, although Camrose Avenue's bus restrictions
are specified in the bus-priority TMOs, the width-restriction
TMOs also define "Prohibited lengths" on Camrose Avenue.
As with the 1976 TMO, the consolidated width-restriction TMOs
define the width restrictions by reference to "the north-eastern
island" and "the south-western island". Rather than defining the
width-restricted areas by a compass-reference to the islands,
the consolidated width-restriction TMOs place the width
restrictions between an island and "the central median strip".
The consolidated TMOs specify the direction of travel, which
(depending on your point of view) either provides an aid to
interpretation or creates an opportunity for mistakes through
overspecification.
Curiously, while the consolidated width-restriction traffic
orders had used the ordinal points of the compass (north-eastern
and south-western) to define the traffic islands on Camrose
Avenue, they used the cardinal points (eastern and western) for
the "Prohibited lengths". These were defined as lying between an
island and the northern or southern kerb-line.
These changes were done correctly and are consistent with the
stated direction of travel, so the "Prohibited lengths" are
defined as intended, between the traffic islands and the
nearside kerbs.
Restrictions applying to Prohibited Lengths
The "Prohibited lengths" are subject to these rules:
--- Quote ---
> 2. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in a
[Prohibited length] of carriageway
> . . .
> 4. Nothing in Articles 2 and 3 of this Order shall apply to :-
> (a) any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or
police purposes;
> (b) anything done with the permission or at the direction of a
police constable in uniform;
> (c) any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance
with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs
placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984;
> (d) any vehicle specified in column 6 of the Schedule to this
Order;
> (e) to any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the
maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough
of Harrow. [LBH2012/30]
--- End Quote ---
Note in particular 4(c): this clause allows the
width-restriction TMO to coexist with the bus-priority TMO.
Section 66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows
highway authorities to place signs which show the effect of
TMOs. So if a sign (such as blue roundel) has been placed on a
"Prohibited length" which allows certain classes of vehicle to
pass, the width-restriction TMO also allows them to pass.
Regardless of any such sign, clauses 4(a) and 4(b) make the
standard provisions for the emergency services and where
directed by a police constable in uniform. There are no vehicle
classes specified in column 6 of the Schedule so 4(d) is a
nullity. Clause 4(e) is not a standard clause (except within
Harrow) and would be given effect by adding the plate "and
authorised vehicles" to the blue roundel.
Consolidated Bus-priority TMOs
There are two schedules to the consolidated bus-priority TMOs:
- Schedule 1: Bus Lanes
- Schedule 2: Bus-only routes
From 1999 to 2016, Camrose Avenue has been Item 1 in Schedule 2.
The specification of the areas of road has remained unchanged,
as have the Times of operation and Direction of travel. Only the
Type of vehicle permitted has changed: in 1999 it was "a bus, a
school bus, a works bus, a pedal cycle"; now it is "bus, taxi,
pedal cycle".
The definitions of the areas of road are:
--- Quote ---
> Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern
traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale
Avenue;
> Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern
traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale
Avenue.
--- End Quote ---
The compass points for the traffic islands are:
- Westbound: southern
- Eastbound: northern
For reference, the consolidated width-restriction TMO correctly
used the following compass points for the traffic islands:
- Westbound: north-eastern (width restriction); eastern
(prohibited length)
- Eastbound: south-western (width restriction); western
(prohibited length)
As a glance at the aerial view will show, the southern traffic
island is used by eastbound traffic and the northern traffic
island by westbound traffic.
The dangers of over-specification are evident. For the moment,
let's ignore the stated direction of travel and see what areas
of road are defined. The areas are:
- "south of the southern traffic island": this is south of the
eastbound-traffic island, i.e. the eastbound width restriction
- "north of the northern traffic island": this is north of the
westbound-traffic island, i.e. the westbound width restriction
It appears that the consolidated bus-priority TMOs are simply
wrong. Whoever drew up the TMO in 1999 (Brian Durke, on the
evidence of the meta-data) made a mistake, a mistake which was
not made at exactly the same time by those drawing up the
consolidated width-restriction TMO.
Harrow's Rescue Attempt
The definition of the bus-priority areas came up in the hearing
of appeal 2250053451 on 28 April 2025. Mr Adekusibe of Harrow
sought to explain the definitions by saying that "southern
traffic island" and "northern traffic island" needed to be
understood by reference to their appearance to motorists
approaching them in the specified direction. Thus to westbound
motorists, the "southern traffic island" was the traffic island
nearest to the westbound nearside kerb, while to eastbound
motorists the "northern traffic island" was the traffic island
nearest to the eastbound nearside kerb.
There are some obvious problems with this:
- it is based on the perception when approaching the
restrictions that there are two traffic islands ahead.
Certainly, there are two kerbed structures with bollards and
signs on posts. But if there really were two traffic islands in
each direction, there would be four traffic islands in total.
There are not. There are three kerbed structures: two traffic
islands and the snake-like structure which is formally known
(and referred to as such in the width-restriction TMO) as the
central median strip.
- the other uses of compass points in the bus-priority TMO make
sense with their normal meaning
- the uses of compass points in the width-restriction TMO
written at the same time (1999) make sense with their normal
meaning
- TMOs are formal legal documents written using a formal
register. They define things precisely and use the correct legal
terms. This is shown in the use by the contemporaneous
width-restriction TMO of the term "central median strip".
It seems possible that officers in Harrow, puzzled by the
definitions of the areas of Camrose Avenue defined as
bus-priority, have constructed the interpretation advanced by Mr
Adekusibe to reassure themselves that the TMO is valid. Those
definitions have been used for so long (since 1999) and nobody
has ever challenged them, so they must be right. The evidence
suggests otherwise. The law works from the TMO forwards to the
signage, not back from the signage to the TMO.
Consequences
The areas of Camrose Avenue on which the bus-priority TMO
imposes restrictions are those which are subject to the width
restriction. This makes no sense as buses are physically
incapable of using them. The definitions are a mistake. Those
parts of the bus-priority TMO are void.
While this means that the bus-priority clauses do not apply to
the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island
and the nearside kerb, those areas of road are correctly
identified as "Prohibited lengths" in the width-restriction TMO.
They are subject to the restrictions which are defined there.
Apart from the emergency services and as directed by a police
constable in uniform (which are general exceptions to traffic
signs), the permitted users of those areas of carriageway are:
--- Quote ---
> any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the
maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough
of Harrow
--- End Quote ---
It follows that the correct sign in each direction on the
footway and the traffic island is not diagram 953 but diagram
616 (No Entry) with the plate "except authorised vehicles". This
plate would, however, require special permission from DfT.
The sign to diagram 953 has been placed contrary to TSRGD 2016
Schedule 3 General Direction 1 and so is void.
Inadequate Signage
The PCN alleged
--- Quote ---
> driving through a restricted route, which is allocated for the
use of certain vehicles only.
--- End Quote ---
The above analysis has shown that the area of road was indeed a
restricted route, but not in the way that Harrow alleged. There
was zero signage of the restriction which actually applied.
Shaun Duffy won his appeal against a PCN which Oxfordshire
County Council issued to him for going through a bus-only
section of Oxford High Street. The Council took it to the Chief
Adjudicator for review and, when this didn’t overturn the
Adjudicator’s findings, to Judicial Review, R (Oxfordshire
County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/894.html
[2010]
EWHC 894 (Admin).
As the product of the High Court, the resulting judgment sets
binding precedent for Adjudicators on points of law. In
paragraph 65 Mr Justice Beatson (as he then was) found:
--- Quote ---
> 65. The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are
prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for
securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is
made available to road users is clearly correct. 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 and, as Jackson J stated in R (Barnet LBC) v
Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) at [41], if the
statutory conditions are not met the financial liability does
not arise.
--- End Quote ---
As there was no signage of the true restriction, no offence was
committed.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69765--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: brazilianx
Date: May 2, 2025, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I ran this through ChatGPT's new O3 reasoning model and attach
the output - looks like it has made some good suggestions, but
I'll let you be the judge of that.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69782--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 2, 2025, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I wanted to see how well this line of argument worked
and posted it for review once I had developed it from start to
finish. It does need a synopsis, but that is best left for
another day when I can reread it with a fresh eye.
My greatest concern is how well the argument stands up to
Harrow's response that the words "southern traffic island"
relate to how the "traffic islands" appear to someone
approaching the restrictions in the specified direction. That's
why I have gone back to the 1976 TMO and then examined what
happened in 1999 with the consolidation of the TMOs and their
splitting into the bus-priority and the width-restriction ones
and how they've just been carried forward from then.
I think that that context - and comparing the details of the
width-restriction definition of areas of road for Camrose Avenue
with those for the bus-priority restriction - helps to dispel
Harrow's argument. Set against that, I fear that no adjudicator
will want to make a finding which says that all the PCNs issued
over 20 years have lacked a solid foundation.
A technical comment: trying to write something as a blog post
limits what you can include: no in-line images or tables. On the
other hand, not having those luxuries is a discipline.
#Post#: 69873--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 3, 2025, 11:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> A technical comment: trying to write something as a blog post
limits what you can include: no in-line images or tables. On the
other hand, not having those luxuries is a discipline.
>
--- End Quote ---
You can add inline comments
[indent]
by using the indent tags:
[/indent]
Same goes for images:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/b5BfdfO.png
#Post#: 69886--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 3, 2025, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. Those don't appear on the toolbar which I see. Are there
others?
#Post#: 69887--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 3, 2025, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's a draft of the Synopsis. I'm reckoning to have each
section as a separate post.
1. Synopsis
The contravention which has been alleged is
--- Quote ---
> 33E – USING A ROUTE RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN VEHICLES BUSES
CYCLES AND TAXIS ONLY
> In (place) CAMROSE AVENUE On (date) At (time)
--- End Quote ---
In its Case Summary, the Council states that the restricted
route is a section of Camrose Avenue in Edgware where only
buses, taxis, pedal cycles, and emergency vehicles on duty are
allowed to drive through.
Attached to the Case Summary are copies of
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. 2) Traffic Order 2018
By implication, these are the traffic orders which Harrow
asserts apply to the area of road where I was.
In section 2, I examine the traffic orders which apply on
Camrose Avenue. As well as the bus-priority TMO, there is a
width-restriction TMO,
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
I show that the width-restriction TMO applies not only to the
width-restricted areas of road but also to the areas of road in
each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb
(the “Prohibited lengths”). The width-restriction TMO applies
its own restrictions to these areas of road and, through clever
drafting, also allows vehicles to use these areas of road if
they are permitted to do so by any other TMO.
I then examine the history of the TMOs on Camrose Avenue,
starting with the 1976 one. I show what happened in 1999 when
Harrow consolidated its moving-vehicle TMOs into:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
I show that the provisions of the 1976 TMO were translated
correctly to the width-restriction TMO but not to the
bus-priority TMO. It applied the bus-priority restrictions to
the areas of road which were subject to the width restrictions.
The provisions in each TMO for Camrose Avenue have been repeated
each time a TMO has been repealed and replaced, so the mistake
made in 1999 remains today.
The consequence is that the areas of road in each direction
between the traffic island and the nearside kerb are subject
only to the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO
as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”. These exclude all
vehicles except the emergency services and vehicles on Harrow
Council business.
It follows that the contravention which the Council has alleged
did not occur.
In section 3, I show that significant elements of the signage on
Camrose Avenue have not been placed in accordance with The
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD
2016). The consequence is that Harrow has placed those signs
ultra vires and, by the principles of administrative law, they
are void.
In section 4, I review the statutory duties imposed on highway
authorities with regard to traffic signs. I then consider the
lawful signage in advance of, and at the restrictions. While
Harrow makes much of the advance notice of the width
restrictions, there is no advance notice of the bus restriction.
But the legislation under which Harrow places the advance notice
of the width restriction relates to providing notice of the
effect of a TMO. The width-restriction TMO applies both the bus
restriction and the width restriction, so Harrow’s signs
actually do only half the job. I show that TSRGD 2016 supports
signs which show both the bus restriction and the width
restriction, thereby enabling the true effect of the
width-restriction TMO to be seen.
The Traffic Signs Manual has a similar status to The Highway
Code. It is the official DfT document which provides guidance to
highway engineers on how to use traffic signs. In Section 5, I
draw comparisons between Camrose Avenue and figures in the
Traffic Signs Manual which show what DfT considers to be
appropriate signage. I note that the blue roundel signs are
smaller than DfT recommends, despite their being the first
indication of the bus restriction and that motorists need to
move out to the width restriction if they are to avoid a PCN.
I conclude by exploring the legal precedents relating to the
adequacy of signage. These show that,
--- Quote ---
> If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no
offence is committed
--- End Quote ---
I contend that Harrow has not provided adequate information and
so, even if my argument is not accepted about the area of road
which is the subject of the bus-priority TMO, no contravention
occurred.
#Post#: 69889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 3, 2025, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> Thanks. Those don't appear on the toolbar which I see. Are
there others?
>
--- End Quote ---
The indent one doesn't appear, but the image one does:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/d2FrXA9.png
#Post#: 69904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 3, 2025, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
2. Traffic Orders on Camrose Avenue
2.1 Introduction
Attached is an annotated aerial view of the site,
CamroseAerialRinged.jpg. It will help if you have this open in
another window as you read this section.
There are two traffic orders in force on Camrose Avenue:
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016 as amended
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
I show that the width-restriction TMO applies not only to the
width-restricted areas of road but also to the areas of road in
each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb
(the “Prohibited lengths”). The width-restriction TMO applies
its own restrictions to these areas of road and, through clever
drafting, also allows vehicles to use these areas of road if
they are permitted to do so by any other TMO.
I then examine the history of the TMOs on Camrose Avenue,
starting with the 1976 one. I show what happened in 1999 when
Harrow consolidated its moving-vehicle TMOs into:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
I show that the provisions of the 1976 TMO were translated
correctly to the width-restriction TMO but not to the
bus-priority TMO. It applied the bus-priority restrictions to
the areas of road which were subject to the width restrictions.
The provisions in each TMO for Camrose Avenue have been repeated
each time a TMO has been repealed and replaced, so the mistake
made in 1999 remains today.
The consequence is that the areas of road in each direction
between the traffic island and the nearside kerb are subject
only to the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO
as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”. These exclude all
vehicles except the emergency services and vehicles on Harrow
Council business.
It follows that the contravention which the Council has alleged
did not occur.
2.2 The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 2007
The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order
2007 specifies all the width restrictions on roads in Harrow. At
most sites there aren’t also bus restrictions, so the
width-restriction TMO defines what happens to the parts of the
carriageway which aren’t subject to a width restriction. These
are defined as "Prohibited lengths". For most width
restrictions, all vehicles are banned from them (hence
“Prohibited lengths”).
A uniform structure has been used for the width restriction TMO,
so, although Camrose Avenue's bus restrictions are specified in
the bus-priority TMOs, the width-restriction TMO also defines
"Prohibited lengths" on Camrose Avenue. These are the sections
of carriageway in each direction between the traffic island and
the nearside kerb.
The "Prohibited lengths" are subject to these rules:
--- Quote ---
>
> 2. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in a
[Prohibited length] of carriageway
> . . .
> 4. Nothing in Articles 2 and 3 of this Order shall apply to :-
> (a) any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or
police purposes;
> (b) anything done with the permission or at the direction of a
police constable in uniform;
> (c) any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance
with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs
placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984;
> (d) any vehicle specified in column 6 of the Schedule to this
Order;
> (e) to any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the
maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough
of Harrow. [LBH 2012/30]
> Note in particular 4(c): this clause allows the
width-restriction TMO to coexist with the bus-priority TMO.
Section 66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows
highway authorities to place signs which show the effect of
TMOs. So if a sign (such as a blue roundel) has been placed on a
"Prohibited length" which allows certain classes of vehicle to
pass, the width-restriction TMO also allows them to pass.
>
--- End Quote ---
Clause 4(e) means that vehicles being used to provide Harrow
Council services can use the “Prohibited lengths”. This means
that where a bus-priority TMO overlaps with the
width-restriction TMO, vehicles providing Council services can
use the area of road in addition to those permitted by the
bus-priority TMO.
2.3 Original TMO for Camrose Avenue
The restrictions on Camrose Avenue were set out coherently in
The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 (the
italics have been added, as they are in all the quotes in
section 2):
--- Quote ---
>
> 3. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in the
carriageway on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost
island site or in the carriageway on the north-west side of the
south-westernmost island site.
>
> 4. No person shall cause any vehicle the overall width of
which together with the load (if any) carried thereon exceeds 6
feet 6 inches to enter the carriageway on the north-west side of
the north-easternmost island site or the carriageway on the
south-east side of the south-westernmost island site.
>
> 5. Nothing in Article 3 of this order shall apply
> (a) in relation to a stage carriage or an express carriage on
a scheduled service; or
> (b) in relation to a vehicle being used for police, fire
brigade or ambulance purposes; or
> (c) to anything done with the permission or at the direction
of a police constable in uniform.
>
--- End Quote ---
This refers to two island sites: north-easternmost and
south-westernmost. As a glance at the aerial view of the site
shows, these are accurate geographic descriptions of the traffic
islands. I have ringed them in yellow and red respectively. They
divide the flow of westbound and eastbound traffic respectively.
For brevity, I shall refer to them as the westbound island and
the eastbound island.
This traffic order defines the restricted parts of the
carriageway as:
3. bus-restriction:
[indent]south-eastern side of the westbound island [/indent]
[indent]north-west side of the eastbound island [/indent]
4. width-restriction:
[indent]north-west side of the westbound island [/indent]
[indent]south-east side of the eastbound island[/indent]
It does not specify the direction of travel through any of the
restrictions, nor does it mention the snake-like kerbed
structure which separates eastbound from westbound traffic. It
is a model of accuracy and concision.
2.4 Consolidation of TMOs
In 1999 Harrow consolidated traffic orders relating to width
restrictions, bus lanes and other bus restrictions into two
orders:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
Since 1999 there have been various amendments to each of these
TMOs, with periodic repeals and replacements. These have not
affected the definitions of the restricted areas of carriageway
but they have changed the classes of vehicle permitted through
the bus restrictions. The current TMOs are
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016
Copies of these TMOs are attached along with The Harrow (Bus
Priority) Traffic Order 1999.
2.5 Consolidated Width-restriction TMO 1999
As with the 1976 TMO, the consolidated width-restriction TMO
defined the width restrictions by reference to "the
north-eastern island" and "the south-western island". Rather
than defining the width-restricted areas by a compass-reference
to the islands, the TMO placed the width restrictions between an
island and "the central median strip". Whereas the 1976 TMO had
not specified the direction of travel, the consolidated
width-restriction TMO did. Depending on your point of view,
this either provided an aid to interpretation or created an
opportunity for mistakes through overspecification.
Curiously, while the TMO used the ordinal points of the compass
(north-eastern and south-western) to define the traffic islands
on Camrose Avenue, they used the cardinal points (eastern and
western) for the "Prohibited lengths". These were defined as
lying between an island and the northern or southern kerb-line.
These changes were done correctly and are consistent with the
stated direction of travel, so the "Prohibited lengths" are
defined as intended, between the traffic islands and the
nearside kerbs.
2.6 Consolidated Bus-priority TMO 1999
There were two schedules to the consolidated bus-priority TMO:
- Schedule 1: Bus Lanes
- Schedule 2: Bus-only routes
Camrose Avenue was Item 1 in Schedule 2.
The definitions of the areas of road were:
--- Quote ---
>
> Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern
traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale
Avenue;
> Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern
traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale
Avenue.
>
--- End Quote ---
The compass points for the traffic islands were:
- Westbound: southern
- Eastbound: northern
For reference, the consolidated width-restriction TMO correctly
used the following compass points for the traffic islands:
- Westbound: north-eastern (width restriction); eastern
(prohibited length)
- Eastbound: south-western (width restriction); western
(prohibited length)
As a glance at the aerial view will show, the southern traffic
island is used by eastbound traffic and the northern traffic
island by westbound traffic.
The dangers of over-specification are evident. For the moment,
let's ignore the stated direction of travel and see what areas
of road are defined. The areas are:
- "south of the southern traffic island": this is south of the
eastbound-traffic island, i.e. the eastbound width restriction
- "north of the northern traffic island": this is north of the
westbound-traffic island, i.e. the westbound width restriction
It appears that the consolidated bus-priority TMO was simply
wrong. Whoever drew up the TMO in 1999 (Brian Durke, on the
evidence of the meta-data) made a mistake, a mistake which was
not made at exactly the same time by those drawing up the
consolidated width-restriction TMO.
2.7 Lack of Rigorous Checking in the Bus-priority TMO
The width-restriction TMO shows evidence of a high standard of
work. Particularly notable is the way that the it was structured
so that vehicles could use its “Prohibited lengths” if they are
permitted to do so by a sign placed in accordance with another
TMO.
The bus-priority TMO did not reach these heights. On the page
defining bus-only routes, the following area of road is defined
on Headstone Lane (the indenting has been added to aid
comprehension:)
the carriageway which lies between
[indent]the island site situated between
[indent]a point 1.90 metres north of the extended northern
kerb-line of Melbourne Avenue and
a point 17.3 metres north of that point.[/indent][/indent]
While the second “between” is followed by two objects separated
by an “and”, the first is followed by a single object. It makes
no sense.
By the 2016 TMO, the numbers have changed and “north” has become
“north-east”, but the structure remains unchanged.
In 2021 the TMO was amended to change the definition of the
bus-priority area of Christchurch Avenue. It became (with added
indentation)
--- Quote ---
>
> Christchurch Avenue
> [indent]from its junction with Masons Avenue
> [indent]and a point opposite
> [indent]the north-eastern most point of
> [indent]the island site between
> [indent]No. 13 Byron Road and
> No. 139A Masons
Avenue;[/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
There is an island site between No. 13 Byron Road and No. 139A
Masons Avenue and it does have a north-easternmost point, so
this definition amounts to
--- Quote ---
>
> Christchurch Avenue
> [indent]from its junction with Masons Avenue
> [indent]and a point opposite
> [indent][a well-defined point on an island
site][/indent][/indent][/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
This evidence suggests that mistakes can be made in the
bus-priority TMOs and persist from one TMO to the next.
2.8 Harrow's Explanation
The definition of the bus-priority areas came up in the hearing
of appeal 2250053451 on 28 April 2025. Mr Adekusibe of Harrow
sought to explain the definitions by saying that "southern
traffic island" and "northern traffic island" needed to be
understood by reference to their appearance to motorists
approaching them in the specified direction. Thus to westbound
motorists, the "southern traffic island" was the traffic island
nearest to the westbound nearside kerb, while to eastbound
motorists the "northern traffic island" was the traffic island
nearest to the eastbound nearside kerb.
There are some obvious problems with this:
- it is based on the perception when approaching the
restrictions that there are two traffic islands ahead.
Certainly, there are two kerbed structures with bollards and
signs on posts. But if there really were two traffic islands in
each direction, there would be four traffic islands in total.
There are not. There are three kerbed structures: two traffic
islands and the snake-like structure which is formally known
(and referred to as such in the width-restriction TMO) as the
central median strip.
- the other uses of compass points in the bus-priority TMO make
sense with their normal meaning
- the uses of compass points in the width-restriction TMO
written at the same time (1999) make sense with their normal
meaning
- TMOs are formal legal documents written using a formal
register. They define things precisely and use the correct legal
terms. This is shown in the use by the contemporaneous
width-restriction TMO of the term "central median strip". If the
words “northern“ and “southern” were being used with meanings
other than the natural ones, this would be stated explicitly.
It seems possible that officers in Harrow, puzzled by the
definitions of the areas of Camrose Avenue defined as
bus-priority, have constructed the interpretation advanced by Mr
Adekusibe to reassure themselves that the TMO is valid. Those
definitions have been used for so long (since 1999) and nobody
has ever challenged them successfully, so they must be right.
The evidence suggests otherwise. The law works from the TMO
forwards to the signage, not back from the signage to the TMO.
2.9 Consequences
The areas of Camrose Avenue on which the bus-priority TMO
imposes restrictions are those which are subject to the width
restriction; they apply in the opposite direction of travel to
that in the width-restriction TMO. This makes no sense both
because of the direction of travel and because most buses are
physically incapable of passing through the width restriction.
We need not concern ourselves with whether the parts of the
bus-restriction TMO which apply to Camrose Avenue are void. Our
concern is with the restrictions which do apply between the
traffic islands and the nearside kerbs. They are the
restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO as applying
to the “Prohibited lengths”.
Apart from the emergency services and as directed by a police
constable in uniform (which are general exceptions to traffic
signs), the permitted users of the areas of carriageway between
the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs are:
--- Quote ---
>
> any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the
maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough
of Harrow
>
--- End Quote ---
It follows that the correct sign in each direction on the
footway and the traffic island is not diagram 953 but diagram
616 (No Entry) with the plate "except authorised vehicles". This
plate would, however, require special permission from DfT.
The sign to diagram 953 has been placed contrary to TSRGD 2016
Schedule 3 General Direction 1 and so is void.
#Post#: 69924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 4, 2025, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A decision re illumination.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-code-33e-route-restricted-for-busescyclestaxis-camrose-avenue-(again!)/msg21581/#msg21581
#Post#: 69929--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 4, 2025, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What are you trying to say? Harrow's illumination of the signs
is poor: the street lights are behind the signs and the local
illumination sits above the signs rather than pointing towards
them. For the blue roundels this enables them to be seen as blue
circles, but the effect on the width-restriction signs is to
make them look like lights.
The loss of the diagram 515 chevrons from the post-and-rail
barrier means that eastbound motorists are blinded by the dipped
headlights of westbound motorists passing through the width
restriction. This light is also reflected from the road surface
(which did not have its surface-dressing replaced after
resurfacing in 2021/22). As a result, the road markings are much
less visible at night than they are by day (this is a general
observation: beware of believing Google Street View images).
Harrow should be challenged to produce evidence of the
appearance of the signage from the location where the motorist
needs to make the decision to move out (I'd like to hear where
they say that point is). The images should show comparable
conditions, i.e. day or night, wet or dry road and with or
without vehicles passing through the restrictions in the
opposite direction. The height of the camera should be no more
than 1.5m above the road so as to correspond to the driver's
viewpoint.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page