URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 73707--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: May 29, 2025, 3:08 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       OP, see page 17:
  HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656ef4271104cf0013fa74ef/know-your-traffic-signs-dft.pdf
       'Know Your Traffic Signs' complements the Highway Code.
       A driver is presumed to know, and therefore would be treated in
       law as knowing i.e. not knowing is not a defence.
       There's no 'out' on this point, I'm afraid.
       #Post#: 73716--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
   DIR By: BertieBath
       Date: May 29, 2025, 4:07 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I draw attention to the fact that the signage is not merely
       cluttered — it is compromised by design. Having checked again on
       maps the 2t restriction sign is visually obstructed by the
       infrastructure installed to enforce it (the advisory sign -
       which is not visible from the roundabout with live traffic). The
       central sign is covered by gantry poles, vehicle height warning
       equipment, and other road furniture. Drivers in both approach
       lanes face an obscured or peripheral view of this critical
       restriction. Unlike the 2.0m height limit, which is duplicated
       clearly on both sides and above, the 2t restriction is not
       repeated or given equal prominence. If a restriction is not
       fully visible and legible from all approach positions, it cannot
       be said to be adequately conveyed under Regulation 18 of the
       LATOR 1996.
       #Post#: 73718--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: May 29, 2025, 4:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: BertieBath link ---
       >
       > I draw attention to the fact that the signage is not merely
       cluttered — it is compromised by design. Having checked again on
       maps the 2t restriction sign is visually obstructed by the
       infrastructure installed to enforce it (the advisory sign -
       which is not visible from the roundabout with live traffic). The
       central sign is covered by gantry poles, vehicle height warning
       equipment, and other road furniture. Drivers in both approach
       lanes face an obscured or peripheral view of this critical
       restriction. Unlike the 2.0m height limit, which is duplicated
       clearly on both sides and above, the 2t restriction is not
       repeated or given equal prominence. If a restriction is not
       fully visible and legible from all approach positions, it cannot
       be said to be adequately conveyed under Regulation 18 of the
       LATOR 1996.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       But are you going to take them to London Tribunals on this ?
       #Post#: 73721--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
   DIR By: BertieBath
       Date: May 29, 2025, 4:20 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I appreciate the chances are slim and adjudicators have always
       sided with TFL on this. 'Adequacy' is open to interpretation and
       TFL have no obligation to improve the current signage.
       I will first focus on the wording of PCN itself: I managed to be
       in touch with the great cp8759 and there are at least two
       avenues which are looking promising to get the PCN cancelled!
       #Post#: 73723--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: May 29, 2025, 4:22 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       ...but not by TfL!
       Have you requested the DVD because this is TfL's primary
       evidence and would carry most weight with adjudicators. The
       facts of your case, not hypothetical possibilities and aged GSV.
       #Post#: 73725--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
   DIR By: baroudeur
       Date: May 29, 2025, 4:42 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
       >
       > This is going off topic but it appears the goods vehicle
       weight limit relates to fire hazard.
       >
       >
  HTML https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0176-2021
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Thank you for the link. Every day's a learning day.
       So, although the weight limit is not an arbitrary figure, most
       small van drivers  have no idea of their vehicle's GVW .
       #Post#: 73842--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
   DIR By: BertieBath
       Date: May 29, 2025, 12:19 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
       >
       >
       > Have you requested the DVD because this is TfL's primary
       evidence and would carry most weight with adjudicators. The
       facts of your case, not hypothetical possibilities and aged GSV.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I haven't! I must admit I do not even know where to start :) I
       will have a look as to how request this. Can you clarify: by DVD
       you mean the footage (online) or the actual disc? And does that
       need to be requested to a specific department?
       #Post#: 94231--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
   DIR By: BertieBath
       Date: October 15, 2025, 12:25 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Good evening — just sharing some good news!
       TfL issued a Charge Certificate and increased the penalty
       earlier than legally permitted. I appealed, and the Enforcement
       Authority has informed the Tribunal it will not contest my
       appeal against the PCN.
       Huge thanks to everyone who offered advice, and especially to
       @cp8759 (Ivan Murray-Smith) for helping me demonstrate that this
       PCN was simply wrong. Much appreciated!
       #Post#: 94262--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
   DIR By: Innocentman
       Date: October 15, 2025, 8:20 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: baroudeur link ---
       >
       > Why impose a vehicle weight of 2 tonnes for commercial
       vehicles as there are many cars that have a GVW in excess of 2
       tonnes and are larger than small vans.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       That was my thought too.
       Some EVs are even too heavy to be driven on an ordinary licence.
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 3
   DIR Previous Page