DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79869--------------------------------------------------
Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: John_S
Date: July 7, 2025, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.imgur.com/1mcABVb.jpeg
I’m currently dealing with another live Rivercourt Road PCN
privately and it’s led me to look a little closer at the signage
around this location. It seems to me that the supplementary
plate beneath the main ‘no motor vehicles’ sign in Rivercourt
Road j/o A4 doesn’t comply with the TSRGD, never mind its
clarity and adequacy. That is:
a. the use of a comma after “buses” is not permitted;
b. the use of the “h&f” (traffic authority) tile does not amount
to a ‘permit identifier’ as defined in Reg 2, Sch 1. Therefore
it cannot be used on the plate; and
c. if the sign is deemed to be on a 40 mph road, then it
probably doesn’t comply with the illumination requirements.
Would the sign as a whole therefore pass as “substantially
compliant”? I wonder what [member=3617]Bustagate[/member] and
everyone else thinks?
#Post#: 79916--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 7, 2025, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the comma is an issue. I don't like the H&F logo
being used as a permit identifier but consider that it falls
within the class of trivial defects which do not mislead the
road user (see Neil Herron
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/905.html)
and so
does not invalidate the PCN.
Having said that, it's part of what I consider to be a
thoroughly disreputable scheme to balkanise the road system and
restrict roads not just to true locals (who are the only ones
who can get permits for visitors to the Rivercourt Road LTN) but
to anyone who lives in the local authority. Just consider the
effect of removing that H&F logo: people who live in H&F but
nowhere near Rivercourt Road would fear using the road because
they might receive a PCN. The H&F logo is a nod and a wink that
they'll be OK.
As it happens, I included the non-prescribed permit identifier
in a recent FoI to H&F about some much more serious
non-compliant signage, see:
- Directional form of "flying motorcycle" traffic sign
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/directional_form_of_flying_motor
- Advance notice traffic signs with a blue background
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/advance_notice_traffic_signs_wit
- No idling and other unofficial signs
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/no_idling_and_other_unofficial_s
For completeness, here are links to other FoIs to H&F about
Rivercourt Road (the first is not mine and has the TMO)
- Rivercourt Road W6 - dangerous sightlines
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_r_419<br
/>- includes TMO 2037
- Rivercourt Road Experimental TMO
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo#outgoing-1887964<br
/>- includes consolidated TMO and January 2025 plan of proposed
signage
- Change of Position of Give Way Road Markings from Great West
Road onto Rivercourt Road
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/change_of_position_of_give_way_r
- Road traffic collisions and offences on footage from CCTV on
Rivercourt Road
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/road_traffic_collisions_and_offe
- Internal correspondence about intended restrictions on exit
from Great West Road to Rivercourt Road
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/internal_correspondence_about_in
and to FoIs to TfL about Rivercourt Road:
- Junction of Great West Road with Rivercourt Road
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/junction_of_great_west_road_with
- Transfer of Land adjoining Great West Road to Hammersmith &
Fulham Council
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/transfer_of_land_adjoining_great
Apart from all the other defects with this scheme, one thing
which H&F haven't done has been to remove the now-superfluous
signs relating to the HGV restriction. By their location and
angle to the Great West Road (roughly perpendicular), these are
the first signs which motorists see. They command drivers'
attention when it should be on other signs, notably the flying
motorcycle. Yet the flying motorcycle means that HGVs must have
a permit to enter Rivercourt Road, so the HGV restriction is
redundant. While the Council might argue that it is required by
Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996, the fact that it has zero effect
means that no signs are required.
Section 9 of Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual is concerned
with Removing Signs. Paragraph 9.1.1. advises:
--- Quote ---
>
> Redundant signs and their supports should be removed when
installing new signs. Before new signs are installed designers
should undertake a review to determine whether any sign
information could be rationalised or removed to reduce sign
clutter.
--- End Quote ---
You are, of course, aware of adjudications in Merton about sign
clutter, of which 2240246685 on Cambridge Road is particularly
pithy:
--- Quote ---
>
> The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this
vehicle failed to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction.
>
> Upon the appellant raising the issue of signage in accordance
with his written submissions supported by the evidence he
provided.
>
> A multiplicity of signage is posted at this junction.
>
> It amounts to my mind to signage overload.
>
> I was satisfied for the reasons given by [Mr S] that the
council's regulatory signage was not compliant with the TSRGD
2016 it in any event being unclear the restriction being
difficult to assimilate given the plethora of information shown
on it.
>
> I was not satisfied against this background that this
contravention had been proved and I allowed the appeal.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: John_S
Date: July 9, 2025, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What a coincidence! On Monday afternoon I happened to be passing
Rivercourt Road. I took the photo below.
LBHF have installed 2 new ‘flying motorcycle’ signs and removed
the weight restriction sign. Also the 2 camera enforcement
advisory signs have been incorporated on the new NMV backing
board. These changes must have been made between 4pm on
24.06.2025 and 5pm on 07.07.2025. If anyone can narrow this down
further, it’d be very helpful. Both the VMSs remain in place on
the A4.
Note the supplementary plate layout is now standardised. The h&f
tile is still non-compliant IMO. This sign layout is use
throughout the borough, so it would take a brave adjudicator to
condemn these.
I wonder if PCNs issued under this new setup are going to be
allowed to progress to adjudication? 3-4 cars per minute were
turning into Rivercourt Road whilst I was there.
If I get time next week I’ll take a closer look at the proposal
advance direction sign drawings - specifically x-heights.
Btw, I’m following the FOIA requests by
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] with interest.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/oZ8s1q8.jpeg
#Post#: 80245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 9, 2025, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How interesting! That's a definite improvement. I presume they
still haven't installed the advance notice signs on A4 which
they proposed in their January 2025 drawings:
[attachimg=1]
This is a Schedule 12 advance direction sign which incorporates
Schedule 12 Part 20 Item 23 (aka No Motor Vehicles). Schedule 12
Part 20 makes explicit provision with Item 22 (aka No Vehicles)
for plates such as "Play Street". Otherwise, the permitted
plates are Items 44 and 45. Item 44 is the distance to where the
embedded sign applies. Item 45 is "Except buses", which can be
varied to "Except buses taxis and permit holders".
H&F may have thought that this meant that the sign would be
valid (if TfL allowed them to install it). But the description
of the Item is
--- Quote ---
>
> Optional symbol representing a supplementary plate for use
with circular symbols from this table (except items 23, 37 and
38)
>
--- End Quote ---
In other words, it cannot be used with the No Motor Vehicles
sign. I surmise that this is because DfT consider that you
should be using whichever blue roundel is appropriate, e.g.
diagram 953. This means that, even if H&F apply for special
permission, they'll be turned down.
I still think that the sign which they should be putting on the
A4 is No Left Turn (diagram 613) with the plate "Except buses
taxis cycles and authorised vehicles. In support of that I'd
refer to the judgment in James v Cavey
--- Quote ---
>
> The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal
should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take
such steps as they were required to take under that regulation
[equivalent to Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996]. They did not take
steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly
would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be
given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.
>
--- End Quote ---
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80522--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 10, 2025, 2:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1715]John_S[/member] has pointed out to me privately
that Regulation 12 of The Traffic Signs (Amendment) (England and
Wales) Regulations and General Directions 2017
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1086/regulation/12/made<br
/>amended (corrected a mistake in) Schedule 12 of TSRGD 2016 to
substitute “(except items 22, 25, 27 and 35)” for “(except items
23, 37 and 38)”.
This means that an "Except buses taxis cycles and permit
holders" plate can be used beneath an embedded "flying
motorcycle" on an advance notice sign. The h&f logo is not in
the required format for a permit identifier and so is
non-prescribed.
There remains the question of just what the effect is of TMO
2037, for which the proposed sign is intended to provide advance
notice.
After corresponding with H&F and studying the geometry in
detail, my current view is that motor vehicles other than buses,
taxis and H&F permit holders may be banned from crossing the
boundary between TfL's Great West Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road
in a northbound direction but there is no restriction on their
crossing it in a southbound direction, nor, so far as I am
aware, has TfL imposed a one-way south-to-north restriction on
the exit slip road south of the boundary (i.e. where it crosses
the combined cycleway/footway and the grass verge).
TfL are unlikely to be content with vehicles using Rivercourt
Road southbound as a cut-through from King Street to Great West
Road. They can use s.121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/121B
to
force H&F to return Rivercourt Road to one-way northbound.
I'll explain in a separate post just how I've come to my
conclusions about the TMO, but for now, here's an annotated plan
which shows what I think is going on:
[attachimg=1][attach=1]
My correspondence with H&F, which informs this plan, is at
Rivercourt Road Experimental TMO
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80523--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 10, 2025, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John_S link ---
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/oZ8s1q8.jpeg
>
--- End Quote ---
I realise this isn't the main purpose of the thread but as it's
the Flame Pit... The amount of signage in such a small area
there is ridiculous. Aside from the difficulty one might
experience trying to read it all from a moving vehicle, it just
makes the street look unsightly.
#Post#: 80529--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: John_S
Date: July 10, 2025, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The amount of signage in such a small area there is
ridiculous.
--- End Quote ---
The problem is, most traffic authorities do things the wrong way
around. Instead of the legal department sending a TMO to the
technical department for signage, the technical department
should be consulted first and the road layout design agreed.
Then the TMO should be written around what is actually possible
to achieve at a given location.
At this junction we seem to have 3 TMOs starting or terminating
together: CPZ, red route, and LTN. Not to mention one-way road
and weight restriction.
#Post#: 81324--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 16, 2025, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To answer [member=1715]John_S[/member]'s question in Reply #2,
the new signage went up during June; see this response to FoI
17688117
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/traffic_regulation_traffic_manag_2/response/3083787/attach/5/Response%20all%20information%20to%20be%20supplied.pdf:
--- Quote ---
>
> An additional 'Motor Vehicle Prohibition' sign was installed
of the western arm of the junction in June 2025.
>
--- End Quote ---
The question posed was precise and yielded precise answers:
--- Quote ---
>
> Q: Please also provide a plan of the siting of any traffic
signs that have been erected to ensure that motorists are aware
of the effects of the Order. Please identify which signs have
been erected to warn motorists BEFORE they enter the junction of
any restrictions, and also indicate which signs have been
erected and which motorists will see AFTER they enter the
junction.
>
> A: Please see the attached Traffic Management Order, drawing
and image of Rivercourt Road junction layout.
>
> Two digital variable message signs were installed on the A4
330 yards and 70 yards west of the Rivercourt Road junction to
provide advanced warning of the traffic access restriction on
Rivercourt Road.
>
> After entering the junction, a 'Motor Vehicle Prohibition'
sign (diagram 52M) is located on the eastern arm of the
junction. An additional 'Motor Vehicle Prohibition' sign was
installed of the western arm of the junction in June 2025.
>
--- End Quote ---
H&F therefore acknowledge that:
- the advance signage consists of the variable message signs
- the upright signs at the restriction are only seen after
entering the junction
As the presence of the diagram 1040.3 road markings on the exit
slip road make it an offence to cross the continuous white line
at the outside of the marking, once your vehicle has crossed
where the edge-of-carriageway markings used to be, there is no
way out: either you commit an offence by crossing the diagram
1040.3, or you incur a PCN.
The variable message signs are hopeless at providing
information:
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
and the 6-month period for which they are permitted to remain on
the public highway ended on 20th May 2025.
A further image shows the effect of foliage on the visibility of
signage at the junction until you get there:
[attachimg=3]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: John_S
Date: July 19, 2025, 4:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.imgur.com/A9qtCOx.jpeg
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] : This sign appeared on the A4
some time between 8.50pm on 07.07.2025 and 9.20pm on 14.07.2025.
It is positioned on the north verge facing west, about 25m east
of Standish Road. It is about 290m west (before) the j/o
Rivercourt Road.
I could write paragraphs about this, but to keep it simple:
- The x-height measures 65mm.
- The LBHF drawings show a required x-height of 200mm.
- I have calculated the required x-height as 202mm (Traffic
Signs Manual Chapter 7 (2018), Appendix D) using an 85th
percentile approach speed of 40 mph.
- The sign does not appear to comply with the illumination
requirements (TSRGD reg. 8), ie it does not appear to have a
retroreflective surface (subject to further investigation).
- The supplementary plate (symbol) is non-compliant for the
reasons previously mentioned.
Put simply, the sign is inadequate because it cannot be read by
drivers approaching at 40 mph - it’s too small. Drivers in lane
3 would need to be travelling at about 8 mph to read and
assimilate this sign.
#Post#: 81685--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 19, 2025, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm gob-smacked. It's a portable sign. I expected them to erect
a post.
In response to another FoI, H&F supplied the following details
of the signs they proposed to replace the variable message
signs:
[attachimg=1]
The sign which you have photographed is meant to be 1778mm wide
and 2488mm high with an X-height of 200mm. That's 6' wide x 8'
high. It's nothing like that.
The absence of any distance to the junction renders it of very
little use. In my view, they're barking up the wrong tree with a
diagram 619. That forces the ridiculously large Except plate.
They should be using a diagram 953. Then they could put the
distance to the junction beneath it.
I expect they don't like diagram 953 because the plate they
would have to use is "and authorised vehicles", which doesn't
give them the opportunity to add their nod-and-wink to H&F
residents that they're OK.
As for the previous junction with a No Entry sign, if that's
Weltje road, they could just have the side bar for the road
which is joining running at 45° upwards. That would remove the
need for the No Entry sign and make it clear that the distance
specified was that to the junction with the diagram 953.
In any case, for a Schedule 12 sign, any exceptions are details
which are usually omitted. It's only when you get to the
junction that the final sign tells you about exceptions. That
final sign should be a diagram 613 (No Left Turn). H&F won't
like the list of exceptions for this, as it is "Except buses
cycles taxis and authorised vehicles". No nods and winks to H&F
residents.
I had thought that they might be able to claim that, as the
restriction isn't actually at the junction, they can't put a
diagram 613 there. But given H&F's placement of diagram 1040.3
road markings from the edge of the carriageway of the A4, it's
impossible to rejoin the A4 once you've started to turn left.
That means they cannot sustain an argument that diagram 613 is
inappropriate.
Failure to place such a sign puts H&F in breach of Winn LJ's
judgment in the appeal by case stated from James v Cavey [1967]
2 QB 676
--- Quote ---
>
> The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal
should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take
such steps as they were required to take under that regulation
[the equivalent of regulation 18 of LATOR 1996]. They did not
take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly
would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be
given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.
>
--- End Quote ---
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page