DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80174--------------------------------------------------
Adequate Signage for TMOs: classic precedents
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 8, 2025, 3:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've been taking a look at some classic cases which are used as
precedents for adjudications of PCNs involving traffic orders. I
started with the most venerable, Macleod v Hamilton 1965 STR 305
HTML https://parkingnewsarchive.blogspot.com/2006/10/macleod-v-hamiliton.html.<br
/>This is the one which found that there is no contravention of
a
traffic order unless adequate notice has been given of its
effect.
I was surprised to find it stated explicitly that:
- contravening a traffic order requires either mens rea or some
element of negligence;
- the signage as to the effects of the traffic order must be
adequate to inform visitors or long-distance travellers, i.e.
not just locals who know what it all means;
It also confirmed that:
- the traffic signs used must be authorised by the Secretary of
State (i.e. either in TSRGD or specially authorised),
although this has been relaxed slightly by the subsequent move
towards a more purposive approach to statutory interpretation
and, in particular, by Soneji (of which more in a later post).
I'd be interested in the views of others, in particular about
mens rea and Lord Justice-General Clyde's remarks about the
adequacy of the signage for visitors and long-distance
travellers (aka Sassenachs). These aspects of the judgment
appear to have been lost with the passage of time.
Macleod v Hamilton
Circumstances
Edinburgh Corporation had made a traffic order which prohibited
waiting in various streets, including High Riggs. It had erected
signs there which declared "controlled zone" together with loose
pieces of hardboard bearing the words "No Waiting Except As
Authorised by Tollcross Area Traffic Control Order". Mary
Hamilton parked her car on High Riggs for twenty minutes within
the period covered by the traffic order. She was charged in the
Sheriff Court with contravening the order. She pleaded not
guilty.
Trial
The Sheriff-substitute found her not guilty, writing:
--- Quote ---
>
> It was argued for the [prosecution]... that, since the offence
consisted in a contravention of an order ... the question
whether a sign conformed to a particular design or even whether
a sign had been erected, was immaterial. This argument, if
pressed to its logical conclusion, and the [prosecutor] did not
shrink from so contending, would mean that even if there were no
signs at all in the Tollcross area, nonetheless, any motorist
who allowed his car to wait there (unless he could bring himself
within one of the excepted categories) could be successfully
prosecuted for a contravention of the order although he was
totally unaware of the existence of the order... In short, the
question comes to be whether mens rea is essential to a
contravention of the present order.
>
> ... in my opinion, [regulation 15(c) of the Procedure
Regulations, equivalent to regulation 18 of LATOR 1996] simply
means what it says, namely, that adequate information is to be
given to persons using the road and that is to be done by the
erectiоn of signs. This is quite the opposite to an
absolute obligation and I think the Crown has failed to show
that the words used in the regulation ... impose such an
obligation.
>
--- End Quote ---
Appeal by Case Stated
The procurator-fiscal, Angus Macleod, appealed to the High Court
of Justiciary by case stated, i.e. on a point of law. He
conceded that the signs did not comply with the Procedure
Regulations but contended that the offence was one of strict
liability and that mens rea was not necessary.
Sitting as an appeal court under Lord Clyde (the head of the
justiciary in Scotland) with Lords Carmont and Migdale, the High
Court of Justiciary found that the Sheriff-substitute was
entitled to find Mary Hamilton not guilty.
Lord Clyde (with whom Lord Carmont agreed) wrote:
--- Quote ---
>
> ... I quite recognise that when Parliament creates a new
offence by statute it may so frame the duty on the members of
the public that an offence can be committed even though there is
no negligence on the part of that member of the public, no mens
rea and no knowledge even of the existence of the new statutory
duty. But that is not a situation which is lightly to be
presumed and the burden would be on the Crown to satisfy the
Court that the duty created by the statute is of this absolute
character ... it seems quite clear that in this case Parliament
never intended to impose any absolute obligation at all.
>
> It was an integral part of the statutory scheme for a traffic
regulation order that notice by means of traffic signs should be
given to the public using the roads which were restricted so as
to warn users of their obligations. Unless these traffic signs
were there accordingly and the opportunity was thus afforded to
the public to know what they could not legally do, no offence
would be committed. It would, indeed, be anomalous and absurd
were the position otherwise. Apart altogether from persons
familiar with the restrictions, visitors or long-distance
travellers could not reasonably be expected to know of the
existence of the restrictions in any particular street and it is
only natural therefore that Parliament required adequate notice
of the restriction on the site before an offence against these
traffic regulations could be charged and a penalty exacted.
>
> The next question therefore is whether in this case the notice
required by Regulation 15 (c) was given. ... it is clear that
the signs erected at High Riggs did not conform to the
requirements of a traffic sign as defined in section 51 and the
regulations made by the Secretary of State under that section.
There is no provision in the Act or in the regulations for a
different kind of traffic sign not authorised by the minister.
>
--- End Quote ---
Lord Migdale wrote:
--- Quote ---
>
> Two things are clear (first) the signs erected do not conform
to the pattern and colour laid down by Statutory Instrument 13
of 1957 and (second) the signs erected are ambiguous.
>
> If the appellant is right neither of these things matter. His
argument is that the Tollcross Area Traffic Order is by itself
effective to impose an absolute prohibition against waiting in
High Riggs. ... The test to be applied is an objective one and
the fact that the respondent claimed she had no mens rea was
irrelevant. This contention was rejected by the
sheriff-substitute and, in my view, he was right to do so.
Ignorance that a statutory regulation has been breached is no
defence if the obligation is an absolute one ...
>
> The subject matter of this order is the regulation of traffic
in the Tollcross area of the city. This requires that traffic
shall proceed in one direction along another street. Certain
turns are prohibited in some streets and waiting is banned in
yet another group of streets. If the appellant is right this
well regulated flow of traffic is to be achieved by nothing more
than signing an order in the City Chambers. Common sense, if
nothing more, requires that there should be adequate and
intelligible notices at the important points on the streets
concerned so that those who do not read the Scotsman or
subscribe to the Edinburgh Gazette may know what to do when they
get to Tollcross. The fact that notices of a kind were in fact
put up suggests that this aspect of the problem was not
overlooked....
>
> In my opinion the erectiоn of traffic signs at the locus
is properly required by the regulations as part of the procedure
to make known the effect of the order. ... If I am right it
means that the order is not effective unless and until the
council complies with Regulation 15 (c) and erects road signs at
the locus. Signs were erected but they were not the proper ones
nor were they clear.
>
> Even if I am wrong ... and ... the Corporation is entitled to
design signs to its own pattern, I do not regard the one shown
... as giving adequate information to persons using the High
Riggs. If it had said "No waiting" or "No waiting in this
Street" it might have had that effect but all it says is that
the driver is entering a "controlled zone" and can only wait if
authorised to do so by the order. How is he to know if his
"wait" is "prohibited" or "authorised"?
>
> At any rate it is clear that the notice does not impose on the
driver an absolute obligation not to wait in High Riggs.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80179--------------------------------------------------
Re: Adequate Signage for TMOs: classic precedents
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: July 8, 2025, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
None of that seems anomalous to me. All the case is saying is
that breach of the TRO by itself is not enough, because statute
requires adequate notice to be given. In that sense it is not an
absolute offence. I’m not sure that what was said about mens rea
was part of the ratio of the case; it certainly wasn’t treated
as such in James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676.
#Post#: 80213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Adequate Signage for TMOs: classic precedents
DIR By: John_S
Date: July 9, 2025, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] I guess what you’re really
saying is that adjudicators today don’t always follow past
precedents consistently. I think most would agree with this. In
my experience, wining a complex case at adjudication comes down
to one thing: presentation.
--- Quote ---
> I'd be interested in the views of others... about... Lord
Justice-General Clyde's remarks about the adequacy of the
signage for visitors and long-distance travellers
--- End Quote ---
Where any sign shows a street name in a sentence (eg “No access
to Bell Street except buses”) it is almost certainly
non-compliant and in my view inadequate because it doesn’t cater
for those who are unfamiliar with Bell Street.
The thing that seems to have changed in the last 15 years or so,
is the test of ‘substantial’ compliance which is subjective -
hence presentation is key.
#Post#: 80214--------------------------------------------------
Re: Adequate Signage for TMOs: classic precedents
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 9, 2025, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What I considered significant about this judgment was that mens
rea is discussed. Too many PCNs relate to schemes where the
traffic authority has placed the bare minimum of regulatory
signs where those signs must be placed - at the start of the
regulated section of road - without also placing signs giving
advance notice of it.
Consider Camrose Avenue, Harrow (it's why I'm writing this post
now). It is, in essence, a very short nearside with-flow bus
lane as a bypass to a width restriction. It was created in 1974,
before TSRGD 1975, the first TSRGD to include signs for bus
lanes.
Rather than seeking special permission from the Ministry, Harrow
decided to use signs for which no permission was required. This
meant a No Entry sign with an "Except buses" plate across the
bus lane. As that wouldn't stop HGVs which reached the width
restriction and had nowhere else to go, Harrow planned to
install rising barriers across the bus lanes which only the
buses would be able to raise (hence the term "bus gate").
The rising barriers were never used (it's not clear whether they
were installed). The scheme was ineffective for 30 years: Harrow
didn't even bother to ban HGVs from Camrose Avenue (they still
haven't). Locals complained. When civil enforcement of moving
traffic offences was introduced, TfL invited councils to propose
bus gates where TfL would pay for the installation of CCTV so
that the council could start issuing PCNs.
Camrose Avenue became one of the first bus gates at which PCNs
were issued. TfL paid for new signage, but the advance signage
was limited to that for the width restriction (despite the fact
that Harrow wrote the width-restriction TMO so that it would
apply the bus-only restriction to the bus lane). This is the
view during the day at the first point at which any signage for
the bus restriction becomes visible:
[attachimg=1]
Note the absence of edge-of-carriageway road markings to
separate the bus-lane bypass from the main route of the road.
Note also the absence of diagram 877 to indicate that the inside
lane is about to become a bus lane. All that Harrow provide in
advance are curved arrows (diagram 1014) which TSRGD defines as
warnings of future road markings (e.g. the onset of solid double
white lines, the lead-in taper to a bus lane), none of which is
present. Those curved arrows have not been placed in accordance
with TSRGD and Harrow has not obtained a special direction from
DfT authorising their placement. They have been placed
unlawfully.
Now suppose that you have the misfortune to be following a bus
on the approach to the restrictions. There are no upright
traffic signs or road markings that there is a bus restriction
ahead. If you had been following a bus which was approaching the
start of a bus lane, there would have been a diagram 958 and
then the tell-tale thick dashed white line as a taper across the
lane. That tells you that the bus is going somewhere where you
can't. Instead there's the (unlawfully-placed) curved arrow.
There isn't even a diagram 877.
This is why I was pleased to read the judgment in Macleod v
Hamilton and am seeking to draw attention to it. People who know
Camrose Avenue know what's up ahead and move out to the width
restriction in advance. Those who don't, get caught. Harrow
argue before adjudicators that they have provided advance
signage: look how many people follow the signs successfully.
They tend to be locals and those visitors and long-distance
travellers who are fortunate enough to be following drivers who
know how to negotiate the restrictions.
Too many local authorities adopt inadequate and tricksy signage
of traffic orders which locals learn to navigate but which catch
out visitors and long-distance travellers. Much signage which is
borderline acceptable by day is inadequate at night. Even where
signage appears adequate, other events on the road may command a
driver's attention when the sign is visible, or the sightline
may be blocked by other vehicles.
Many of those receiving PCNs have no mens rea and have been
attentive. They have not been negligent. Macleod v Hamilton may
help them challenge the scourge of predatory local authorities
using PCNs as a tax on visitors and long-distance travellers.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80236--------------------------------------------------
Re: Adequate Signage for TMOs: classic precedents
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: July 9, 2025, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don’t forget that Macleod was a criminal case. The concept of
mens rea doesn’t tend to feature in civil law.
#Post#: 80267--------------------------------------------------
Re: Adequate Signage for TMOs: classic precedents
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 9, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Cases about the Validity of Individual Traffic Signs
There have been a number of cases in which the validity of
individual traffic signs (either upright signs or road markings)
have been challenged. These include:
- Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145
- Sharples v Blackmore [1973] RTR 249
- Cotterill v Chapman [1984] RTR 73
- Cannadine et al v DPP
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/383.html
[2007]
EWHC 383 (Admin)
Over the period of these cases, there has been a move away from
a strict approach to statutory interpretation towards a
purposive approach. This has been spurred on by ]R v Soneji
HTML http://[
HTML https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/49.html
[2005]
UKHL 49[
HTML https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/49.html
]. The
issue here was whether the Court of Appeal had been correct to
quash two confiscation orders because there had been a failure
to comply with a six-month time limit specified in legislation.
Adopting a purposive approach, Lord Steyn (with whom the other
law lords concurred) found:
--- Quote ---
>
> 23. … the rigid mandatory and directory distinction, and its
many artificial refinements, have outlived their usefulness.
Instead, as held in Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1999)
[2001] 2 AC 91 the emphasis ought to be on the consequences of
non-compliance, and posing the question whether Parliament can
fairly be taken to have intended total invalidity. That is how I
would approach what is ultimately a question of statutory
construction. In my view it follows that the approach of the
Court of Appeal was incorrect.
>
--- End Quote ---
Davies v Heatley
Davies was convicted of crossing a continuous white line (part
of solid double white lines) on a bend. He appealed successfully
on the grounds that the white lines did not comply with the
specification in TSRGD. The non-compliance is often reported as
the presence between the continuous lines of the vestiges of an
earlier intermittent white line. While these vestiges were
indeed present, the judgment, by Lord Parker CJ (with Melford
Stevenson and Cooke JJ) makes it clear that the defect was more
substantial:
--- Quote ---
>
> A photograph is attached to the case which shows quite clearly
that between the double white lines there is an old intermittent
line, in other words it seems pretty certain that at one time on
this bend there was the ordinary intermittent white line, but a
time came when, as it were, superimposed on that and on either
side of it were put these double white lines.
>
> The justices expressed their view, a view with which I have
every sympathy, and one which could be said to be a common sense
view, as follows: 'We were of opinion that the defendant was
left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign in question; and
that though the sign did not strictly comply with the
Regulations insofar as there was an intermittent white line
placed between two continuous white lines, the sign, which was
situated on an "S" bend, was clearly visible and recognisable
and, therefore, binding on the defendant'.
>
> I have come to the conclusion, though with some reluctance,
that the justices were wrong. The legislation in question makes
it abundantly clear that there must be strict conformity with
the traffic signs which are prescribed.
>
--- End Quote ---
The regulations (TSRGD 1964) specified that the gap between the
white lines was to be between 4" and 7". You could (and still
can) have double white lines with greater distance between them,
but the space between needs to contain diagonal white lines. The
judge describes the continuous lines as being "on either side"
of the old intermittent line, which suggests that the correct
variant of double white lines for this spacing would have had
diagonal lines between them.
It's also worth remarking that, according to a police constable
following Mr Davies in a Panda car, in front of Mr Davies were
"two heavily laden motor lorries travelling at a very slow
speed". Since 1994 there has been an exception to the rule about
crossing double white lines: this is permitted if whatever is in
front is travelling at no more than 10 mph and it is safe to
pass. A blind eye must have been turned to many transgressions
before 1994, especially where a vehicle had stopped, as was
permitted in various circumstances.
Cannadine et al v DPP (includes Sharples v Blackmore and
Cotterill v Chapman)
Cannadine was about 20 mph speed limit signs on Tower Bridge.
These were unusual in being internally-illuminated: the sign was
translucent with a light source behind and a housing around the
edge of the sign which created a very narrow black border around
the red ring. The judge found:
--- Quote ---
>
> I therefore accept the submission on the part of the
respondent that the housing used in these signs is not an
integral part of the sign and is independent of the sign itself.
The two are, to my mind, entirely distinct. I consider that the
signs on Tower Bridge do comply with the relevant regulations.
>
> However, I should also consider the position, if the
appellants were correct in their submission that the road signs
did not comply with the requirements of the regulations. Here I
bear in mind the decision of this court in Davies v Heatley
[1971] RTR 145, that there must be strict and complete
compliance with the regulations governing the form of road
signs. However, this does not mean that any deviation from the
requirements of the regulations will lead inevitably to the
conclusion that the signs were not prescribed signs and give
rise to no legally enforceable restrictions.
>
> A number of decisions of this court, while acknowledging the
general rule stated in Davies v Heatley, have applied a de
minimis exception to the rule. In Sharples v Blackmore [1973]
RTR 249 this court held that the fact that the back of a road
sign had been painted the wrong colour did not make a restricted
road into a destricted road. May J, as then was, when delivering
the first judgment observed that he did not intend, in any way,
to detract from the authorities which lay down that where signs
are erected and are in place on a road giving guidance or giving
directions to drivers, they must in the respects in which they
give that guidance, or give those directions, comply strictly
with the requirements of the regulations. However, he considered
the non-compliance of the rear of the sign to be wholly
immaterial.
>
> Similarly, in Cotterill v Chapman [1984] RTR 73, a decision
which Mr Sharpe has very properly drawn to our attention, this
Court concluded that a miniscule deviation of some 3
millimetres, in a line painted on the road did comply with the
requirements. The departure from the standards set down in the
regulations were so minor, that this court concluded that it
should be disregarded by the application of the de minimis
principle.
>
> In the present case there was no question of any road user
being misled or misinformed. The district judge has found that
except on very close examination the casing around the sign is
effectively invisible. In the light of that finding I consider
that even if, contrary to my conclusion, the sign is to be
regarded as not complying with the regulations, the deviation is
so minor that on the authority of Sharp v Blackmoor and
Cotterill v Chapman it should be disregarded.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80275--------------------------------------------------
Re: Adequate Signage for TMOs: classic precedents
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 9, 2025, 11:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oxford Bus Gate Case
R (Oxfordshire C.C.) v. Bus Lane Adjudicator
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/894.html
[2010]
EWHC 894 (Admin) is one of the few cases involving signs for
moving traffic which reached the High Court. It concerned the
High Street in Oxford, which the Council wished to restrict as a
through route during the day (7.30 a.m - 6.30 p.m.) to buses,
taxis and cycles. Those restrictions remain in place today, and
the signage is now uncontroversial.
Moving Traffic Offences (Criminal) v Bus Lane Offences (Civil)
At the time, moving traffic offences outside London could only
be the subject of criminal proceedings. Elsewhere, civil
enforcement, i.e. the issue of PCNs and the collection of
penalty charges, applied only to bus lanes and parking. That
meant that if the sections of road to which the restrictions
applied were bus lanes, the civil proceedings for contravening
the bus lane were lawful; otherwise they were not.
Complicating this was that these were not conventional
"with-flow" bus lanes, i.e. the ones at the edge of the
carriageway with a thick white line at the outer edge to
separate the bus lane from other traffic going in the same
direction. Instead, the section of carriageway next to the kerb
in each direction was a cycle lane. Working towards the centre
of the road, next came a long traffic island, then a lane for
motor vehicles and then a central long traffic island. Given the
traffic islands between the lanes, there were no lane markings:
[attachimg=1]
A traffic order specified that between 7.30 a.m. and 6.30 p.m.
the only motor vehicles which could use the lanes either side of
the central traffic island were local buses and taxis. Local
buses did indeed use these lanes but they were not designated as
bus lanes under the relevant legislation and did not use the
traffic signs which are mandatory for bus lanes.
At the restrictions, the Council had hoped to use "blue roundel"
signs (diagram 953) which show a bus, a cycle and the word
"taxi". These were widely used at such restrictions, which are
known as "bus gates" (because early ones used rising barriers).
However, the Department for Transport was adamant that the blue
roundel sign could only be used where the restriction applied 24
hours a day. While the Department would provide special
authorisation for some relaxations of the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions (then TSRGD 2002), it refused
to do so in this instance.
Instead it told the Council that it should use the No Motor
Vehicles sign (diagram 619 aka the "flying motorcycle") with an
Except plate to permit buses and taxis. Its reasoning was that
this sign (especially when it appears as part of the Pedestrian
Zone sign) is often used part-time with the hours of operation
specified on the sign. The Council acquiesced, but the result
was inelegant and gave succour to those arguing that
contraventions of the signs were moving traffic offences rather
than bus lane offences.
Advance Notice of the Restrictions
Another issue before the court was the adequacy of the advance
notice of the restrictions. It didn't help that the Council
chose mostly to use text signs, e.g. "Entry to High Street
restricted 130 yards ahead" rather than the more-easily
assimilated "flying motorcycle" sign with the plate "130 yards"
beneath it. There were then, and are today, "No Through Road"
signs at the last junction before the restrictions with the
plates "Except authorised vehicles" and "7.30 a.m - 6.30 p.m.".
However, this isn't much consolation when you have driven half a
mile and reach unexpected signs barring your way.
One feature of the Oxford scheme was (and is) that, 20 yards
before the restriction, there is a final warning sign with the
opportunity and encouragement to do a U-turn and avoid the
traffic cameras, whose presence is advertised (see image above).
This scheme was (and is) very different to those schemes in
which motorists find themselves unexpectedly facing a sign which
bars them but where there is no escape: they must continue or
risk an accident. Also, the speed limit in Oxford is 20 mph for
the half mile to the restriction.
Judgment
The key paragraph in the judgment was paragraph 65:
--- Quote ---
>
> 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. This, however, is not a decision like Case RG2541
Wright v Reading BC, a decision of the Parking Adjudicator
involving ambiguous signs. The ambiguity in that case concerned
the period of time during which the prohibition operated i.e.
ambiguity as to its extent. Subject to one qualification, in
this case the 'confusion' and the 'inadequacy' found relates to
the precise judicial basis of the prohibition and not to its
existence or extent.
>
--- End Quote ---
One other aspect of Beatson J's judgment in this case was the
care which he took to review the advance signage (he recorded
signs placed 450, 180 and 20 yards before the designated section
when approaching from the west) and that the signage could be
seen. Paragraph 69 begins:
--- Quote ---
>
> In such circumstances, where the signs have not been placed in
positions where they cannot be seen or easily seen, are not
obscured by vegetation or other street furniture, and are
clearly visible and comply with Departmental Guidance, there
must be strong reasons given for concluding that they do not
provide adequate information. None were given in this case. Nor
indeed are the two documents containing the Department's
Guidance referred to in the relevant part of the decision.
>
--- End Quote ---
Although more obiter than precedent as to how to evaluate the
adequacy of signage, this judgment does exert strong influence
on lesser tribunals.
Changes since 2010
Local authorities in London had been able to use civil
enforcement for moving traffic offences from 2006. Other local
authorities in England obtained this power from 2022. In 2022
the Department for Transport published statutory guidance on
civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions
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
/>This advised authorities outside London what they needed to do
to obtain civil enforcement powers and how they should use them.
Oxford now has these powers.
TSRGD 2002 and DfT policy prevented Oxford from using the blue
roundel sign (diagram 953) because the restrictions were
part-time. That changed with TSRGD 2016, which provided much
greater freedom in how signs could be used. Oxford now uses blue
roundels both at the restrictions and for advance notices:
[attachimg=2]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80288--------------------------------------------------
Re: Adequate Signage for TMOs: classic precedents
DIR By: roythebus
Date: July 9, 2025, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There's a very prominent width restriction sign at the junction
with the A5 Edgware Road and Camrose Avenue.
gopher.createaforum.com:70 /forums/ftla/p/7183:598: line too long