URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 92314--------------------------------------------------
       South Fulham's "Flying Motorcycle" Advance Warning Sig
       ns with Blue Backgrounds
       By: Bustagate Date: October 1, 2025, 6:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Across the South Fulham Clean Air Neighbourhood, signs have
       appeared with the "flying motorcycle" on a blue background with
       either an arrow pointing to left or right or a distance ahead.
       These are placed in advance of actual "flying motorcycle" signs
       (diagram 619). They have proliferated recently, presumably as
       Hammersmith & Fulham have lost appeals against PCNs for going
       through "flying motorcycle" signs on the grounds that there is
       inadequate advance notice.
       It appeared to me that these advance signs were not in
       accordance with TSRGD 2016 and were therefore unlawful. They are
       based on diagram 818.4 (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 12 Part 28
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/part/28/made<br
       />Item 22) but with an embedded "flying motorcycle" roundel (in
       this context TSRGD 2016 Schedule 12 Part 20
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/part/20/made<br
       />Item 23). That, however, is not one of the permitted roundels
       for diagram 818.4; they are items 24 (HGV weight limit), 25
       (structural weight limit), 27 (dangerous goods prohibited), 33
       (maximum length), 34 (maximum width), and 35 (maximum height) of
       TSRGD 2016 Schedule 12 Part 20
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/part/20/made.<br
       />The only way to get the "flying motorcycle" roundel on a blue
       background advance sign is if the blue background is for a
       motorway, which H&F's roads aren't and for which "no motor
       vehicles" signs make no sense.
       I made an FoI request to H&F
  HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/directional_form_of_flying_motor,<br
       />pointing out their error and asking for a list of locations
       where such signs had been placed. Their initial response
  HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/directional_form_of_flying_motor/response/3103681/attach/2/Response%20all%20information%20to%20be%20supplied.pdf<br
       />was to say that the signs were fine. I asked for an internal
       review. They have now admitted their mistake:
       [quote]
       [list]
       [li]We had interpreted the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) guidance
       as allowing the use of the roundel in diagram 818.4.[/li]
       [li]Upon review, we agree that the guidance should be read and
       interpreted differently.[/li]
       [li]Going forward, the council will no longer use the roundel in
       advance warning signs with blue backgrounds.[/li]
       [/list]
       [/quote]
       I have followed up
  HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/directional_form_of_flying_motor#outgoing-1943282<br
       />by calling on them to stop pursuing PCNs wherever they use the
       se
       signs as advance notice and not to issue any further PCNs at
       such locations until they have replaced these advance notice
       signs with lawful ones. Meanwhile, anyone who gets a PCN in
       South Fulham Clean Air Neighbourhood should appeal on the
       grounds of inadequate signage: these purported traffic signs are
       not in accordance with TSRGD 2016 and have been placed on the
       highway unlawfully. For legal purposes they are to be regarded
       as void as the Council's power under s.65 Road Traffic
       Regulation Act 1984 to place "traffic signs" on the highway only
       extends to "traffic signs" as defined in s.64 Road Traffic
       Regulation Act 1984; these are signs prescribed in TSRGD 2016
       and those specially authorised by DfT.
       [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] may wish to note that the same
       logic applies to other purported advance direction signs on blue
       backgrounds such as that outside Hammersmith Library on
       Shepherds Bush Road.
       #Post#: 92710--------------------------------------------------
       Re: South Fulham's &quot;Flying Motorcycle&quot; Advance Warning
        Signs with Blue Backgrounds
       By: H C Andersen Date: October 3, 2025, 9:32 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       AFAIK, there are no such things as prescribed warning signs.
       When determining compliance with LATOR, adjudicators look at
       signage in the round i.e. its totality. Regulatory signs must be
       substantially compliant with TSRGD or authorisation whereas IMO
       no such standard applies to 'advance warning' signs. IMO,
       'traffic signs' must convey the restriction fairly and not
       mislead.
       #Post#: 93801--------------------------------------------------
       Re: South Fulham's &quot;Flying Motorcycle&quot; Advance Warning
        Signs with Blue Backgrounds
       By: RT601-303 Date: October 12, 2025, 7:17 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       On that basis, shouldn't the rectangular speed camera warning
       signs like the one below be unlawful when they are placed on
       roads with no speed cameras? If that's not misleading I don't
       know what is.
       <br>
       <br>
       [img width=167
       height=180]
  HTML https://i.postimg.cc/PLxKhpRJ/X-789-X.webp[/img]
       #Post#: 93834--------------------------------------------------
       Re: South Fulham's &quot;Flying Motorcycle&quot; Advance Warning
        Signs with Blue Backgrounds
       By: dannyno Date: October 12, 2025, 2:17 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=RT601-303 link=topic=8247.msg93801#msg93801
       date=1760271447]
       On that basis, shouldn't the rectangular speed camera warning
       signs like the one below be unlawful when they are placed on
       roads with no speed cameras? If that's not misleading I don't
       know what is.
       <br>
       <br>
       [img width=167
       height=180]
  HTML https://i.postimg.cc/PLxKhpRJ/X-789-X.webp[/img]
       [/quote]
       Is that technically a "warning sign"?  Warning signs, in the
       Highway Code, are usually (not always) triangular with red
       borders. I think this is an informationsign.
  HTML https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/information-signs.html
       Also, I don't think it actually means "there are definitely
       speed cameras here".  I think it means, as the site above says,
       that you're entering an area where speed cameras are used. Could
       that include temporary or mobile ones?
       #Post#: 94099--------------------------------------------------
       Re: South Fulham's &quot;Flying Motorcycle&quot; Advance Warning
        Signs with Blue Backgrounds
       By: H C Andersen Date: October 14, 2025, 2:52 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       IMO, we're mixing doing something which, perhaps, shouldn't be
       done (and what sanctions would be applicable anyway by whom on
       application/complaint of who?) with not doing something which
       must be done, IMO a completely different issue.
       *****************************************************