URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 96575--------------------------------------------------
       Ability of Drivers to Process Complex Signs: Diagram 618.3C for 
       School Streets
       By: Bustagate Date: November 3, 2025, 3:36 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       @John_S (among others) I've previously raised the issue of the
       comprehensibility of diagram 618.3C signs used for "School
       Streets" (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 8 Part 2
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8/part/2/made<br
       />Item 2). In this post
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/ealing-cumberland-road-w7-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehic/msg82307/#msg82307<br
       />I argued that the signs on Cumberland Road, Ealing were three
       times the complexity of the most complex days and times shown
       for these signs in the Traffic Signs Manual and that this caused
       cognitive overload.
       In 2011 as part of their Traffic Signs Policy Review
  HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/signing-the-way-traffic-signs-policy-review,<br
       />DfT commissioned research into the understanding of traffic
       signs
  HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7512a140f0b6360e473230/understanding-of-traffic-signs.pdf.<br
       />A panel of 820 people were shown a selection of signs and aske
       d
       questions about them. Each sign was shown to a minimum of 200
       people.
       Among the signs tested was diagram 959 (now with added
       motorcycle as diagram 959B TSRGD 2016 Schedule 9 Part 4
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/part/4/made<br
       />Item 10). This sign for the start of a nearside with-flow bus
       lane has at its bottom a panel with the period of operation. In
       the sign which was tested this was:
       [quote]
       Mon - Fri
       7 - 10 am
       4 - 7 pm[/quote]
       The survey reported as the Key Area of Misunderstanding
       [quote]
       Taking in time restriction when seen on the move (78% of those
       shown sign statically got all comprehension questions correct
       compared to just 42% of those who saw it dynamically)[/quote]
       Diagram 959/959B uses an x-height for the text of 50mm. Diagram
       618.3C uses an x-height of 37.5mm. If seeing the times
       dynamically halved respondents' ability to process the
       information, imagine what effect using text which is 3/4 the
       size would have.
       That's ignoring the other difference between diagram 959 and
       diagram 618.3C as used in school streets signs: the complexity
       of the times used. For Ealing's sign it was:
       [quote]
       Mon - Fri
       8.15 - 9.45 am
       2.45 - 3.45 pm[/quote]
       In my earlier post I suggested that the way to compare
       complexities was to count syllables:
       [indent]
       Traffic Signs Manual: Mon to Sat Ten to Four &#8722; 6 syllables
       Diagram 959 Test: Mon to Fri Sev-en to Ten Four to Sev-en: 11
       syllables
       Ealing: Mon to Fri Eight Fif-teen to Nine Fif-teen Two For-ty
       Five to Three For-ty Five &#8722; 19 syllables
       [/indent]
       That's where I got the figure of three times the complexity
       before. For the test it's 1.8.
       I also drew attention to DfT's advice in paragraph 6.2.5 of
       Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual:
       [quote]
       6.2.5.  If the entry restrictions change during the day or on
       different days of the week, a variable message sign is
       recommended to avoid a complex legend that can be confusing and
       difficult to read. In this case, the upper panel should not
       include a time period. The sign should show a complete blank
       grey or black face, as defined in Schedule 1, during the times
       when the zone is not operational. The lower yellow panel can be
       displayed on the variable message sign only during the
       operational period of the zone (i.e. when the upper and middle
       panels are displayed).[/quote]
       I hope that this will help those fighting PCNs issued for
       contravening these signs. It's one thing to look at an image of
       a sign. It's quite another to see a sign as you're driving
       along. When it is used in residential streets with parked cars
       around, diagram 618.3C doesn't make sense. It's headed
       "Pedestrian and Cycle Zone", yet what you're seeing is an
       ordinary residential street rather than a main shopping street.
       The Scottish version with flashing lights, diagram 618.3D, TSRGD
       (Scotland) 2022 Regulation 5
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2022/111/regulation/5/made.—(4)(b)<br
       />makes much more sense. It would be even better if they replace
       d
       the words at the top with "School Zone".
       #Post#: 97006--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Ability of Drivers to Process Complex Signs: Diagram 618.3C 
       for School Streets
       By: Phantomcrusader Date: November 5, 2025, 7:47 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       My issue with the 618.3c sign relates to the definition given in
       the TSRGD 2016
       [quote]“pedestrian and cycle zone”
       an area—
       (a)
       which has been laid out to improve amenity for pedestrians and
       cyclists; and
       (b)
       to which the entry of vehicles, except pedal cycles, is
       prohibited or restricted[/quote]
       More often than not, the area has NOT been laid out to "improve
       amenity for pedestrians and cyclists". Usually just the sign has
       been erected and nothing else improved. In most cases it just
       looks like any other road apart from the sign. Any challenge
       should say the definition criteria for a "pedestrian and cycle
       zone" under the TSRGD 2016 has not been met and so the sign is
       ultra vires.
       *****************************************************