gopher.createaforum.com/1/forums/ftla/p/8776

DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98142--------------------------------------------------
Canal Street, Nottingham bus gate
By: Bustagate Date: November 14, 2025, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] Thank you for your post
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/penalty-charge-notice-bus-lane-violation/msg68151/#msg68151 with the TROs for Canal Street, Nottingham. I have been
intrigued by a detail in the signage for this: the presence of
"only" at the end of the plate "and wheelchair accessible taxis
only". That "only" was required under TSRGD 1994 and TSRGD 2002
but was prohibited by TSRGD 2016. So what's going on in 2023 for
such a plate to be installed?
The answer lies in the TRO
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WIM6llj5yvgEHG9_ed85IBCMz63UFxmT/view which you posted and in the special authorisation
HTML https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-1975.pdf
which
Nottingham are using. Some investigation has led me to send this
FoI request
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/removal_or_alteration_of_special to DfT, which sets out what's happened:
[quote]
Dear Department for Transport,
Please supply details of specially-authorised traffic signs for
which the Department has issued notices of removal or alteration
since the issue of TSRGD 2016.
I have in mind that under TSRGD 1994 and TSRGD 2002 the "Only"
plate (diagram 953.2) was mandated beneath blue roundels to
diagram 953. TSRGD 2016 eliminated diagram 953.2 and prohibited
its being placed at new installations (including routine
replacement of old signs).
Before 2016, DfT had issued special authorisations for plates
ending with the word "only" for use beneath diagram 953. TSRGD
2016 added to the standard plates for use below diagram 953
legend no. 17 "and authorised vehicles".
I would have expected DfT to advise holders of such special
authorisations that they were not to be used for new signs. It
may, of course, be that, as the authorisations refer to their
accompanying signs which were being placed under the 2002
Regulations, the Department considered such advice superfluous.
I draw to your attention Plate A, "and wheelchair accessible
taxi only" in
HTML https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/c....
This
authorisation was issued in 2011, but Nottingham City Council
used it on Canal Street, Nottingham in 2023. The TRO asserts
that the signs are being placed under TSRGD 2002 (!)
The vehicles which are permitted in addition to those shown on
diagram 953 include not only wheelchair-accessible taxis but
security vehicles operated by uniformed security personnel. That
being so, the standard TSRGD 2016 plate "and authorised
vehicles" would appear more appropriate. It requires no special
authorisation.
[/quote]
While I wait for DfT's reply, those receiving PCNs on Canal
Street may wish to craft collateral challenges based on
Nottingham's irregular use of signage and the assertion in their
TRO that the signage is being placed under TSRGD 2002.
Nottingham are meticulous in their TROs, so it seems unlikely
that this was accidental.
Those proceeding westbound on Canal Street appear to me to have
the best chances of challenging PCNs on the grounds of adequacy
of signage. The map-type advance notice sign is already dodgy in
being placed so far from the line of sight of motorists and
being surrounded by other signs.
Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual advises:
[quote]
4.5.3. For safety reasons, drivers should not need to divert
their eyes more than ten degrees away from the road ahead,
meaning that the message on a sign must be fully absorbed before
a driver reaches that position. As speeds increase, so must the
legible distance, in order that the sign can be assimilated
without unduly distracting attention from the road ahead.
[/quote]
The map-type sign is displaced 6-8m laterally from the line of
sight of westbound motorists. That means that it ceases to lie
within 10� of the line of sight once motorists have come within
40m of it. At that distance, the sign is seen as a vertical
black line with a a right turn at a roundabout onto a horizontal
black line. There are three patches of blue. Two are for parking
(the large white "P" can be made out). The other, right at the
top, so psychologically far away, is a blue roundel. The blue
surrounding the white P indicates permission. Prohibitions are
shown on our signs using red. (This is a beef which I have with
blue roundels
HTML https://www.busgates.uk/bad-signs/prescribed/blue-roundels generally: where they show vehicles, people or horses, they
symbolise exclusive use by them. Worboys
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worboys_Committee'
blue roundels
were mandatory instructions: go left; straight ahead only; etc).
The sign's
[list]
[li]lateral placement[/li]
[li]positioning of the blue roundel so far from the
roundabout[/li]
[li]surrounding signs, especially that to the right for the
Restricted Parking Zone[/li]
[/list]
render it ineffective in providing advance notice of the bus
gate.
It is well-established case law that, if someone transgresses
the terms of a traffic order, no contravention occurs if the
local authority has failed to make adequate information
available about the traffic order.
In R (Neil Herron et al) v The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWCA
Civ 905 Lord Justice Burnton found (Lord Justice Aikens and Sir
David Keene concurring) :
[quote]
35. It has long been recognised that the enforceability of a
[traffic order] requires that adequate notice of the applicable
restriction is given to the road user. This principle is derived
from the duty imposed by Regulation 18 of [LATOR 1996]. In
Macleod v Hamilton 1965 SLT 305 Lord Clyde said, at 308
[indent]
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. ...
[/indent]
36. That principle was approved and applied by the Divisional
Court in James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Giving a judgment with
which the other members of the court [Justices Ashworth and
Widgery] agreed, [Lord Justice] Winn said:
[indent]
... 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.
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. �
[/indent][/quote]
This was a judgment in the Court of Appeal, so is binding on the
High Court as well as on tribunals and adjudicators.
The assessment of the adequacy of the signage therefore covers
not only signs which were present but also signs which could
have been placed.
What would be much more effective would be a sign to diagram 877
(TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 2
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/2/made Item 22). The sign would be the mirror image of the leftmost
lane in the version in the second row. It would show a single
vertical black line with a red bar across it, above which would
be the words "Bus lane". There would be a right-pointing arrow
before the red bar. This conveys the essential information and
can be read and understood quickly. Given the lateral
displacement of the sign, it would need to be a large size,
preferably a height of 1800.
There are no road markings on the approach to the roundabout
suggesting the direction in which to turn. In this situation, it
would be normal for there to be a right-turn arrow to diagram
1038 before the roundabout with the words "ALL ROUTES" before
it.
At the roundabout, the blue roundels of the bus restriction are
more than 40m away. They are 600mm in diameter. They are the
only visible indication of a bus restriction on proceeding
straight ahead. At the exit from the roundabout there should be
a map-type advance direction sign which takes the form of the
top half of the current advance direction sign at the junction
with Trent Street.
This sign should be designed and implemented under current
legislation, i.e. TSRGD 2016 and not be a hybrid of a sign
prescribed under Schedule 12 of TSRGD 2016
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/made with symbols from TSRGD 2016 Schedule 12 Part 20
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/part/20/made and a specially-authorised plate which can only be used under
TSRGD 2002 (see the special authorisation
HTML https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-1975.pdf).
Either
there should be no plate beneath the blue roundel or it should
be the prescribed plate "and authorised vehicles". This would,
in any case, be more appropriate as security vehicles with
uniformed security personnel are also permitted through the bus
gate.
The road marking "CAR PARK" on the first exit would be more
effective in indicating that this exit leads for most traffic
only to the car park if it were closer to the roundabout. The
drivers of buses and wheelchair-accessible taxis know where
they're going and don't need to be told that they can pass
through the bus gate.
#Post#: 98221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canal Street, Nottingham bus gate
By: Bustagate Date: November 15, 2025, 2:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The large advance direction sign is not as prescribed in TSRGD
2016 and so is not a lawful traffic sign. It should not have
been placed on the public highway. The error lies (inevitably)
in the plate below the blue roundel.
The blue roundel on such a sign is TSRGD 2016 Schedule 12 Part
20
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/part/20/made Item 36 with the word "taxi" removed.
The optional symbol representing plates which are prescribed to
appear beneath circular symbols (including the blue roundel) are
listed in column (4) of Item 45 of TSRGD 2016 Schedule 12 Part
20
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/part/20/made. The only plate which is permitted for Item 36 is at paragraph
4.
of this: "and authorised vehicles".
Nottingham's special authorisation
HTML https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-1975.pdf
for this
plate only allows it to be placed beneath a blue roundel which
is being installed under TSRGD 2002
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/contents/made. That statutory instrument was superseded by TSRGD 2016
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made
and
has now been revoked. Even if Nottingham had special permission
for a plate under TSRGD 2016, that would not extend to its use
on an advance direction sign unless the special permission
included a separate symbol-form of the plate for use in TSRGD
2016 Schedule 12.
The erroneous plate adds to the verbiage on the sign, which is
already excessive and diminishes its comprehensibility. Our
modern traffic signs were designed by the Worboys Committee
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worboys_Committee
in 1963. The
third (of seven) principles was:
[quote]
(c) they should contain only essential information and their
significance should be clear at a glance so that the driver�s
attention is not distracted from the task of driving;
[/quote]
Signs such as the advance direction sign on Canal Street have
become too complicated. Too much information has been crammed
onto them. The result is that they cannot be read and
assimilated from a moving vehicle.
At the top, there is a panel with the traffic camera symbol.
Beside it is the legend "24 hr Bus Lane enforcement ahead". The
traffic camera symbol appears nowhere in TSRGD 2016 Schedule 12
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/made. Normally, when a sign with a camera symbol appears next to an
advance direction sign, it is a separate traffic sign, which is
prescribed as diagram 878 (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 2
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/2/made Item 63. The options for the legend are:
[list]
[li]Traffic signal cameras[/li]
[li]Speed cameras[/li]
[li]Average speed check[/li]
[li]Traffic signal and speed cameras[/li]
[li]Traffic enforcement cameras[/li]
[li]Police cameras[/li]
[li]Police enforcement cameras[/li]
[li]Bus lane cameras[/li]
[/list]
The most appropriate in this context would appear to be "Bus
lane cameras".
Coming down to the main panel, Worboys' principle (c) suggests
that the text identifying the names of the car parks is not
essential. Omitting these would allow the location of the Lace
Market car park to be shown schematically at the far right of
the sign, below an extended horizontal black line.
The omission of the names of the car parks would also allow a
warning triangle with a tram (in this context TSRGD 2016
Schedule 12 Part 20
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/part/20/made Item 16) to be placed interrupting the horizontal black line.
This warns that turning right leads to on-street trams before
you reach the Lace Market car parks. Some motorists may be
deterred by this and prefer to use the car park just beyond the
roundabout ahead.
The words "City centre" seem justified on this sign. They could
be placed above the horizontal black line to the right of the
red triangle warning of the tram.
The blue rectangles with a white "P" on this advance direction
sign provide information. That is very different from the
meaning of the blue roundel showing a bus and a cycle. That
serves two purposes:
[list type=decimal]
[li]it conveys information to drivers of the vehicles shown that
they are permitted[/li]
[li]it prohibits other vehicles[/li]
[/list]
Red on a traffic sign is immediately understood to convey
prohibition or warning. Given the presence of the informatory
blue rectangles with a white "P", at a casual glance a blue
roundel can easily be misunderstood as similarly informatory.
The difference between a circle and a rectangle (which is what
distinguishes mandatory from informatory) is far less than that
between blue and red.
The effect of the bus gate could be conveyed to the vast
majority of road users by the use of a horizontal red bar (TSRGD
2016 Schedule 12 Part 7
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/part/7/made Item 8 ) instead of the blue roundel with its plate.
Advance direction signs simplify: they do not show every detail.
If they do, they lose comprehensibility. Taxi drivers in
Nottingham already know that to use bus lanes they must be
wheelchair-accessible. The people who will need to look at and
understand the advance direction sign are those who rarely
venture into the centre of Nottingham. Few of them will be the
drivers of buses and wheelchair-accessible taxis who would miss
out by not being told that they can actually get through what
is, for the vast bulk of motorists, a dead end.
With the elimination of the space for the blue roundel and its
plate, there is now space at the bottom of the advance direction
sign to include a section which advises other traffic to do a
U-turn at the roundabout. This is used at similar locations
(e.g. Parker Street, Cambridge
gopher.createaforum.com:70 /forums/ftla/p/8776:317: line too long