Moor End Road adjudication (Ref: QA 05084D). One down, over 3,000 to go

[The Bald Eagle]

Last Saturday whilst out $chunting at Moor End Road, a very nice lady took the time to come find us and, after tearing off the top part of page one which contained her personal details she handed over the remainder of what turned out to be an adjudication by the TpT. And guess what? We were right all along according to Mr Knapp the adjudicator. :dancing: :dancing: :dancing:

I attach scanned copies of the letter for authentication purposes, but to save you the bother of downloading them I have reproduced a transcript below.

A few more like this and it really is going to hit the fan down at Herts CC's offices. However, they can't say they weren't warned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


This case is to be considered without a hearing on the basis of the written submissions and documents provided by both parties. Mrs Webber appeals on the basis that she did made a mistake because she did not realise the extent of the restriction which appears to be a bus gate or bus only street. She comments that changes have been made to the signing since the PCN was issued.

There is advisory signing on route to the beginning of the restriction but it is those signs which are at the start of the bus gate with which I am primarily concerned. Advisory signing directing traffic away from the restriction is obviously helpful and may assist traffic flow but it does not establish the terms or extent of the restriction.

I bear in mind that it is for the Council to demonstrate that the signing was sufficiently compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2OO2 and the Guidance issued by the Department for Transport in the Traffic Signs Manual. In my experience most drivers associate bus lane restrictions with the use of the blue and white signs, the form of which is set out in Schedule 5 of the 2002 regulations, which are used with the carriageway markings at diagram 1048 in Schedule 6.

However the Guidance issued by the Department for Transport in the Traffic Signs Manual states: "where access to premises is required by other vehicles or where the bus only restriction does not apply at all times a sign to diagram 619 (no motor vehicles) with an exception plate to diagram 620 should be used ...... The plate should have the legend "Except Buses and for Access" and if appropriate include a time period. Buses may be varied to local buses".

Diagram 619, colloquially known as the "flying motorcycle", is a black car and motorcycle symbol on a white background within a red circle. There is in fact no requirement for this sign to be used with any carriageway markings with the result that where the Council decides the form of this signing is appropriate it can omit them.

The situation is therefore that a part time restriction or one which permits access to other vehicles is signed in a wholly different way to a bus lane restriction which only applies at certain times or where there is no access requirement. The use of the flying motorcycle signing has specifically been approved by the High Court but the reason why the Council has chosen to use this signing at this location is unclear because the exception plate does not include reference to "access" and the restriction does apply at all times. It would seem that in fact the blue and white signing should be used.

Even if sign 619 is appropriate the Traffic Signs Manual is only a guideline for councils and so in appropriate circumstances it might be reasonable for the Council to apply for approval from the DfT to use the sign in conjunction with carriageway markings where that would obviously make the extent of the restriction much clearer.

The photographs provided by the Council are not of the best quality and in particular it is difficult to make any judgement as to how clear the 619 signs, which are located on either side of the carriageway, are to drivers making the turn into Moor End Road

It may well be that that they are situated too close to the junction to be easily seen by a driver whilst turning, and certainly the Council's evidence does suggest that they are placed at the very end of the road. I note from the CCTV that Mrs Webber's car was one of a number vehicles driven into the restriction only one of which was a private hire car. This might indicate some confusion on the part of the drivers about the restriction and that the signs are not clear enough. The exception plate which appears underneath sign 619, with black writing on a white background, states "Except for Buses and Taxis".

Diagram 620 says "Except for Access" and the only permitted variant relates to a time period. It is unclear whether the Council has in fact obtained approval from the Department for Transport to use the variation of sign 620. Looking at the evidence as a whole I conclude that the Council has not been able to demonstrate that the signing of the restriction was sufficiently clear. I make this decision primarily because of the lack of evidence about how the 619 signs would appear to drivers turning into Moor End Road. The problem always occurs when a signs are placed on the offside footway in certain traffic conditions it is likely to be obscured by buses travelling in the opposite direction which appears to be what happened in this case. I have assumed that this restriction is a two-way bus gate so that the position of the signing on either pavement does generally comply with the guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual. If it is not and the restriction is in fact a contra flow bus gate the Manual suggests that it would be appropriate to use the 619 sign on the nearside pavement with two "No Entry" signs in the form of diagram 616 in the 2002 Regulations on a central island and on the opposite pavement. The CCW shows that there is in fact an island in the middle of the carriageway a short distance beyond the start of the restriction and so there would be the opportunity to place a sign on it, which in my judgement is likely to make the extent of the restriction much clearer even in the absence of carriageway markings.

The CCTV also seems to suggest that the sign on the nearside pavement may be partially obstructed by a lamp post. I would suggest that if future appeals relate to this restriction the Council provides clear photographs, taken from the driver's point of view on the approach to the beginning of the restriction. It would also be useful to have an explanation as to why it is considered the use of the sign 619 is appropriate, whether authorisation has been obtained for the exception plate and whether consideration has been given to the use of carriageway markings which although not a requirement would undoubtedly make the terms of the restriction much clearer.

Because I am not satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the signing was clear enough I find that the contravention did not occur and the appeal is allowed. Mrs Webber is not liable to pay the penalty charge.

Stephen Knapp
Adjudicator

15 January 2O12

[Kill Switch]

Nice one Mr Knapp

[Pat Pending]

The first of many I suspect.

[Nigel W]

I always said that Adjudicators would not uphold PCN's for this restriction. We need to get the details of all TPT Adjudications for this restriction.

When we have these a similar situation to the "Sheffield Tram Gates" will apply.

The point about the signage not being fit for purpose due to the number of people being caught out was not canvassed in the appeal above.

[Pat Pending]

Perhaps we can redress this Nigel Hmmmmm.

[birdbmw]

Having just read the latest report from Nick Hollinghurst web page.

There was a telephone hearing with the Chief Adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

All parties took part with a comment from Dacorum Council re the Traffic Regulation Order.

Appealants who disputed the effect of a sentence in the Traffic Order were making mischief by straining the meaning!!!!!

Its a pity the person who wrote the original order, should have taken legal advice before making it law.

A decision is expected soon and I feel that the Council could be refunding all monies from tickets issued re the illegal bus lane.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Appealants who disputed the effect of a sentence in the Traffic Order were making mischief by straining the meaning!!!!!

Who is accusing whom of making mischief Bird?

Also, can you put a link up to the Nick Hollinghurst page you refer to please.

[Boyo]

I think this must be the page that BirdBMW is referring too:

http://nickhollinghurst.mycouncillor.org.uk/2012/02/08/moor-end-road-bus-lane-traffic-penalty-tribunal-hearing-hertfordshire/

Sounds promising 

[Nigel W]

Ah so there we have it. ” Any traffic regulation scheme that generates so many penalties, so quickly and so continuously, is flawed”. This is what I have been saying for some time now.

Te attached reveals the extent of these revenue driven penalties.

[DastardlyDick]

Nice One! 

I'm surprised I didn't hear the screams coming from County Hall myself as I live not too far away 

[The Bald Eagle]

Let's see what the adjudicator says first. Please don't forget that at the moment it is opinion.

Everthing in every fibre of my being knows that the whole set up at Moor End Road is wrong. But who am I?

Let's see what the adjudicator says. If he/she finds for our opinion, good!

If he/she finds against us, GAME ON.

[DastardlyDick]

I'm obviously suffering from the little known condition of premature celebration!